Thanks to Mike Hulme, the global dialogue
conference got off to a good and controversial start. The professor
of climate change at University of East Anglia introduced some
insightful and tantalizing propositions, which did no less than putting
the whole COP15-joint venture in doubt.
Jumping onto his train of thought isn't
easy. Basically, his intention is to liberate the way we think about
climate change as a mere physical process which can be estimated by
numbers and facts. "Release climate change to speak with many voices."
Climate change can not be solved anyway.
In the current debate, all the use of apocalyptic language (such as Ban Ki Moon's
of Promethean attempts to control nature, the hypocrisy when talking
about preserving nature in a state of Eden or Themisian ideas of justice
– it does not lead to the right question.
Still following Hulme, the
question is not what we can do for climate change, but:
What can climate change do for us?
First of all, focusing our achievements
on percentual decrease of carbon dioxide emissions only, stifles a lot
of potential discussion. The global dialogue about climate change is
not to be determined by scientific facts only, it should be understood
more as an idea with all its possible social, political or cultural
So, not rules and regulations, but rethinking
values should be the result of dialogues about climate change. Climate
change as an idea, and not just statistics about rising sea levels, has a
far more constructivist power. New narratives should be told, collective
action on a more horizontal level, and not prescribed from top-down
institutes, should be achieved.
So, don't we need a Copenhagen protocol?
From a realist point of view, I ask myself in how far do we need rules
as a basis for actions, as a framework in which rational agendas can
and have to be pushed?