CLIMATE CHANGE OR CLIMATE HOAX WHICH IS IT?

It took me a while to decide to tackle this issue today for several reasons. First, because it is a complicated issue full of so many nuances, it’s very easy to get it wrong. Second, because proponents on both sides of the issue are so passionate about their conviction that they literally close down any possibility of giving the other side the proverbial one per cent possibility of being right. They defend their side with a religious fervour bordering on hysteria. Thirdly, the climate change narrative has unquestionably chosen political sides. Those who are the disciples of climate change gravitate towards the political left, and those who doubt it gravitate towards the political right. Fourth, the climate change paradigm and its resultant policies on either side of the divide are so divisive that what traditionally has been considered common sense is no longer held commonly as such. This is just a glimpse of the reality of this religion.  And I use the term religion, knowing all too well that it immediately puts off many of those who are sold out to it and evokes a conclusion that I am a climate denialist, or as the new narrative goes, climate realist. That may be so. But bear with me just for a moment.

 My concern with the climate change paradigm emanates from the political alignment it has assumed when it should be based purely on the science. As a non-scientist, I was socialised to believe that science never lies. That science relies on and reflects empirical evidence that is universal. So if climate change is a science, why does it create so much division between the political left and the political right? What is so inherent about climate change that seems to attract the left and repulse the right? If science is as empirical as it’s made to be, why should climate change be any different? And so my gripe with this reality is that either it’s not a science or the science has been manipulated to such a degree as to predetermine the outcome. Hence the political alignment. You will say to me, look at the observable evidence. And I will say to you, for every bit of the so-called observable evidence, there is always evidence to the contrary or the data is contested.

There is also the issue of those who have crossed the floor, especially from being climate change disciples to being realists. Perhaps the most visible is the shift by Philanthropist Bill Gates, who published a memo last year in a post entitled “Three tough truths about climate.” In that, he pushes back against the “doomsday view” of global warming and argues that it will not lead to humanity's demise or the end of civilization and that global resources are misallocated toward near-term emissions and temperature goals. That has got to have a lot of people wondering. Especially when such prophets of global warming as Al Gore, who in the 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” predicted a climate catastrophe which would see New York City underwater and Mount Kilimanjaro without snow by now. That, of course, hasn’t happened. There are further explanations, of course. And does anyone remember Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who spread so much fear of impending climate doom that she was an instant global celebrity? She seems to have moved on to other causes like the Palestinian plight. Which begs the question: is climate doom no longer trending as much?

A closer look at the latest socio-political events in Europe reveals a highly visible pushback of the conservative side of the political spectrum. Whether it’s the AFD in Germany, which is garnering historic electoral victories, Marie Le Pen’s National Rally in France, which seems poised to take over the country, or the Reform Party in the United Kingdom, there is a visible disdain towards climate-related policies which seems to resonate with their constituents. There is a general feeling, possibly with some evidence, that climate-related policies are partly responsible for the economic demise of Europe. The ferocity with which Europe moved away from fossil fuel-related development is believed to have undermined its progress and requires a rethink and recalibration.  Don’t even get me started about the United States, where Donald Trump is leading the charge against the climate change religion. In South America, the Argentine President is emulating him, and Brazil seems poised for a right-leaning President. You might say the seed of doubt has been sufficiently planted in the populations of Europe and the Americas about climate change that the political elite just have to listen if they are to stay relevant. Which begs the question: if the politicians are buying the narrative that the push for net zero has undermined development, who is left pushing for it? Who stands to benefit from it?

And so I bring it back home. There is clearly no doubt that as a country we have embraced the story of climate change and are heavily invested in it. You just have to listen to the average official speech. It will not be considered informed if it does not have a line or two on climate change. But ask most of the presenters what they really understand about climate change, and they will not be able to tell you. Everybody says it. So it must be right. Many do not even know the implications of climate-related policies. They do not know, for example, that businesses, investments, manufacturing, agricultural practices, construction, mining, transportation infrastructure, energy use, resource utilisation, etc are being systematically locked into the climate change chain link. For example, the number of electric cars on our roads is increasing gradually while the number of petrol and diesel vehicles is declining. It may not be noticeable right now because many of us drive pre-owned vehicles from other parts of the world where they are phasing out fossil fuel-driven vehicles. Eventually, it will be more costly to own and drive fossil fuel vehicles, so many will not afford them. After all, we do not manufacture them and have no control over the technology. The discontinuation of parts for such vehicles will force a natural move away from them. On the other hand, we can expect policies that will make public transport run solely on electric power. In such a scenario, many will be incentivised to use public transport and ditch private vehicles. Now wouldn’t that just be great for the environment! So as we sing this song of climate change, it is worth reflecting a little deeper on what it really means. Who wins and who loses? But crucially, it would probably be wise to think long and hard about this phenomenon. Why is it that those who have been first at it are having a rethink? Just a thought.