If the climate change situation is as critical as we are told, to what lengths are we prepared to go to fix it?

We are in a perilous position. History may well record that we argued while Rome burnt. It’s a bit like the issue of whaling in that there is a great deal of huffing and puffing, accusations and counter accusations, some direct action, some moral indignation and an awful lot of hot air. [Ed: 'The big ask' campaign launched by Friends of the Earth back in 2008 (see below YouTube clip) remains a classic example of governments failing to act.]

The question is, will China end up responding faster and better than the democratic world? I have a hunch that it might. It is the world’s leading producer of renewable energy and has a rapidly growing nuclear energy industry. We saw at the Copenhagen summit its willingness to flex its growing political muscle. It has made itself an indispensable friend of many of the poorer nations on the planet – those hardest hit by climate change. In many ways it’s a classic pincer movement on the west.

But tackling climate change faster and better than the west might just be a very attractive option for China. It is unlikely to be driven primarily by moral obligations but it will happen. My worry is that the democratic world (which I prefer to live in by the way) is going to be left behind debating the issues.

So is democracy a good fit when the situation is so critical? Or is it getting in the way of progress? Is the state of the planet a likely cause for the rise of a kind of fascism? How far would you go? When the chips are down what value do you place on the ethical thing to do?

Chris Haddon is Creative Director at WellmarkPerspexa, one of the first creative agencies to design and produce sustainability reports for some of Australia’s leading corporate entities.

Where do you stand?

Add comment (0)  |  Trackback  |  Follow comments (RSS)  |  More by Chris Haddon