following the copenhagen proceedings and press conferences via webcast has been greatly exciting and frustrating at the same time. i simply cannot imagine what i would do if i was actually there in denmark. seriously, i really wouldn’t know if i would be one of those screaming at the airport, or behaving so that i would be allowed in the conference facilities. i know a lot of people who are pessimistic about the outcome of the conference, but even with all the cynicism, i have a good feeling about this. i think something will happen. note, i did not say something good will definitely happen. but something will.
the thing i notice about people who are pessimistic about the conference is that they are waiting for governments to do something. governments should come up with policies la, regulations la, laws la, subsidies la, incentives la. so much so that they see the climate as a government problem, not their problem. and to me, this is where the denial dilemma comes in.
see, they need to realize that if things go to the point that governments need to impose this and that, our life as we know it will be forced to change. if they impose higher electricity tariffs, for example, in order to promote the use of renewable energy, we complaint. if they increase the price of food, to prevent wastage, we complaint. and yet, if governments don’t do anything, we blame them for being complacent to the trends.
i’m not defending any government here. i have mentioned many times that i really cannot be bothered to delve into petty politics. it is just that i truly believe that change should be a personal choice. that is why awareness and practice is important.
for example, we don’t have to wait for someone to tell us that it is wrong to waste food, we should know ourselves that that is wrong. and we should not give ourselves stupid excuses to waste food either. i know a lot of people who say that they are kenyang already so cannot finish their rice. this is classic stupidity. when taking your rice, you should already know your limits. i have not yet met a single mamak who forced me to take a full plate of rice when i tell him that i want nasi separuh only.
and if that is the issue with food, can you imagine the issue with the environment? i have actually started this thing that i was at a traffic light and someone in front of me throws a tissue out of their car and onto the road, i would totally honk at them. yang sedihnya, they would give me that look, that they genuinely don’t know what they did wrong. now that, is a problem.
and so back to copenhagen oh copenhagen. in the most extreme end of the spectrum, kalau la in the next week when all the leaders arrive they can put all the squabbles aside, we can finally see a politically binding text (because the negotiators say that it’s too late for a treaty already, oh sigh) and we will see all kinds of environmental pollicies finally shoved down the throats of the world’s people – not that its a necessarily bad thing. sure, lots of people will complaint. but this is because we have not taken the effort to understand why and do something about it awal-awal.
or copenhagen could flop and nothing happens and the leaders go home dengan tangan kosong. in my prediction, if this happens, it will cause slowly but surely built tension between countries. remember, if copenhagen flops, it will not be because everyone agrees to do nothing. no way, man. if it flops, it will be because some superpowers don’t want it, and other member blocs were out veto-ed. and you know what, the world will then shift. huntington calls this one of the signs of the clash of civilisations. i read the book. it ain’t pretty.
so, apa nak buat in the mean time? i would actually echo what the copenhagen delegates in the interfaith press conference said, search inside ourselves, and do what’s right.
if i were in copenhagen, i would be singing michael jackson songs in the hotel lobby. yea.