 PLENARY BRAINSTORMING Climate change and sustainable growth: What will it take to face the challenge? SATURDAY 13 OCTOBER 2007
“We are not running out of energy resources. We are not running out of capital. But we are running out of time,” said energy analyst Fatih Birol, encapsulating the sense of urgency arising from several discussions on climate change. Navigator Maud Fontenoy also testified to this, having witnessed its effects first hand during several trans-oceanic crossings. This plenary session then heard the findings of the morning’s panel discussions. First, environmental journalist Fiona Harvey suggested that Women’s Forum participants take leadership within their own organisations in assessing their ecological impacts. Developing ways of measuring these impacts was also important. Independent consultant Liz Padmore compared similarities and differences in the various groups’ conclusions. Significant amongst the differences was the clash of views about business motivation: one view was that businesses don’t need governments to bully them for them to take climate change and sustainability seriously. Business would continue to drive change in order to preserve their brands and reputations. Irish newsreader Eileen Dunne issued her group’s call to action: “We have ten years to turn things around,” she declared. What was really needed, she said, were strong signals from policy makers of convergence between talk and action. This was especially important with two major conferences coming up in Bali and Copenhagen to try to thrash out a post-Kyoto agreement on climate change. Les Echos Foreign Editor Françoise Crouigneau summed up the findings of the “Sustainable Cities” discussion group, identifying a need to share best practice. During that session, Fatih Birol of the Paris-based International Energy Agency re-emphasised the urgency of the situation. With energy use accounting for some 80 percent of climate change, and 90 percent of energy being produced by fossil fuels, he said the Earth was on a dangerous trajectory that could see the planet warming by six degrees Centigrade from 2050 onwards. He identified rising consumption in India and China as a serious concern, even though both had every right, he said, to economic development. It was up to OECD countries – which themselves carried much of the historical responsibility for climate change – to show leadership on this and help bring China and India into a climate control framework with incentives such as technology transfer. The costs of this, he said, would have to be met by the governments and taxpayers of OECD countries – which he estimated would amount to “only 0.2 to 0.3 percent” of their GDP. We would be lying to ourselves if we think that fixing climate change will be free,” he added. The head of SNCF, Anne Marie Idrac, flagged the difficulties of managing contradictions when searching for solutions to climate change. For example, introducing air conditioning in the Paris metro system would increase energy usage considerably, but might persuade more people to give up their cars. The debate turned to the dilemmas China now faces in relation to climate change during a period of unparalleled economic development. Chinese environmentalist Sheri Xiaoyi Liao took the opportunity to raise fundamental questions not only about China’s current aspirations but also those of the industrialised world. She took issue with the choice of many Chinese to pursue a “Western, US lifestyle” in which people aspired to having one or two cars and a big house. However, this was also a matter that every individual on earth should address. Society needed to think of its values, she said, and she urged people to consider an alternative model that drew on ancient Chinese philosophy, which teaches that “if you get something, you lose something.” Material energy is one goal, she said, “but people have lost spiritual energy, body energy…Spiritual energy is a source of happiness, and body energy is a source of health.” Xiaoyi challenged everybody to “re-think the value of life.” She stressed that everyone had a responsibility to reduce his or her eco-footprint, and suggested that the Women’s Forum be renamed the “Women’s Forum for Economy, Society and the Environment.” Wrapping up, moderator Maria Livanos Cattaui said progress needed to be made on a number of fronts. Society wasn’t going to change root-and-branch, she believed, and concluded by stating that though governments and businesses had a role to play, ultimately progress on climate change and sustainability came down to the individual. ______________________________ |