 |
|
|
The Fantasy and Reality of a Film |
|
By Klaus Toepfer*
The new movie "The Day After Tomorrow" may be fiction, but its central theme -- global climate change -- is not, writes the United Nation's environment chief in this column for Tierramérica.
NAIROBI - It is apocalyptic stuff: Hailstones the size of grapefruits smash up Tokyo and snowstorms smother New Delhi. Manhattan, including the United Nations headquarters in New York, is plunged into a nuclear-style winter. Even the Statue of Liberty cannot survive. It is swept away under the remorseless, rising waves.
This biblical vision comes courtesy of the latest big Hollywood production, "The Day After Tomorrow". But unlike the Old Testament catastrophes, the forces unleashed on planet Earth in the film come not from the wrath of God.
The popular view of climate change, or global warming, is that the world will get hotter and hotter hence the use of the colloquial term the "greenhouse effect". But this may not be the case everywhere as the film, clearly a fictional and entertainment-led way, is trying to point out.
For example, it is possible that the Gulf Stream, which keeps many ports in Europe as far north as Spitzbergen ice-free in the winter, could decline, even fail, as ever-smaller amounts of sea ice form off Greenland.
Indeed, there is some evidence this is occurring. According to some estimates, the strength Gulf Stream has dropped by a fifth over the past 50 years.
This is the climate-linked phenomenon that has, albeit in a rather extreme way, mesmerized the scriptwriters of the new movie.
If they are looking for a sequel, a "Day After Tomorrow II", then they may wish to consult a recent Pentagon report. It concludes that global warming must "be viewed as a serious threat to global stability and should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
Others share this view. Sir David King, Britain's chief scientist, has described global warming as a "bigger threat than terrorism".
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister says there is "no bigger long-term question facing the global community." And that "there will be no genuine security if the planet is ravaged by climate change."
It is likely that the Day After Tomorrow is in many ways here today.
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change -- some 2,000 scientists that advise governments and which was established by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization -- have concluded there is already "a discernable human influence on global climate."
Impacts are set to range from more storm surges, higher and more violent wind speeds, larger numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes and the greater likelihood of droughts and floods.
The poles are the early warning system, a wake up call. Last year the Ward Hunt, the largest ice shelf in the Arctic, broke up. Until then it had been intact for 3,000 years.
I recently spent some days in that region at the invitation of Borge Brende, the Norwegian environment minister.
I stood where, 20 years ago, a huge glacier once covered the land and has retreated towards the horizon, heard from experts on the ground that 3.5 square km of ice are being lost annually, and learned that the polar bear -- that icon of the far north -- is finding it more and more difficult to hunt seals because of the early retreat of the ice, and fewer polar bear cubs are being born, and that of those that are coming into the world, many are of increasingly low birth weight.
All send a chill up your spine.
Meanwhile, many low-lying ski resorts such as Kitzbuehl could soon be in economic difficulties as a result of the snow line moving up the mountains to higher altitudes.
In the Himalayas, our scientists have pinpointed 50 lakes that a few years ago were less than puddles. They are being formed by rapidly melting glaciers and could burst at any time sending torrents of water down the valleys putting human life at risk.
There are other compelling observations: 2003 was the third warmest year worldwide since records began in 1861. All of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990.
Munich Re, the re-insurance company, estimates that in 2003 natural disasters cost 60 billion dollars. Many of these were weather-related. They are part of a rising catastrophe bill that began in the late 20th century.
The principle international weapon against global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. It was agreed in 1997 and developed countries are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent by 2010.
But it is not in force. The United States has declined to ratify it. Russia, whose ratification would be enough to make the Protocol operational, has yet to decide. We are impatient, but we are hopeful.
Impatient because, in the end, it is the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable on continents like Africa who are set to suffer most.
We, in the rich countries, may be able to buffer ourselves against some of the worst effects. The poor, those least responsible, cannot.
They will need help to adapt. Kyoto, once in force, has provisions to do just that.
We should, however, be positive. In the mid 20th century, shortly after the birth of the computer, nobody could have foreseen the huge economic spin-offs to come as a result of the telecommunications and Internet revolution it spawned.
We are, I believe, at the same point with the new financial trading structures and environmentally friendly technologies that must be developed if we are serious about defeating climate change.
* Klaus Toepfer is Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and former German Environment Minister.
|
