OF WHALES, PLANETS AND GREED
On Monday night I watched the second (and final) part of a documentary about the history of the whaling industry. I'd originally tuned in to see if there would be any scenes of Leith Docks, which had quite strong whaling connections (there's an old harpoon gun mounted on the river bank next to our block of flats), and there were a few. But in the end I watched because , in spite of a monotoned presenter, it turned out to be a very interesting story. And I learned the trivia that the biggest British whaling station, on the South Atlantic island of South Georgia, was called Leith Harbour, because the company that established it was Christian Salvesen of Edinburgh, a business I can recall still being prominent in the city during my childhood.
There isn't much whaling being carried out nowadays, and none at all by British ships, which is giving the whale populations a chance to recover, albeit to something far less than the vast numbers which once swam in the oceans. For several decades during the early to mid twentieth century, when the whaling industry was at its peak, many thousands of these huge animals were being slaughtered every year. Britain alone had over two hundred whaling vessels, several of them being vast factory ships, covering the Antarctic seas, and it wasn't until the sixties that the industry collapsed, leaving the few remaining whales in peace.
Long before then ecological scientists had identified that over-whaling was rapidly reducing whale numbers below long term sustainable levels. The demise of the industry was long foretold, but ignored as far as possible by those making huge profits from the killing. Time and again scientists presented a logical case for at least a substantial reduction in the scale of whaling operations, only for the fleet owners to hone in on some small flaw in the data (which was always difficult to collect and interpret) and claim that there was no need to rein in their activities.
After the Second World War governments cooperated to form the International Whaling Commission to try and find a solution that would prevent whale numbers dwindling to the point where whaling would not be feasible (although there was some ecological motivation behind this, it was largely driven by a desire to see whale 'resources' still being available for exploitation for as long as possible). Of course the company owners fought against any restrictions being imposed upon them. Quotas were eventually agreed, but were far too high to have the desired impact, never mind that they would frequently be broken. In the end the decision to abandon Leith Harbour was not made out of decency, or guilt, or concern for the species, but because there were so few whales left that their exploitation was no longer economically viable. And that there were alternatives to whale oil more readily available for the production of soap and margarine. Greed remained the driving force throughout, and almost ended in the extinction of the largest animals on earth.
All of which rings a modern day bell in my mind. Scientists pointing out, over and over again, that current practices are leading to an ecological disaster, while the capitalists refuse to listen, always ready to point out that the evidence isn't 100% conclusive (90% is never good enough....). Meanwhile the problem continues to get worse, will continue to get worse, and real action will only be taken when it's almost too late. Or, possibly, when it really is past the point of no return. Sound familiar?
The current arguments over climate change seem remarkably similar to those that once took place over whaling. And, as in the past, sides are taken which result in entrenched beliefs, impervious to reasoned argument. As before, it's the scientific community leading the call for change, based on the evidence they collect and interpret. As before, the evidence isn't 100% certain. But the job of science isn't to be certain. It's to put forward the mostviable theories, based on the available evidence, and project what those could mean for our future. And almost every scientist working in the field is confident that there are huge changes in our climatic systems taking place, and that man made emissions are in part the cause of this. Exactly what proportion of this comes down to humans, and how long it will take for the most severe symptoms to become apparent, are subject to disagreement. Unsurprisingly, given the fluid nature of the subject. Despite this it is the degree of unanimity which is the more striking. Few who have genuine knowledge of the matter appear to doubt that change is taking place, that our species is partly responsible, that the changes will likely have disastrous consequences for our ecosystem. The disputes are over the degree of change, the speed of development, the exact contribution made by emissions.and the argument is not about whether or not something terrible is going to happen - only about when and why.
Those uncertainties are pounced upon by the 'whalers', in this case the big businesses, especially in oil and gas, who do not want to see their profits curtailed. And governments fearful of telling hard truths to their electorates, of having to say that the days of freely available energy, of cheap flights to holiday destinations, of fruit out of season, might have to come to an end. That we have been living beyond our ecological means.
And, of course, of those governments not answerable to their populations, who are often driven to keep trying to 'catch up' with the lifestyles of the rich west. When perhaps it should be us coming closer to them.
This argument has become political, not just at the level of those in power, but for those who aspire to it. The scientists have the support of the Green movement which has long called for changes in society to reduce waste, to work more in harmony with what is, after all, the only planet we've got. There are many on the left of political thought who are coming to recognise the wisdom of this approach.
Against them, siding with big business, is the right wing which broadly opposes changes which might go against their god, economic growth. For elements of the far right, such as UKIP in this country, climate change denial has become some kind of totem, an element of macho posturing which considers anything 'caring', be it for people of planet, as effete.
I don't know who is 'right'. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as 'right' in this case. But I do know which makes most sense.
If the scientists have got their interpretations correct, and we are headed towards catastrophic changes later this century, failure to act on their warnings now might leave humanity defenceless, possibly leading to the deaths of billions of people.
If the deniers are correct, and the changes being seen are part of a natural cycle which will eventually sort itself out, but our society has decided to cut back emissions, change to more sustainable food sources and invested heavily in renewable energy, what's the worst that can happen? Fewer holiday flights, less choice in the supermarkets, a readjustment of the global economy? Some people will make a lot less money. Oh, and we might have cleaner air….
What's it to be? The common sense of the whales? Or the greed of the whalers?
Footnote - The deniers make a lot of capital out of renewable energy technology being expensive and inefficient. really? Well, Doh! With exception of hydro electric power, all our renewables - wind, solar, wave - are in their infancy. At about the same stage in their development that the petrol engine was in the 1920s. Only by investing in research, and using them in the real world, will they improve at a rate which can make them truly useful within the time we may need them. If you complain about them it's a bit like criticising a five year old for being poor at project management....
No comments:
Post a Comment