“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”

While I acknowledge the fact that the scientific community is still unable to reach a consensus on the cause of cause of global warming, I shall not engage myself in another round of endless debate on whether global warming is caused by human activity or it's part of Earth's natural cycle of warming and cooling periods. Assume that you are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either of the two is true, it still does not change the fact that mankind will face a serious threat to our survival over the next 100 years. Threats in the form of extreme weather change and environmental disasters with near apocalyptic proportions. Katrina was just a preview. There were many other environmental disasters in "less important societies" that goes unreported and therefore unnoticed. Greenhouse gases or not, climate change is real!

While I noticed that the western media and the rest of G8 nations have begun giving unprecedented coverage on the issue of climate change, I am not sure if the majority of people on this side of the world, or should I say the MAJORITY side and the developing side of the world has grasped the magnitude of the issue. The locals are more interested in murder trial of a certain Mongolian beauty (which to me is obviously a rigged case but that's another story) or getting sucked up with the whole tribe mentality of ganging up together outside the Palace of Justice to prevent one of "us" defecting to become one of "them." Malaysians will get my drift...Bah, that's my biggest problem with religious people - the focus is always on the big pie in the sky, this earthly world is only temporary. It's difficult to raise awareness among the public when the majority of news headlines is focusing on matters of race and Islam and the one-sided stories of Israeli occupation.

Former US-Presidential candidate Al Gore has attempted to engage with the public on the issue of climate change in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth." My cynical self will naturally lead me to doubt Gore's intentions behind this but deep inside all these suspicion I have for politicians, I believe his work lead to the tipping-point of media coverage on global warming. While I am not in a position of scientific authority to endorse the facts presented in the docu-movie An Inconvenient Truth, I felt that it did a rather good job of explaining the mechanics at work that is causing climate change. No longer is climate change the topic of conversation that is exclusive within the more scientifically enlightened or within the confines of a science class full of bored out students.




The cruel reality is that poor developing nations will be the hardest hit. No green-techno-messiah is coming to the aid of Third World nations, alternative energy is equivalent to energy of the rich. Left without much choice, the poor continue to rely on wood for fuel, drying rivers for irrigation and an increasingly arid land for crops planting.


While global warming is generally perceived to result in rising temperatures, there is more to it. Melting ice glaciers will disrupt the natural balance of salinity in seawater, which will then lead to a domino effect that eventually breaksdown the ''Great Ocean Conveyor Belt'' which regulates Earth's temperature, resulting in extreme cold weather in Europe and North America.

Global warming = New Ice Age for Europe and North America?

















Fact aside, there are 2 other thoughts that keep bugging my head one being an ethical one, and the other being the economic foundation of modern human civilization. First, the ethical one - over-population.
Many including myself believe that we have the technology to mitigate climate change. The missing part is the lack of political will. Now assuming that all the world's leader manage to come to a concensus and they have somehow found a magical solution to sustain economic stability while at the same time reverse the tide of climate change, there is still one very big question left to be solve. How can Earth possibly support 6.7 billion hungry people? To meet all the food, water, home and energy needs of 6.7 billion people would exert tremendous amount of stress on Earth resources. Think about the land and irrigation requirements for food production.

China alone is building 2 coal-fired powerplants every week to meet the rapidly rising energy needs. Assuming that we are able to ignore the social stigma associated with genetically modified crops, ignore the issues related to intellectual property rights for seeds of GM crops and assuming that GM crops is able to meet the global food demand, the energy requirements to plant, fertilize and irrigate the land, harvest, process and transport these crops alone would leave a significant "carbon-footprint" on our increasingly stressed eco-system. And let's not forget sanitation needs of 6.7 billion people, and also managing solid waste from 6.7 billion people, all of whom demand the same living standards that you and I enjoy as you read this page off the Internet.

The uncomfortable truth is that the impact on Earth's biosphere of a projected 9 billion people living at a desired higher standard of living in 2050 would be fatal for the planet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions alone. - United Nations Population Division

Stop having kids? I suppose some women will be more than glad. The Roman Catholic church and Islam is staunchly against use of contraceptives. Faced with such religious sensitivities I am not sure if help will arrive in time to ensure survival of mankind at its current state over the next 100 years. And then there is the whole big ethical issue about abortion.

