A post by Max Iacono, inspired by the post by Ugo Bardi on the meeting on climate change held in the town of Fiesole
by Max Iacono
A meeting such as the one whichtook place in Fiesole easily could be viewed as the first in a longer series of stakeholder meetings convened as part of a participatory local economic and social development program lasting several years. Two “development” paradigms or models come to mind here. One is “community development” and the other is “local economic development” or more generally “local development”. “Local development” is a more encompassing term which can include local economic, social, political/ governance, cultural and environmental kinds of development; and an adequate local response to climate change can be viewed as engaging in a particular type of “local environmental development” program; in reality the various “dimensional” types of local development mentioned above all are inter-related and mutually supportive or constraining.
Without going further into the
distinctions between community development and local economic or other kinds of
local development each pursued in different ways -since the international experience is wide and diverse- it
is useful to note that often participatory local development initiatives begin
with an assessment of the current situation in which the locality finds itself; the local stakeholders look at both
problems and opportunities which the community faces and then try to identify
strategies and programs to self-develop the locality or community to which they
belong. If the meeting in Fiesole
-or in the countless other localities throughout the world where it might have
taken place- is viewed in this way, then the meeting might be seen as only the
first in a series of many geared to assessing local problems and needs,
developing strategies and then implementing an appropriate set of practical measures
and actions.
It is of course very difficult -in
fact impossible- to know in advance what practical measures eventually should or
could be implemented by local stakeholders at the community or local levels in
the millions of communities and localities existing throughout the world to mitigate against climate change and
its many diverse effects in each particular place. These measures by
necessity will vary enormously from place to place and context to context.
One fairly obvious general effect
of climate change however is that the weather is getting “wilder” in various ways. So there are -and there will continue to be- more droughts, more fires,
more very heavy rainfall or snowfall, more floods, more hurricanes, more tornados, and seasons that are ever
more out of kilter -e.g. longer or shorter and more intense summers or winters-
thereby also affecting agriculture in various and differing ways, as well as plants, trees, animals,
insects, pollinators, vector-borne diseases and etc.
It would seem that the first
thing any community or locality would need or wish to do is to understand: i) how exactly it is being affected
already in some of the ways above or in other ways over any single calendar year
period; and ii) how is it most likely going to be affected
in let’s say another five years based on current trends in the worsening of
climate change. Since this is the
most probable scenario because parts per million of CO2 continue to increase by
about 3 ppm per year and increasing quantities of methane also are being
released and more ice melt also is occurring. But it also can
be useful to look at the history of severe weather events in the locality and
around its general area over the past 50 to 100 years, if it is available. This is because a flood that
before might have occurred only once in every 100 years now might occur on
average once per decade.
Once this first general
assessment is done it will be easier for local stakeholders to discuss sensibly
what might be done and what could be planned and done by the local
community, or by the province or the
region or the country within which it is set.
The other aspect which I think
any local stakeholders probably need to understand is the difference between
various kinds of actions and measures which are possible and namely those which
belong in four categories: i)
prevention ii) mitigation iii) adaptation and iv) reversal. Measures implemented in one category
may have effects in some of the other categories too but generally speaking
there are different measures for different objectives.
For instance although Fiesole
may wish to focus on preparing better for any fires which may occur, nothing
prevents its residents from also being aware of what is involved in the
Keystone pipeline decision in the United States which will affect prevention
probably more than any other single development at this time. And although I wouldn’t necessarily advocate
it because I think it would be mostly ineffective, they also could write a
letter about it to president Obama so that he at least might know that people
all over the world are watching what he does or fails to do. Doing something about preparing for
fires (mitigation locally) while
writing such a letter (prevention internationally) would help to synergize and further
activate the concern and action for climate change by those involved. The important thing is to actually do
something and to remember that it is mostly by doing –and often by trial and
error- that we learn ever more about what to do and how to do it and develop
further both our capacities and our confidence and motivation for taking
further action.
No comments:
Post a Comment