3 Rs of Climate Change

Philippine Climate Change Act is self-defeating!

2009-10-27T15:46:00.004+08:00

MANILA - Suddenly, the garrulous Philippine Daily Inquirer ran out of words when GMA signed the Philippine Climate Change Act (TJ Burgonio, 23 October 2009, globalnation.inquirer.net) and reported such an earth-shaking news in only 30 words:

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has signed into law the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 in Malacañang that would enable the country to better respond to disasters spawned by climate change.

(Never mind the split infinitive.) It looked to me like the Inquirer thought it was a waste of words to say more!

It didn't even report that it's RA 9729 for the record. That's how important climate change is to the Inquirer? It was as if to report 13 or 43 more words would be a crime. And it didn't bother to produce the body, I mean to publish the full text of the law. Well, I have it in electronic form, in case anyone from the Inquirer is interested. It's all of 4,313 words (by Word 2007 count, including 27 hyphens).

Well, I have a mouthful to say about RA 9729 myself. As a technical editor with 34 years of experience (24 years using the personal computer), I'm interested in the following 105 words:

Sec. 7. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation of Commissioners. – The Commissioners must be Filipino citizens, residents of the Philippines, at least thirty (30) years of age at the time of appointment, with at least ten (10) years of experience on climate change and of proven honesty and integrity. The Commissioners shall be experts in climate change by virtue of their educational background, training and experience: Provided, That at least one (1) Commissioner shall be female: Provided, further, That in no case shall the Commissioners come from the same sector: Provided, finally, That in no case shall any of the Commissioners appoint representatives to act on their behalf.

With those provisions, except for honesty and integrity, nobody is qualified to become a Climate Change Commissioner at all! Not ever. Why? Because the one to be appointed should have had at least 10 years of experience on climate change - and of course, there is no one by that name. What do you mean 'experience (in) climate change' - there is no office public or private that has anything to do with climate change. Not yet, anyway. Not the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services (PAGASA), not the Department of Science and Technology (DoST), not the Department of Agriculture (DA). In fact, if you ask any knowing government unit, any educated non-government organization or scholarly individual today, it's not in any expert's terms of reference; nobody's responsible for climate change / global warming / global cooling! I wouldn't be blamed for it myself.

So, none of this: 'The Commissioners shall be experts in climate change by virtue of their educational background, training and experience.' RA 9729 must be referring to aliens from another planet who have survived their own climate change and want to teach us a lesson or two about treating our Mother Earth better, much better.

I can see that RA 9729 as worded was a case for editors who knew their stuff, who couldn't be caught with their shirts off or their pants down. I just know the editors of the law didn't do justice to this one; they were sleeping on the job. Theirs wasn't the sleep of the just.

When scientists disagree? We turn to faith

2009-10-26T14:15:00.000+08:00

On one hand, the scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, insist that there is climate change and that much of it is caused by man, by the carbon dioxide that he produces going about his living in modern ways. How credible is the IPCC? This panel was organized by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme of the United Nations. The IPCC is comprised of scientist delegates from member countries now numbering 194. Along with former US Vice President Al Gore, the IPCC received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007, the year that the IPCC declared that man-made climate change is 'unequivocal' - undeniable.

On the other hand, there are many scientists, mostly Americans, who do not deny that there is climate change but deny that there is significant man-made climate change, that is to say, that what man does does not affect the climate in any momentous manner. The Right Wing News screams the headline: 'Mathematically confirmed: There is no climate change crisis' (16 July 2008, rightwingnews.com). The proof, says the source, is contained in a paper published in Physics and Society, 'a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society.' Christopher Monckton demonstrates, according to the paper, via 30 equations that the computer models the IPCC used exaggerated the values towards confirming man-made climate change. If I understand Monckton correctly, there is no significant effect on the climate whatever carbon dioxide is emitted by man's bodies: himself, his car, his house, his office, his school, his factory, his hotel, his restaurant, his racetrack, his casino, his coliseum, his plane, his hideaway.

Now, if you believe the IPCC and the Nobel Prize committee, you know what to do: change your lifestyle. You don't know what to do? Simple: Save, save, save whenever and wherever you can:

(a) Like, stop smoking. You are only making the oil companies richer, the tobacco companies wealthier and the cancer surgeons more affluent.

(b) Like, switch off 25 out of 50 fluorescent lamps to light your office of 40 square meters. (I saw such a number of lamps in a department store in a city not far from where I sit. That's extravagance.)

(b) Like stop aimless driving. Like stop joy rides. Like stop driving your car to buy cigarettes or drinks. Like have a regular tune-up. Like drive a hybrid car.

But if you believe the American Physical Society, there is nothing to change - life goes on, business as usual.

But not so fast! It is only one man (Christopher Monckton) saying the IPCC scientists were knowingly wrong. The journal Physics and Society will publish your paper even if the Editor disagrees with your conclusion - I know; I was Editor in Chief of the Philippine Journal of Crop Science myself 2001 to 2008, and it was I who made that journal credible to the crop science world: I made it ISI. And the 9,999 other members of the American Physical Society have nothing to do with Christopher Monckton or his paper at all.

