|
Something’s amiss in the realm of climate science. And this time it's not the level of GHGs. It’s the science itself. When a condemning email correspondence was brought to light last week, demonstrating an utter want of scientific integrity on the part of the scientists whose work helps form the basis of the IPCC (and thereby United Nations) point of view on global warming, suddenly the “climate change deniers” were looking rather sympathetic. Marginalized in the name of necessity and “consensus,” the voices of second opinion were drowned by calculation, and with them the legitimacy of some of the world’s foremost climate scientists. All in all, the so-called “settled” climate change science has become very unsettling, and one has to wonder if COP15 will go up in flames as a result. It’s safe to say the original goals of COP15 were cooked weeks ago when the U.S. Senate dawdled on carbon cap and trade legislation and several governments declared their unwillingness to reach climate accord without strong U.S. leadership. Perhaps in that sense, we were all headed to Copenhagen with nothing to lose anyway; perhaps a blow to the climate science could be no more damaging than these serious roadblocks to international accord… or could it? I have little discernment when it comes to the natural sciences, but I do know to be skeptical of “settled” science. While proper research methodology may be settled, outcomes will rarely be (and it is the constant disprove-retheorize dialectic that allows us to pursue elusive empirical truth). As the great bastion of reason, science must transcend democratic tendency toward majority rules and be preserved apart from the prevailing winds of public opinion. Politicians can use scientific evidence (and do) to buttress positions in the political realm, but science itself is apolitical. Clearly today this separation of science and state is blurry at best. And while the dangerous liaison between scientific enquiry and politics is not new, neither has its persistence rendered it innocuous. Unsurprisingly, the hyper-politicization of climate science will have serious consequences. We must now question some purveyors of a partisan climate change theory, but must we also question its apostles? Have climate concerned citizens and sustainability-bent businesses lost their legitimacy? Does it follow that the push for carbon neutrality and clean energy is now moot? I gladly return to the land of the unequivocals in saying, “Absolutely not.” The predicted trajectory of global warming and the reasons behind it are apparently far from irrefutable, but when it comes to the health of the planet (with all its ramifications for human life and prosperity), shouldn’t we be solving for a worst case scenario in the hope of a best case outcome? If we have the tools and technology to mitigate the negative externalities of human activity, howsoever they may affect the climate; if we know the health of our economies and the longevity of our species may ultimately depend on achieving a benign influence on our environmental context; if we acknowledge that the health of our businesses and the loyalty of our consumers may be strengthened by concerted pursuit of such a goal, then why would we allow the proper disputations of the scientific realm (or the improper stifling thereof) to throw us from an intuitive course towards self-preservation and prosperity?  We can debate the opportunity cost of cleaning up our act now versus later. But in such cases of timeframe, I find it advisable to consult a beloved penny candy: it’s about now and later – starting immediately to change the way we operate while still anticipating the need for continued efforts. And who is best equipped with this bifocal lens and the power and agility to steer a world population based on the resulting vision? Business. Business will lead. Here at OgilvyEarth, we find that truly sustainable (read: enduring) businesses demonstrate foresight. They’re prescient enough to see “it” coming, and wise enough to prepare for “it” now. Acting in advance of necessity primes these forward-thinking entities for twofold gain: they reap the reputational rewards of demonstrated leadership and avoid late-adopter costs. But it’s about more than good business. It’s about good. Period. (It's symbiosis with a profit margin.) The best part? The evolution toward Good Business can be completely self-directed. Smart businesses don’t need the scientific community, the United Nations or governments to explain that negative externalities are, well, negative; nor do they need the help of any of those bodies to reap true market rewards of becoming more sustainable. I should add that similarly, neither business, nor the United Nations, nor governments need scientific consensus to understand that gobbling nonrenewable resources and spurting GHGs will have grim consequences. To find a way to limit those current costs-of-industry is the priceless and unaltered goal of COP15. So, we found some nasty emails… let’s not assume all is lost. Let’s let science do what science does best: question, explore, self-assess and redress. Let’s let business do what business does best: create solutions big and small. And, let’s let COP15 do what the United Nations does best: set the stage for a choral rendition of these efforts. These “bests” line the road to Hopenhagen – a world-in-the-making where triumphant solutions for our sake, not consensus for its own sake, is the ultimate goal.
|
