Last Christmas

Not everyone is convinced that man-made climate change is a real threat. Some people still believe that it is a hoax perpetuated by groups interested in squeezing money out the industrialized countries responsible for over 70 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. Shortly before the talks in Copenhagen started, emails from scientists involved in climate change research were leaked and cited as evidence of fraud.

We can believe what we want to believe about man-made climate change. I’m sure that there will always be skeptics who will remain unconvinced even if they are made to stay afloat in icebergs from melted polar caps. Nobody disagrees, however, that we should take better care of Mother Earth. At least not publicly, anyway. How exactly we should do so remains the subject of debate.

The United Nations climate conference of 193 nations in Copenhagen ended without a legally-binding agreement being signed. Instead, the Copenhagen Accord, brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, was “noted” by participating countries.

With the Copenhagen Accord, an initial group of more than 25 nations has agreed to adopt and report on national mitigation actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Developed nations have agreed to mobilize resources to support mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building in developing countries.   All actions of countries under the agreement are voluntary. No date is specified for when, or whether, a more detailed and binding protocol will be negotiated.

Sure, the Copenhagen Accord recognizes that “climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time” and that strong political will is needed “to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” It also recognizes that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity.” How exactly the countries will do this is up to them.

Optimists say that it is not over, that something good can still come out of the failed talks. Pessimists believe that we have effectively signed the death sentence for the planet. Some island states in the Pacific will be swallowed up by the rising oceans. Melting glaciers will compromise water sources in parts of Asia. Intense storms will wipe out cities. We will all become climate change refugees.

Rich countries will have the technology to let their citizens survive (technology for buildings designed to stay afloat, for instance). People in poor countries will just have to learn how to swim (currently, women and children living in coastal areas in Bangladesh are being taught to swim as part of the country’s climate change adaptation measures). Or live like Kevin Costner in “Waterworld.” Doomsday scenarios depicted in the recent “2012” movie would be peanuts compared to real life.

No scientist has come out to predict when exactly these events will occur, only that it is very likely that they will. I’m an optimist and believe that our leaders will act swiftly enough to do something about climate change and that I can still have a dry and merry Christmas for several years. Notwithstanding my optimism, I’m looking around for higher ground to move to in case they don’t. And to take swimming lessons.