Of course, there are other scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC; I've known some bad leads, but Christopher Monckton's own takes the cake. Like, he argues that global warming stopped 10 years ago and that surface temperatures have been dropping for 7 years. No wonder everybody in the Philippines feels that the weather has been warming up for the last 20 years. How can Monckton explain that I myself used to wear a jacket come September in Los Baños; now it's too hot to wear anything at all?

What is important is that we're talking here of scientists disagreeing. What do we do when scientists disagree and yet in our bones we feel that we can, that we must do something? Let's leave the scientists arguing among themselves!

We have lives to live. That leaves us our faith.

Look at my photograph that I have transformed into an abstract painting (thanks PhotoShop!): one row of seats in the chapel is empty. You can see the Risen Christ up above. The empty seats represent those who do not believe in either climate change or Christ. But the believers must hang on to their faith and rise with the Risen Christ above the occasion.

My Roman Catholic faith tells me we are merely stewards of Mother Earth, and cannot abuse her. When we cut down the trees and leave the forest unable to regenerate itself, that's abuse. When we dynamite our corals to catch fish; that's abuse. When we over-cultivate our farm, we expose the soil to the elements without protection; that's abuse. When we pour commercial fertilizer on our field without making sure that it does not destroy the balance of nutrients of that soil, that's abuse. Stewardship calls for taking care of a natural resource so that it will sustain this generation - and the next.

Climate change is undeniable. What if global concerted action can mitigate climate change? If not, it is going to be the end anyway. What if man can do something right? If we do what we have to do now, then we would have done the right thing when it was the right thing to do, when there was world enough and time.

I know what will happen in Copenhagen

2009-10-25T18:27:00.022+08:00

MANILA - There is going to be the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December 2009. I'm not invited. Neither are you.

I'm not sorry. If I were there, I will talk too much myself. Too many talks will spoil the truth. The inconvenient truth.

Really, I don't mind. I already know what will happen in that conference. No Copenhagen treaty, no Climate Facility. Am I a visionary or something? No, I'm a dreamer.

I dream that in Copenhagen, the big boys and the small boys will meet at a round table, to be fair, following the legendary example of the British King Arthur. You know what happened to King Arthur's court, don't you? There was complete chaos in Camelot.

Expect that in Copenhagen, science will be the flavor of the mouth. They will joust with words instead of swords. They will debate theories. They will discuss assumptions. They will deliberate on methods and analyses. They will delineate findings. They will delimit conclusions. They will dissertate on recommendations. In the end, they will agree to disagree. The small boys have no choice. And, as expected, the big boys will have their cake and eat it too.

You have to understand the big boys. If you force them to do things against their will, they will cry. Big boys do cry. They're spoiled brats.

So, I beg the small boys to show mercy on the big boys and demonstrate to them how to behave in a gentlemanly manner. Or as Christians. You have to show them what they lack in breeding. Or in scruples.

Here is a different idea from Hawa Sow, Africa Climate Policy Coordinator of WWF, as quoted by Morten Andersen (''Africa afraid of being taken hostage,' en.cop15.dk):

If the (Copenhagen) deal does not respond to the expectation of African nations to adapt to climate change, (and) if it fails to provide the necessary finance, technology and capacity building, then Africa should consider not signing in Copenhagen. A really bad deal could be worse than no deal.

To walk out of a conference is in bad taste. It is also an exercise in futility. You're mad. It's not healthy. It's also defeatist. We're defeating ourselves, shame on us!

I say we don't have to ask the big boys for help. I say we small boys can help ourselves.

Starting now. I think I have a brilliant idea. We ought to plan on Copenhagen right this minute. Let the small boys gang up on the big boys and turn the round table on them. Let the small boys grab the mike first thing in the meeting and have the first word. The big boys will be shocked, but they will pay attention.

Now, instead of arguing against the arguments of the big boys, let the best speakers among the small boys come up with the best arguments that they know the best of the big boys will come up with - and let the small boys harangue the big boys with the big boys' own arguments for hours and hours. A privilege speech followed by another privilege speech. A filibuster. Call all the mass media! Tell the whole world! It will be fun to listen and watch, live, via satellite, on TV or streaming video.

Will the big boys believe their own lines?

Let the small boys say to the big boys, for starters:

Quiet, boys, and let's begin by agreeing. So, let us small boys present to you your side of the equation and you tell us if we understand you perfectly. We will tell you what you already know just to see if we are thinking along the same lines.

They already got their attention. And the small boys will tell the big boys that it is not true that we have a window of only 10 years. That it is not true that converting corn to bioethanol results in more carbon emission than continuing to buy oil from the Middle East. That it is not true that diverting corn to biofuel is the cause of the food crisis. That it is not exactly true that there is global warming at all. Frank Roche, candidate for US Congress, is already saying, as quoted by David Morris, 'As more and more scientific evidence is gathered, the case for man-made global warming gets weaker and weaker' (24 October, wake.mync.com). And wouldn't you know! A poll by the Pew Research Center reports that 20% less Americans believe in climate change caused by man (James Heiser, 23 October, jbs.org). No, the Nobel Prize for Peace is not a true measure of global warming. The American opinion is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and what's-his-name were simply talking off the hind legs of different donkeys. And what does the newest winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace US President Barack Obama have to say? He's not saying enough, according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC (google.com/hostednews/afp). Enough said!

