Saturday the Beyond Kyoto climate conference in Aarhus came to a close with a gloomy prediction by the former (a fact that may lend a little hope after all) US ambassador James Cain; “There is simply no chance that a new climate post-Kyoto treaty can pass through the Senate at the moment.” In this manner the scientific conference presenting hundreds of  papers related to the state of the global climate was squezed in between opening and closing statements by politicians – rather significant for the current situation.

Nevertheless, the conference actually started on a positive action oriented note with an opening speech by Gro Harlem Brundtland. In her opening remarks she emphasized that ”the time for diagnosis is over, now it is time to act.” At the same time she acknowledged that ”reducing emission in a context of economic growth is difficult” and went on saying that this is what sustainable development is all about. Brundtland stressed that the COP 15 alone will not solve the problem; it will be with us for a foreseeable future. Battling climate change will not happen through business as usual, she said and pointed at means of stimulating green technology growth and research on improving energy efficiency.
Brundtland left me with the impression that despite widespread political cynicism there is some hope.

She was followed by Sir David King a recognized science adviser to the British government. King set the context of the climate challenge. In a few decades we will live on a globe for 9 billion people. Food production needs to go up by 25% and at the same time we need to manage water ressources, control conflict and terror, improve health and education, preserve biodiversity, ensure energy security and supply and manage an increasing number of scarce minerals eg. cobber. King’s point is that unless we tackle all problems collectively we are facing an era of ressource conflicts – and ultimately wars. Facing this challenge requires collective actions making climate change the biggest challlenge on record. I wonder thouh to what extent we all agree on the challenge. What is our goal? A 25% percent reduction in emissions? An 80% reduction? And why? To reach a sustainable level of atmospheric carbon concentrations of 350 ppm? Or?

Like Brundtland King emphasized the need for improved effeciency and coined it with the term ”More crop per drop”. Both Brundtland and King indicated that solutions to the problem include – whether we like it or not – topics such as nuclear power and GMOs.

Last to take the floor during the opening session was John Hoffmeister recognized as the pragmatic founder of “Citizens for an affordable energy”. His philosophy is pragmatism trumps ideallism and commercialism trumphs subsidies. In terms of climate this boil down to effeciency improvement will trumph behavioral change. Hoffmeister is American – and probably right. He spent quite some time explaining why the the democracy is incompatible with action on climate change; the time between Congress elections is simply too short compared with the unpleasant decissions the Congres members are required to take to initiate action. Pretty scary – and probably not just an American issue.

The conference did not leave me with an optimistic view on the months ahead. I feel certain that the time for diagnosis is over, but I am afraid that action will be upheld by politicians such as Cain and the likes – despite the science. I wish they would read “Hot, flat and crowded” byTom Friedman and realize that fighting global warming may be seen as an opportunity for renewing economies such as the American – and not as a threat.

A couple of notes on the side:

• • Have a close look at the panelists. Not exactly youngsters. I wonder if they’ll ever experience the real impact of climate change? Are they feeling guilty? Are they scared on behalf of coming generations? Or just the case of the usual suspect.
  • During rectors opening speech the big screen kept advertising Børsen Executive Club and a number business hotels throughout Denmark. This intense sponsor presence made me wonder if the agenda of climate change is really of such a brief nature, that the conference is only possible through such commercial contributions.