An instance of
consulting some 100 doctors concerning the health of a child and about 97 of
the doctors all gave similar prognosis with well proven evidences which all
share an above average similitude, Then left with just three of the consulted
doctors who in their respected view of
experimentation have not totally arrived at a definite answer.
Then
having in mind the dying child who stands a narrow chance of surviving if not
treated based on every necessary prognosis available, the question is would you
give in to prognosis that carried the larger percentage or rather wait on the
probabilistic decision from the other less significant odds? The U.S president, Barak Obama, gave
this rather vivid description about climate change at the university of
California Irvine commencement and it was virally noted as a direct attack on
climate deniers.
It
is no news again that quite a lot of people still wouldn’t see to the fact that
global warming is real and in fact some still attribute the changes to being a
normal phase in the progressive evolution of our planet in adjusting to the period. In a great
a deal of way, they all show some similar side of making up premises which
would only tend to yield some baseless arguments and in most instances arriving
at no definite conclusion. The question is what could be fueling such rather
petulant field of view while all facts are glaring enough to make the choice of
agreeing to the reality.
I
have been trying to see the reasons into the link between politics and climate
sciences, obviously, there seems to be no direct nexus between both worlds as
they share a different base of operation. Climate sciences is purely an
academic premise while politics shares a lot with activities associated with
running a government, an organization or a movement. But then what connects the
dots between politics and climate sciences and in a way the scenario of climate
change.
Climate
change is well admitted as a global phenomenal change which in every way
warrants all countries of the world being involved in finding ways of reducing
the impacts and most importantly mitigate the cause” Green House Gas emission”
For the reason of this, Governments of nations, related inter governmental agencies
have been brought together to share expertise and resources to finding a common
solution.
Having in my mind the definitive nature of governance all around the
world which has a lot to do with politicking, then, the differences in our
systems of governance which vary so significantly in the respect of influences
attributed to positions. Then again, we have to take note of the premise of key
personalities among the public who though not seen as parts of governmental
systems but in a lot ways hold significant influences as a result of their
wealth and probably positions of influence on the public.
Overtime, the bases of governmental operations in the view of making
decisions still has the influence of all the premises stated in the preceding
paragraph and so the success and failure of arriving at a well accepted made up
decision would always have to take into consideration the effect on the
economy( investments) and the public( popular opinions). In the wake of climate
change, popular opinions haven’t been a major issue that matters but the
economy bases of respective nations of the world.
The
economy takes precedence in decision making and from every angle of
observation; it’s been assumed as a major stumbling block in making a
significant progress with action on climate change policies and interventions.
The
economic strength of every country is assumed as the fuel of all activities and
which is strongly influenced by politics and in a way we can assume, economy as
a reason for the existence of governance system within human societies.
So
against popular opinions and world acclaimed facts, decisions on climate change
cannot seem to be made without the influence of politics, the cost benefit
ratio.
The
intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) has been well placed to supply
and provide the summary of their related findings on climate change to policy
makers to aid their knowledge base and help to facilitate a rapid concession to
working out a feasible framework of interventions. But the problem has been
with the policy makers who would rather choose to follow the supposedly normal
route of decision making which as I would put does not play a supportive and
not too relevant role when it comes to climate change.
For the reasons of this,
skeptics have well risen among even the leaders and supposedly followers. They
have built their respective opinions and premise to support their reason for
not conforming to what the time calls for
” a selfless, sacrificial and timely intervention”. Of course, it is necessary
to take into cognizance every factor of consideration, but then, the future is
at stake here if we do not accept the obvious fact into reasoning out a
possible way out that will ensure a balance in our fears and necessities.
We must be ready to make the due
sacrifice and not create a space for denial of facts which are well spelt out.
This is obviously misleading some people out of the fact of being responsible
and for all that matters, dimming the hope of a collective action against
climate change.
There
is the need to make some clarification as to the limit to which politics could
come to play in certain issues, such as decisions on climate change and
alongside we need our leaders not to shy away from assuming some necessary
responsibilities while hiding under the disguise of denial.
Bamidele F Oni, Executive Director of Green
Impact International, writes from Abeokuta
No comments:
Post a Comment