Will the big boys listen to the small boys? Those who have ears, listen!

Notwithstanding the reversed roles, I doubt that the big boys will listen to the small boys parroting them. Nobody listens to parrots, ever. Pay attention, but not listen.

The big boys will have the last word of course. Size matters. Big boys will always be big boys. Or should I say, lifestyles matter. The big boys won't change their lifestyles for the sake of the small boys. As in, the American Dream is not for everybody. So, if nothing happens in Copenhagen, I told you so.

Climate change is no respecter of persons. Time, tide or global warming waits for no man. If my expectations are correct, when it's time for all of us to say 'So long, farewell! It's time to say goodbye' simultaneously, at least we small boys can face the big boys, if it's the last thing we'll ever do; we'll point our fingers to them and we'll tell them and be excused for name-calling, shouting at the top of our lungs:

We told you so, you unintelligent, dense
imbeciles!
incompetents!
knuckleheads!
addleheads!
boneheads!
flibbertigibbets!
jackasses!
turkeys!
birdbrains!
madmen!
morons!
ninnies!
nincompoops!
dimwits!
dingbats!
dolts!
fools!
idiots!

Goodbye ...

Village Climate Change

2009-10-25T14:38:00.004+08:00

MANILA - Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country and talk about climate change. But, how do you talk to the villages about climate change? Intelligently, of course. Not above their head. Look into the eyes. What do you see? When you talk, are they listening to you? I'm a teacher, and I know that if you are not looking into the eyes of your students, you are not communicating anything except boredom or drowsiness.
I remember his disciples asked Jesus, 'Why do you talk to them in parables?' And he replied, 'Because that's what they understand.' The Teacher was a good communicator. You talk the language of your listeners, not your language.
And what is the language of your target listener right now? The Super Typhoons Ketsana (locally Ondoy) and Parma (Pepeng). Talk about the death, destruction and despair that those two natural catastrophes wrought on the Filipino people. Mostly in the towns. Commiserate, for God's sake.

If you want to talk about carbon emission, you can't; or, don't talk about it at once. I think it would be easier to talk about plastics, garbage and trash, and squatters living in and around rivers and streams and lakes. About deforestation and about watersheds. Don't talk about whom to blame but how it happens that if you cut down the vegetation in the forest, you are also balding the mountains and thereby destroying the watershed, or the ability of the hills to store water when it rains. What about all that trash, garbage, all that plastic and all those shanties getting in the way of flowing streams?

The rich as well as the poor are to blame for flash floods. The rich, for abusing all those natural resources; the poor for abusing the rest of them.

I mean, when you talk about climate change in the towns, you should be talking about climate change in the cities too.

Poor countries can less adapt to climate change?

2009-10-24T23:04:00.003+08:00

Here are excerpts from the website of Eldis, 'How can communities adapt to climate change?' (eldis.org):

The ability of communities to adapt to climate change is determined by their level of development, their access to resources and their scientific and technical capacity. The impacts of climate variability create challenges for the world's poorest communities as their livelihoods are likely to be more sensitive to climate change. These impacts may be related to more intense and frequent extreme events, like hurricanes or floods, and more long-term stresses, such as water scarcity and increased recurrence of drought.

(1) I note that the option of countries not only to adapt but also to mitigate climate change is not given equal attention or prominence by Eldis the website. This is the one that has the slogan of 'sharing the best in development policy, practice and research' (eldis.org). I don't know why. Or is it because it is the wealthy countries that are more guilty of bringing about climate change and should be mitigating more than the poor countries?

(2) Eldis says, 'The ability of communities to adapt to climate change is determined by their level of development, their access to resources and their scientific and technical capacity' means that the poorest, most ignorant villages are the least likely to succeed in adapting to climate change. I don't think so. Climate change is no respecter of countries. To adapt to climate change is to learn to live with the natural catastrophes that keep increasing in frequency and intensity. The poor have known deprivation and have survived; the rich have known abundance and have flourished - in a natural disaster, or even in a man-made disaster (like the financial crisis), the poor will survive better than the rich.

(3) Eldis says, 'Adaptation can adopt a variety of forms, such (as) better education, training and awareness (on) climate change and more technical measures, such as drought-resistant seeds and better coastal protection' - I think that education, training and the raising of awareness on climate change should be more for the rich countries than the poor. After all, the rich countries do not (or cannot) accept that they are more to blame for climate change.

(4) Eldis says, 'To lessen the impact of climate change on a country's development, people are working to integrate adaptation into mainstream development policies.' Maybe, but that's working with the politicians, and everyone knows we're running out of time and the politicians are the slowpokes of the world. I'd rather that we run out of politicians than run out of time!