|
Painting a picture of Climate Change, from Breugel to Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst and why Copenhagen will not be a failure!
”Breugel?” – my delegate friend smiled
at me hinting at the picture I was looking at. “Didn’t he paint the Ice-Skaters and in fact depicting traces of climate change 400 years ago? And if that’s an original, you’re either a cunning thief or a rich man.” My friend laughed at his comment, stooping a little under the weight of his laptop and the load of documents he carried, which I rightly assumed would all be related to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen.
“You’re almost right. But Pieter Breugel the Elder painted ‘the Hunters in Snow’, and another famous ice age painting called ‘Winder Landscape with a Bird Trap’. Another Dutch painter, Hendrick Avercamp, painted what you refer to, the ‘Winter Landscape with Ice-skaters’. The two painters are about 30 years apart in peak production time.” I corrected my friend gently. Knowing he had a connoisseur’s knowledge of art, and priding himself often of being a renaissance man, he did not take lightly to being corrected. He was leaving for the climate negotiations the same evening and we had finally managed to synchronise our agendas and have lunch together. He was by chance passing through Oslo en route to Copenhagen and COP 15, dubbed the “Climate Summit’ by what we both had labelled the hysteria of media.
I had invited him to my favourite place in my capital - the Bristol and its famous ‘Library Bar’. Comfortably seated in a remarkable piece of interior architecture combining traces of late L’Art Nouveau with Moorish inspired wall panels, old and well preserved mahogany book-cases and tables from a time when this wood was not considered a species to be preserved in the rainforests, we had found respite from busy agendas dealing with global environment, climate issues, governance, the future of the world. We seemed to cover it all at times.
The Little Ice Age painted
We ordered lunch and for the moment I had to give up my initial intentions of getting an insider’s view to the climate negotiations. My delegate friend played a crucial role, and we all knew he often had held the key to successfully negotiated outcomes. He had pushed his coffee aside and was eagerly studying the copies of the paintings I had brought along. “You found all this on Google? And had them printed by a friend of yours? Amazing. When? I am not familiar with this period, nourishing a penchant for the inter war period of our last century. When?” I loved to be my friend’s teacher, - “Roughly from around 1550 to early 1700, Breugel has the oldest print here and that one of the English Minister on Skates the youngest.” I expected an immediate association, and my friend did not disappoint. “Ah, yes the famous Little Ice-Age. But that period lasted a lot longer than the life of Breugel. Researchers are not in agreement of when it started, but claim to have solid proof of its ending, towards the end of the 19th century.”
The Little Ice Age understood
My friend was back on track and edifying me with his colossal knowledge. “And they do not know exactly what caused the Little Ice Age to happen. But it was climate change, that’s for sure. And it may have lasted for some 400 years. But that change was caused most probably by natural forces rather than being driven by human activity.”
“But climate is always changing, that is paradoxically a constant factor with climate”, I interjected. He nodded, seemingly deep into the ice skater scene; “scientists have tentatively identified a number of probable causes for the cooling phenomena of the earth at that time.” “Reconstructing climate is difficult, and are you comparing that change with what we are experiencing now?” for a moment my delegate friend confused me. He detected a point of divergence in me and answered in a disarming way; “What do scientists think caused that change – well, let’s see if I remember; they point to the internal variability of the climate system, perhaps a decrease in solar activity, even though that is difficult to ascertain, increased volcanic activity and anthropogenic factors. Breughel and Avercamp are proof that the canals in the ‘low countries’ were frozen so it was cold. But look at the time scale of that change – 400 to 500 years of slow climate fluctuations, and just a degree change, downwards that is. What we are facing in terms of global warming change now is so different. Actually, our present warming period may have ended the Little Ice Age towards the end of the 19th century.” He looked at me with a smug smile, my delegate friend was digging into the encyclopaedic knowledge he kept alive in his head. I seemed curious and sensing that, my friend was spurned on to new insightful exposés. “The ending of the Little Ice Age corresponds with increased industrial activity voraciously devouring coal to satisfy energy demands, which as you know, yielded increasing quantities of CO2 into the air, and presto, the anthropogenic, or human induced effect terminates the cooling of the world. Global warming started. Slowly at first, but then it accelerated, and we are the first generation to feel the negative effects of that culture, - if culture it can be called.”
