COP15: It makes sense to mitigate, even if you’re skeptical

Many of us remain skeptical about whether anthropogenic climate change is indeed happening. A question I keep hearing goes along the lines of: ‘Given that the science is uncertain, why should the world throw so much resources at it for a disaster that may not even happen under business-as-usual?’

Take a moment to think about this question, and you would agree that it’s not even based on common sense.

Scientists around the world have already told us that it is ‘unequivocal’ that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and people are of course free to question the supposed ’scientific consensus’, especially since it inevitably involves major uncertainties.

But here’s the key: just because no one can be certain that we will face climate calamity does not mean that we don’t do anything about it. Prudent decision-making under uncertainty – or, quite simply, common sense – tells us that we should make use of whatever information we have at hand to make sure that we minimise the risk of climate chaos in decades to come.

In other words, the world can only justifiably choose not to expend resources to fight climate change if we know for certain that the possibility of huge damages due to anthropogenic climate change is remote. Not even the most fervent of climate deniers have come close to arguing that to be true.

It is the responsibility of an informed and educated citizenry to be aware of this logic. Let me be clear – I am by no means advocating that people stop eating meat and flying on planes to reduce emissions; all I am asking for is for us to take a moment and reason it out for ourselves why a low-carbon revolution is both necessary and desirable.

As an open atheist (proselytizing mail will go directly to the trash, thank you), I would be among the first to admit that some ‘greenies’ have taken their causes a step too far, making climate change sound like a religion based almost entirely on faith – this article by Mike Moore, former PM of New Zealand, argues as much. At the same time, it is arguable that it’s important to have these people around to counter-balance those loyal to the faith of climate denial. Needless to say more about which of the two groups is doing more harm.

Let’s face it: there is every likelihood that this generation will be among those to suffer the consequences of anthropogenic climate change decades down the road. People like Nick Stern and Al Gore rightly point out that they are spreading the message because they want their children to live on a safe planet: they probably won’t be around by the time the worst consequences happen. But we won’t have anywhere to hide.

I end this short note by asking of you to pay a little attention to the news from Copenhagen over the next two weeks.

It is one thing to be apathetic about things that don’t concern us. Quite another to be apathetic about things that do. COP15 definitely falls into the latter category.