The UN Climate Change Conference takes off next week in Paris from the 30th November to the 11th December. Heads of state, diplomats, scientists and other climate change experts and activists will come together in an attempt to – yet again – reach a global agreement. The last Conference held in Copenhagen in 2009 ended with no targets nor timetables for cutting carbon emissions, marking another disappointment to the movement, and to the hundreds of thousands of people across the world who march each year without fail.
But this year feels different. Perhaps it is the fact that around the world, we are seeing action taken at a local, regional and national level, which seems increasingly eco-friendly. For example, the price of solar panels has dropped significantly; wind power investments are increasing; and a push into building renewable energy infrastructure is seen. Scientists, engineers, technologists, those involved in understanding the impact of climate change on people and the planet, and many other interest groups – have been key to the resurgent environmental movement.
At the same time, it seems very bleak to assume that any revolutionary agreement will come out of the Conference. Many economies rely on fossil-fuel industries, worth $4.65 trillion. The UK alone gives £6 billion annually to subsidise fossil fuel industries. That, and our huge dependency on fossil-fuels will not make for an easy shift. The process will surely be long.
But before the Conference starts, there is already something to take home. One of the key important issues arising from the Conference is how we together can resolve global concerns, issues and challenges. With so many different political ideologies, government structures, industrial levels, understandings and values, it seems impossible to come reach a consensus, let alone a means for enforcement. The question of global governance is one many heads of state surely cringe at, but will need to address sooner than later.
Ongoing research plays such a key role not only understanding challenges, but also understanding responses and policy decisions. However what tends to happen – as is the case with climate change – is that a debate emerges which pushes experts into increasingly polarised opinions that challenge each other’s credibility. Interest by academia provides a plethora of publications and research in journals, however if various interest groups have their own agenda to follow, it is difficult to persuade towards any consensus. Climate change is clear proof of this. The Australian Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) made a good point about robust versus relatively uncertain science: ‘There is ample, well-supported evidence to provide a basis for action through mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and for adaptation to reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. At the same time, further research is needed to reduce the uncertainties and quantify confidence levels.’
What is so interesting about this quote is that it directly (or indirectly?) points out that in some contexts, regardless of how much research and evidence available, the uncertainties will always be flagged up to avoid or delay policy.