The speed of change is the cause
I raised my hands in protective defence - I did not need to be lectured on what was elementary knowledge. I had done my homework, the UN climate panel, IPCC with more than 3500 scientists from 190 countries agreed on the combined causes of global warming causing climate change. Average global mean temperature was increasing. Presently it stood around 15,3 degrees centigrade which signifies a cool climate. A cool climate is a stable climate, a stable climate is a predictable climate, a predictable climate is a guarantee and a condition for long term planning. The real danger of climate change is in the speed with which change is now occurring. A predicted 2 to 5 degrees increase over the next one hundred years is the same as the change that occurred from the last big ice age 14 000 years ago until today. With slow change, everything can adapt, species, development, you name it, with rapid change comes havoc. Slowing down and stopping the speed of change is the ultimate challenge of Copenhagen. The irony of it all, I thought, was that we had all the knowledge and money we needed to stop the rapid change, human induced as it is. Not like the people back in the 16th Century who just suffered the dire consequences of climate change.
The Frozen Thames is painted and hangs in the Museum of London
“Is this what I think it is?” My delegate friend had carefully extracted a print from the pile I had brought to our lunch. I nodded. “Amazing isn’t it? This is “The Frozen Thames” painted in 1677, artist unknown. The original painting is in the collection of the Museum of London. It looks like a fantasy picture of a frozen Ultima Thule, thick sheets of ice covering the boats moored on the sides of the Thames, and people milling about in the middle of the river. You know, harvests failed and several years recorded high death rates among people all over Europe during this ‘Little Ice Age’. It is scary to think what may happen if the climate changes suddenly.” I looked at my friend.
You’re one of the chief negotiators
“I am doing my best”, he said quietly with a serious mien. “We have come incredibly far in such a short period of time and still not far enough. The good news is of course that the world is not going to melt down on December 19, the day after the conference in Copenhagen is over even if or because we won’t get a legally binding agreement. As if that would be a catastrophe at present.” A shadow of irritation and slight anger settled for a second on my delegate’s friend face, deepening his furrows and seemingly aging him considerably for a second. His eyes screened the prints, Breughel, Avercamp, the unknown British artist, “you know, in all the frozen desperation people suffered at that time, these pictures also convey a willingness or understanding to cope and overcome the difficulties together. Do you think we can find such a spirit in Copenhagen?” “You tell me. I am not a chief negotiator. You are.” Sometimes revered for his acumen by fellow negotiators, often ridiculed by the righteous climate movement for compromising too much, sometimes denounced by the developing nations for not understanding the cause of the poor people, frequently criticised by industry for being too hard on regulatory demands, but always delivering something and always handling the cases with integrity, and right now, I did not envy him his position.
Copenhagen is on track
A look of obstinacy, defiance, carefully controlled irritation shot into my friend’s eyes, his aging fatigue from a few seconds ago totally vanished. I braced myself, a small speech was in the making: “A generation ago few knew and no one really fathomed the dire consequences of a climate change run amok. In one generation we have accomplished more globally than no one in their wildest fantasy could dream about in 1992 when we first got the embryo of the UN climate convention, yet it is not enough. What tires me right now are the unfounded expectations everybody seems to have on the outcome of the Copenhagen climate show. If people and media would only have read and understood. I mean, all the information you need is made public. The new climate regulating agreement, a new and legally binding agreement is not supposed to be set in motion until after 2012; everybody seems already to condemn the outcome in Copenhagen because they think a legally binding outcome is the primary raison d’être of this meeting and they won’t have one. And now they make the next meeting in Mexico causes celebres attributed to the fleeting and shiftless dispositions of the negotiators. We are judged to be unwilling to grasp the seriousness of the moment. Well, I grant you, some are. But not the greater majority. The COP in Mexico next December, correctly numbered COP 16, followed by COP 17 in Johannesburg December 2011, and the final signatory meeting in 2012 for the new agreement, all this was decided years ago. This is not a fall back strategy to save the face of uncaring diplomats. And after 2012 there will be new COPs, to monitor, adjust, upgrade and so on, of course you know what I am talking about. And besides, when we deliver, for we will, you have to mobilise civil society, for without the commitment of everybody things may go bad, and nothing will be resolved. I am the negotiator, but you’re the mobiliser, teacher, I deliver words, you deliver commitment and understanding, perhaps with artists, no?”
The developing nations play hardball
My friend seemed worried, still he would be asked questions, and they might as well come from me: “But we are not there yet? I mean, a global understanding that will lead to an agreement to curb greenhouse emissions, pay for the damages, save poor people, agree on financial transfers and provide new, innovative, cutting edge and inexpensive technology. China, India, Nigeria, Brazil and a host of other so-called developing nations, coordinated through G-77 are still reluctant to take their part of the emissions responsibility citing common but differentiated responsibilities. Then add to the difficulties the global emissions that come from the US and Canada and their reluctance to committing. The Sudanese ambassador to the UN in New York being interviewed at the beginning of December by BBC in the programme Hard-talk and speaking on behalf of G-77 showed nothing but belligerence. He stated that unless the developing nations get an acceptance of a yearly transfer of 500 billion dollars for mitigation purposes and another 500 billion for adaptation, the G-77 will not sign on to anything. The rich world has to show the way he said and they offer us nothing but peanuts. He also reverted quickly to the blaming game, actually more addressing the inequities of the past than what science says about the future, condemning the rich countries’ effort to arrive at a so-called single country profile approach, not allowing concessions on emissions to be made for developing nations. How do you reconcile all this into, if not a legally binding agreement, at least a common political message and a framework for a common outcome in a year’s time?” If I was to pay for our lunch, I also had the right to a speech. I now had mine, and I was waiting for a good answer that would give me some hope.