Sometimes I stand back and wonder, what's the whole point of such supposedly ''ethics'' debate. How can anyone possibly claim a moral / religious high ground on what is God's-will and not when our actions today are responsible of dooming the entire next generation of children, our children? You don't have to be a polluting industrialist to be part of the problem. You are part of the problem by virtue of your decision in how you travel, what you drive and wear, your taste for meat and medicinal products of endangered species, what you buy and how you live your life everyday, even by your decision of inaction!

"Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good,"

"The propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals." Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

Through the course of history and battle of political ideologies, we have decided to built our modern human civilization on one carnal aspect of human nature - consumption, or should I say human desire. I am schooled in engineering and makes a living in marketing, so correct me if my vague understanding of economics is wrong. Increasing spending and consumption is the foundation of economic growth. When the spending is reduced, economic growth is compromised. Afterall a recession is technically defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. In other words, 6 months of continuously reduced spending / trade. All produce of goods and services require consumption or processing of raw materials at one stage or another. And more often than not, the raw materials refered to can be easily inter-changed with earth's natural resources, be it fossil fuel, crops, land, rare earth metal etc etc. The consumption required for continued economic growth is infinite, resources are finite. It doesn't take a genius to quickly understand the problem that we are facing.

Thus, one of the main stumbling blocks in promoting sustainable growth and rally for political will in climate change mitigation is the economic cost that is involved. Developed nations are where they are now by exploiting the earth's resources. So it is rather hypocritical for them to be lecturing the developing nations on what they should or should not do, and that they cannot enjoy the same living standards enjoyed by western nations in the interest of environmental preservation. To preserve would mean to grow less and to be less develop. To say that we want to grow less is not the sort of thing politicians want to say when they rally for votes. Neither is it the sort of thing that people of the new middle-class with decades of pent-up desire to get rich and live like their counterparts in the OECD or G8 nations want to listen. Growing less would mean greater unemployment and higher taxes as there is less revenue for the government.

In words of Chen Feng, the Chairman of China Hainan Airlines in his critique against western nations during the World Economic Forum on East Asia, "So the way I see it is, you were robbers and bandits before you became right-minded people." Developing nations like India and China are desperately trying to increase their living standards to that of developed nations within the constraints of the current economic system. Think of it as the whole mentality of keeping up with the "Jones" next door, on a global scale. The more I think over this, the more I understand the wisdom behind a certain ancient Jewish teaching of "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Modern translation : You shall not lust after other's riches.

Fish is one of my favourite dish, salmon and cod fish in particular. And I like them raw, so Japanese sushi and sashimi are my favourites. However of late I need to make a stand to substantially reduce my consumption of salmon and cod at the local Japanese restaurants because our oceans are being over-fished to feed the rapidly increasingly and sophisticated appetite of the new middle-class of Asia. Our oceans simple cannot replenish its fish stock fast enough. I quote from Overfishing.org 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems. We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of collapse. We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons. I guess we will be facing more of such problems in the future



  Find out more at WWF Indonesia's seafood guide.

In the course of writting this, I stumbled upon this article by Professor Darrin M. McMahon on certain forgotten part of the text in Wealth of the Nations. "Political economist Adam Smith was wiser about such things than today's scolds. He knew that "frivolous objects" could never secure our happiness, which was above all a matter of the soul. But he also knew that our longing for what he called "baubles" and "gewgaws" was a productive force that tapped deep into the wellsprings of human nature. It was natural, he thought, to aspire to such things, and natural for us to imagine that having them would bring us happiness. Mr. Smith also understood that humans innately overestimate the amount of pleasure that gewgaws and iPhones would bring. And yet he thought that the impulse to acquire them was precisely the force that "rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind," prompting us to build cities, invent and improve the arts and sciences. The key to all human progress, Mr. Smith knew, was the pursuit of happiness." Isn't it ironic that the founder of capitalism has already warned us on how the pursuit of material wealth is as futile as chasing after the wind.

Climate change, what is your response? Leave your comment.

Tentative upcoming topics :
Part 2 : Sustainable Mobility, hybrids, clean diesel, biofuel, hydrogen etc etc. is not the solution.
Part 3 : Spiritual Worldview of Global Warming