Not everything is at stake in Copenhagen
Jordi Pujol
Editorial / December 22, 2009
In relation to the Copenhagen summit and based on the figures from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a balanced editorial from The Economist, we suggested one week ago that global warming may rise by between 1.1 and 6ºC. This is sustainable forecast for the bottom end of the range and a catastrophic one at the top end. And it seems that the Copenhagen conference recognised the need to limit global rises in temperature no more than 2ºC degrees.
We must assume that this accord was reached on a scientific consensus. And on a calculation of serious and prudent probabilities. That is, neither denying nor overstating global warming.
That a general accord was reached is a positive fact. And there is no reason to be outraged that, for the time being, no firm, detailed and comprehensive agreement was arrived at on what action to take. On how to share the sacrifices, how to phase in the measures, and how much cash is needed, who should provide most of it and who should receive it, etc. But this is where all efforts must be concentrated instead of creating overexcitement. We must not yield to environmental fundamentalism.
Limiting a rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC degrees is within the world’s scope. It is technically, economically and politically. And even more, were it necessary. We said as much in last Tuesday’s editorial. And Copenhagen has made some progress in this direction. With hindsight, we will probably come to realise that Copenhagen was not the failure it seems today. But many countries need more time to give ground and make the necessary changes. In addition, we need to avoid another peril, which we also denounced last Tuesday. We wrote “if we become mired in the beliefs that nuclear energy is a no-no, that dams should not be built because they alter the landscape, that biomass should be ruled out –although no one knows why —, that wind farms pose a threat to birds, that vast areas of solar panels are out of the question, or that biofuels must not be cultivated on farmland, then the problem is unsolvable. If radical fundamentalism based on sentimentality and ideology is allowed to interfere, the problem will not be solved. And the world will remain paralysed. And the fight against climate change will continue deadlocked”.
World leaders not only need to be ready to reach agreements between states and present them to their citizens convincingly, including the less popular measures, but they must resist the systematic negative pressure from the more radical environmental sectors.
Thus, the talks and tensions surrounding climate change are not only the subject of debate in Copenhagen, but in each country.
However, within each country, the environmental question goes one step further. And it refers not solely to temperature. As we also noted one week back, the questions of climate change and environmental policy are not precisely one and the same.
On a not so global level and more directly linked to the region, environmental protection is only partly related to global temperature rise. For example, the question of the water supply in the hinterland basins of Catalonia – which was the subject of debate two and a half years ago -, or the cleanliness of our rivers, or the problem of Segarra-Garrigues, or the little bustard and the dupont lark in certain regions, or the compatibility between a PEIN ((Plan for Areas of Natural Interest) and concrete economic activity, or the impact of a new road, an electric power line, or a housing estate on the landscape, etc. We might also add the questions of whether it is all right to plant transgenic seeds, or to build a ski slope or a rubbish dump. And so many other things. All these questions – and countless others – are not on the Copenhagen agenda, yet they are immensely important to the economy, the interests and the balance of a country, in Catalonia as well. Since they are not included, we might refrain from mentioning them. There is, however, an intrinsic psychological, sentimental and ideological – and often political – link between the more radical positions on a possible climate change – Copenhagen - and the more radical positions in defence of the environment within a specific country.
In all the cases referred to, which are crop up in many countries, Catalonia has a particularly strong “no-culture”. The culture of constant obstruction. Indeed, it stems from an anti-system mentality. And it is true that the political, economic and social system and our values in general need to be constantly checked and improved in every way necessary, but the negative mentality of systematic obstruction without viable and productive alternative proposals can lead to deadlock and serious setbacks.
For some time now all this has been having negative effects on Catalonia. It makes projects backfire, diverts economic activities away from Catalonia and deters initiatives. Naturally, there must be monitoring and intervention, but conducted in a way that curbs the advancement of the country will be socially detrimental. And this is the situation in Catalonia today. The fundamentalism of certain political and social sectors is harming this country. Seriously. And it is something we cannot allow, even less so in the current circumstances.
That a general accord was reached is a positive fact. And there is no reason to be outraged that, for the time being, no firm, detailed and comprehensive agreement was arrived at on what action to take. On how to share the sacrifices, how to phase in the measures, and how much cash is needed, who should provide most of it and who should receive it, etc. But this is where all efforts must be concentrated instead of creating overexcitement. We must not yield to environmental fundamentalism.
Limiting a rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC degrees is within the world’s scope. It is technically, economically and politically. And even more, were it necessary. We said as much in last Tuesday’s editorial. And Copenhagen has made some progress in this direction. With hindsight, we will probably come to realise that Copenhagen was not the failure it seems today. But many countries need more time to give ground and make the necessary changes. In addition, we need to avoid another peril, which we also denounced last Tuesday. We wrote “if we become mired in the beliefs that nuclear energy is a no-no, that dams should not be built because they alter the landscape, that biomass should be ruled out –although no one knows why —, that wind farms pose a threat to birds, that vast areas of solar panels are out of the question, or that biofuels must not be cultivated on farmland, then the problem is unsolvable. If radical fundamentalism based on sentimentality and ideology is allowed to interfere, the problem will not be solved. And the world will remain paralysed. And the fight against climate change will continue deadlocked”.
World leaders not only need to be ready to reach agreements between states and present them to their citizens convincingly, including the less popular measures, but they must resist the systematic negative pressure from the more radical environmental sectors.
---------------------------------------
However, within each country, the environmental question goes one step further. And it refers not solely to temperature. As we also noted one week back, the questions of climate change and environmental policy are not precisely one and the same.
On a not so global level and more directly linked to the region, environmental protection is only partly related to global temperature rise. For example, the question of the water supply in the hinterland basins of Catalonia – which was the subject of debate two and a half years ago -, or the cleanliness of our rivers, or the problem of Segarra-Garrigues, or the little bustard and the dupont lark in certain regions, or the compatibility between a PEIN ((Plan for Areas of Natural Interest) and concrete economic activity, or the impact of a new road, an electric power line, or a housing estate on the landscape, etc. We might also add the questions of whether it is all right to plant transgenic seeds, or to build a ski slope or a rubbish dump. And so many other things. All these questions – and countless others – are not on the Copenhagen agenda, yet they are immensely important to the economy, the interests and the balance of a country, in Catalonia as well. Since they are not included, we might refrain from mentioning them. There is, however, an intrinsic psychological, sentimental and ideological – and often political – link between the more radical positions on a possible climate change – Copenhagen - and the more radical positions in defence of the environment within a specific country.
In all the cases referred to, which are crop up in many countries, Catalonia has a particularly strong “no-culture”. The culture of constant obstruction. Indeed, it stems from an anti-system mentality. And it is true that the political, economic and social system and our values in general need to be constantly checked and improved in every way necessary, but the negative mentality of systematic obstruction without viable and productive alternative proposals can lead to deadlock and serious setbacks.
For some time now all this has been having negative effects on Catalonia. It makes projects backfire, diverts economic activities away from Catalonia and deters initiatives. Naturally, there must be monitoring and intervention, but conducted in a way that curbs the advancement of the country will be socially detrimental. And this is the situation in Catalonia today. The fundamentalism of certain political and social sectors is harming this country. Seriously. And it is something we cannot allow, even less so in the current circumstances.
