It's not so clear or is it?

The more we come close to Hopenhagen the debate around climate change becomes shriller. There is debate which is good however to question the basis of the problem is according to me taking a short sighted view of the situation. For obvious reasons all the "doctored" data about climate change studies is coming out just before the conference but what each one has to think is that there are certain facts which cannot be doctored -
1. Centuries old glaciers are melting
2. Weather patterns are showing increasing amount of unrest
3. The weight we put on our meager resources is increasing
4. Forest covers are decreasing
5. There is an ozone hole
6. Water level in our water bodies is rising etc.
Now yes we can claim that climate over time does change and it is a natural process but is the pace at which the change is occurring consistent with the natural process? I am not a scientist and neither have I done a detailed research on this topic but as a thinking human I do believe that to ignore the problem will be at our own peril. I am optimistic and I do believe that we have not yet reached the point of no return but to continue with our way of life without regard for our environment is a sure recipe for disaster.

The conference itself is going to be a very tough discussion. The bottom line is that we stand where we are because of the past "sins" committed by the developed world. Not that the developing world has not contributed to the mess but the percentage of "blame" would be higher on the developed world. The good thing is that everybody recognizes that we have a problem but finding a solution will be tough unless all look to the future and think what each one can do to make the situation better. China and India have led the way by announcing unilateral cuts in emission targets but it is understandable that growing countries cannot accept legally binding levels which impact their intention to develop and provide better quality of life to their citizens. It is also understandable that in a difficult economic environment where the developed world is finding it difficult to sustain their own high standards of living they are balking at funding the clean development of other countries. But maybe the solution lies somewhere in the middle of these two extreme stands and in acknowledging the fact that unless a solution is reached the impact of environmental disaster would be for all to suffer and not just the developed or the developing world. The stage is set for some of the leaders to become world leaders if they can break out of their set ideas and parochial views and come up with innovative solutions but I am sure it will not be easy. Maybe an approach could be that since carbon emissions is such a contentious issue the discussions could avoid the topic altogether and try to address the problem in a different way e.g. not have binding emission targets but encourage countries to achieve locally defined goals by facilitating easy loans from IMF, World Bank for the achievers, concessions in trade etc.

I do believe that the cause is altruistic however for it to succeed at the geopolitic level it has to be linked to economics in some way or the other. "Market will decide" is the adage which cannot be applied to addressing climate change but a judicious mix of market initiatives, policy initiatives and human will could just do the trick. In the end however it still remains an individual choice and whatever the leaders might decide if each individual can make small changes in his/her outlook and way of life there can be an enormous impact.

Maybe we all need to have our own Hopenhagen!