J.M.W. Turner painted climate change almost two-hundred years ago
“Can we not just look at these paintings and forget about Copenhagen?” My delegate friend fingered a J.M.W. Turner picture I also had printed, the beautiful yellow sunset over Chichester Canal. “Did you know that serious climatologists think that the sunsets and the particular colours Turner observed in those sunsets and transferred over to his canvas was the result of one of the factors causing the Little Ice Age?” I felt a twinkling of happiness, seeing that I knew something that my learned friend did not. “There are substantiated theories explaining that remnants of volcanic eruptions in the atmosphere affected the colours in sunsets while Turner was alive and in fact gave rise to the yellow tinge that is predominant in his paintings. It is quite possible that the volcanic eruption of Mount Tabora in Indonesia around 1815 gave rise to the rich use of yellow in his paintings such as Chichester Canal which was painted around 1830. At the same time the volcanic ashes reflected the sun from the atmosphere and cooled it down.”
Why Copenhagen will not be a failure
“I wonder how artists could have contributed to ensure a constructive outcome from this meeting. What may artists have painted from the negotiations? And the outcome? How could poets have reacted? And what will popular culture make of all this?” My delegate friend was again the serious and committed negotiator. “You know, about your questions and comments, I think the G-77 is playing their cards irresponsibly. One kilo of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere caused by human production is globally harmful to all, no matter where it comes from. Yes, every human in the developed world has much higher carbon intensity than any person in Africa, Asia or Latin America. And yes, the poor people in these countries are likely to suffer disproportionately, often causing little environmental harm but shouldering the brunt of environmental disasters. But the total emissions of CO2 from India, Brazil and China today accounts for 30% of the global, and theirs is growing with explosive force and quantity. By all standards, the developed world will be close to carbon neutrality around 2025. Unless the developing world takes its responsibility, their total emissions will make the CO2 level continue to increase. That is why we have to have universal standards, the same targets and responsibilities for all. They demand 1000 billion dollars annually on adaptation and mitigation schemes. I find that sum a bit ridiculous, not the least because absorbing it and handling it properly will be difficult. But the EU is working on their financial contributions. Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week at the Commonwealth Meeting proposed a Copenhagen Launch Fund, which would provide 10 billion dollars annually for the least developed countries. And that is just a beginning. The money which ultimately will be available for all this, will be massive. Besides it is not only a question of money, but also how to use it. When you and I met in June, six months ago, I had just come from the Bonn climate talks. We were then on our way to solve the issue of tech transfer, cutting edge technology at low cost. What started as an impregnable wall of resistance has now found its solution and copyrights and patent issues will be constructively dealt with allowing for new technology on energy, infrastructure and so forth. And no, we will not get a legally binding outcome this December, but one will be in place before the present Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012 and the new starts on January 1st 2013. If we can lay the ground work here in Copenhagen, then we are on track.
The next step is to make people buy into the outcomes, understand them, embrace them, make them relevant and help implement them, and that’s where you, civil society, artists of all kinds, NGOs CBOs, private sector, all of you come in.”
Let’s mobilise all to create something new and better
“All artists? Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst also?” I could not resist, as I knew my friend had strong likes and dislikes, and that the two artists mentioned were not among his favourites. “I used to appreciate their creativity, their often blatant irony, their cunning statements. But now I personally feel they are epitomising consumption, making wasteful consumption into high class art, and that my friend goes against what we need to do to save this planet: we need frugal, but high quality products and lifestyles. Not diamond draped human skulls. Greed and overconsumption which comes from private households cause 40% of all CO2 emissions today. We have to do something about that as well. And create an equitable and socially just world. What if artists, whatever their art form, could epitomise that? But I much prefer honest renditions of climate change as in the palette of Breugel, or a future artist’s rendition of climate improvement than diamond draped human skulls. Speaking of expenses, I need to go. Copenhagen awaits me. Will you pay for lunch? I’ll make it up to you later. See you in Copenhagen!”
I’ll cover every meal you need, I thought, as long as you bring the world an outcome from these climate talks that will help solve the problems.
Copenhagen, December 2009
|
|
