onsdag, december 29, 2010

Lobbying and Climate Change (GW)

(Picture taken from: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oW8s2oAvAVI/TMZ5KtvGGTI/AAAAAAAAAQs/MAav2DZJIC4/s400/Global_Warming_Map.jpg)

I read an article in a Swedish newspaper (Svenska Dagbladet) written by Magnus Westerstrand, doctoral student within geochemistry and blogging at the site www.uppsalainitiativet.org concerning the enormous sums of money being spent by the oil- and gas industry on lobbying and political donations, in order to diminish the alarm rapports concerning the Global Warming and the human impact on this phenomena.

Since 2004 The Centre for Public Integrity has documented and estimated the amount of money spent on lobbying and political donations - between 2004 and 2010 - to around 365,3 million US$.

(Picture taken from: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/assets/img/climate-top10-fullsize.jpg)

This in order to influence the politicians and decisions makers not to listen to carefully to those scientists saying that there is a major problem with Global Warming and that we humans are the main source of this negative development.

Exxon and Koch Industries are two multinational companies spending a lot of money on think tanks trying to diminish the problems with the climate issue.

The reason for this is - as always - money.

The International Energy Agency estimated recently that the efforts to decelerate the Global Warming with about two degrees, would in 2030 reduce the demand for oil from 105 million to 89 million gallons per day. With a prize of about 70 US$ per barrel the revenues would be reduced by many hundred million US$ each day.

(Picture taken from: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/SRsiU87nhTI/AAAAAAAABos/1H001PvHASw/s400/ieaenergyforecast2030.JPG)

The lobbying organizations tries to discredit scientists, their results or claim that the methods are not yet fully developed wherefore one can't predict anything for certain.

The tobacco industry worked in the same way when results from scientific work started to display the enormous disadvantages with smoking. They did not succeed however.

Of course one can always state that scientists on 'the other side', that is to say those who claim that the Global Warming exists and mainly is caused by humans, are no angels or independent persons either and of course they have a lof of financial support from different organizations, with an interest in proving that the GW is caused by humans.

However one have to ask oneself who is to be trusted and the fact is that the only arguments those negative to the results of scientific work displaying the impact of humans on the ecosystem can present is economical.

That is to say, they fear that the rich world no longer would be able to overconsume as has been the case not least since the end of World War II. I can't see no other reason to their arguments.

When it comes to the environmental questions, the most important issue is not to prove whether or not the GW is caused by humans but the important and crucial questions is very basic:

The way we live today in the economically developed world, is this the best and optimal way to live in order to promote a good environment and a good health for humans and all other living things? Those answering this question with yes, do have a very narrow minded approach to this question as the obvious answer is no! We do not live in a way that promote a good environment or a good health, neither for humans nor for other living creatures.

We have to start there and the only obstacles are the multinational companies, banks, financial institutions, corrupt politicians, corrupt lawyers, corrupt decision makers on different levels and so forth.

As soon as we are able to controle these different representatives for various interest groups, we should be able to go forth in a much more decisive way.

The engagement from the public in different countries is of course needed and in this case it's important that people lift their eyes above the immediate egoistic needs and looks ahead in to the future, realizing that we will be able to live very good lives without consuming the amount of products we are consuming today.

In the developing countries the arguments are different of course. Their one can't understand wy The West - or the economically more developed countries - should deny them the same standard. In this case politicians, scientists and the public have to cooperate and as politicians sometimes say: It's a pedagogic question, not so easy to solve but very important to find a solution to.

0 commentaires: