Are institutions still relevant? Join the debate and offer your ideas at facebook.com/GlobeDebate
Professor Peter G. Martin is the co-founder of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics and a senior fellow at Massey College.
With anthropogenic climate change upon us, we are at a "Houston, we've had a problem" moment for the entire spaceship Earth. In this case Mission Control is, as in Pogo's "we have met the enemy," us. What should be the public policy response?
On the one hand an honourable mayor opines a "lot of folks" view: "Someday we'll have a low carbon world. And I think it would be deeply irresponsible for us to leave that [tar sands] resource in the ground so that it will be worthless for future generations. I think the public policy indication is clear."
On the other hand the recent Synthesis Report of the scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that "Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence)." Leaving that same resource in the ground is then of great worth to future generations.
Why the deep contradiction? Is our oil a buried treasure or the sword of Damocles? Why too is there more social disapprobation of farting in an elevator than fouling the global biosphere. It is partly a matter of perspective. Evolution has equipped us with instincts to function at the village level. Thinking globally and into the future, reaching out in space and time requires more than instinct, rather a conscious analytical yet creative effort.
Looking beyond what is known is the very essence of science, a culture based on curiosity and a thirst for evidence. There is a matter of communication too. A horse can be led to water, but should a bemused scientist at the well of knowledge be surprised to confront, at first, a horse's ass? At a fundamental level the role of science in society must be to broaden perspectives and provide evidence that enables society to grapple with issues that are complex. So too is its role in public policy.
An enlightened perspective on the insignificant size of planet Earth compared to the vast universe, on the miniscule time span of "civilization" compared to the age of the universe, and that life on this Earth will surely end, might lead to cosmic nihilism. But appreciating how we are so fundamentally a natural product of the universe we could instead be absorbed by what is still unknown, seeking evidence of life elsewhere in the universe from which, perhaps, some deeper meaning might be gained on where our cosmic footnote is to be placed.
The IPCC report concludes that climate change leads to increased risks that are unequally distributed. "Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development." But among the ethical dimensions raised there appear to be no absolutes. This is perplexing given the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Why are the unjustifiable deaths from climate change ignored, not abhorred? Being displaced in space and time they matter not? Are we numbed to accept "collateral damage?"
In discussing scenarios of mitigation and adaptation the IPCC report is hardly sanguine, but rather on the melancholic side of apocalyptic. The report is intentionally non-prescriptive on policy. Not ideally then, the report is a "here are the facts" hand-off to policy makers (and their political masters – us?) who are to run with the ball. The post-Kyoto record is not impressive, what with running in the wrong direction on targets and changing the goal posts – charitably, backsliding. Even assuming no outright fumble and some eventual traction, might gradualism with its emphasis on trade-offs, process trumping results, bring new meaning to studying something to death?
Business as usual, not to mention accelerated growth to avoid stranded assets, could for some, like that genius Wile E. Coyote, offer a fine mid-air view of the canyon wall but with reality lacking a video game's oops/reset, no soft landing from the fall. In confronting this complex situation there is palpable tension. On the one hand is hubris: there are no limits to human innovation, discovery, and development. But even then, do we rely on crises and emergencies with unjustifiable deaths to punctuate the process? Should we wait to pull the ripcord when only one metre off the ground, vainly hoping that "geo-engineering" will save the planet? On the other hand, is resilience even achievable or does a complex society, now our global one, inevitably collapse? There are high stakes, with no joy in "I told you so" after the fact.
It was with wise irony that Shakespeare penned "The evil that men do lives after them… They that have done this deed are honourable." Untaken opportunity to do good will surely be interred with our bones. Holding a significant fraction of the world reserves of fossil fuel gives us in Canada a moral advantage and responsibility for leadership toward reducing the risk of unjustifiable deaths and even mutual self-assured destruction. Scientists, policy makers, the whole continuum of us spanning all walks of life, are in the biosphere together. To paraphrase an earlier debate: This world needs leadership. We have an option. We must do better.
This silent spring we should pause to cry for our beloved planet but not let future generations become the inheritors of our fear. It is time to reject the scourge of irrationality, resist the opiates that so distract us, and redirect the power of persuasion that has produced so cynically such a socially pre-Copernican century of self. Alongside evidenced-based policymaking we must "give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space" and so close the empathy gap.
This article is part of a Globe and Mail series on the role of Canadian institutions in partnership with The Walter Gordon Symposium – a two-day public policy conference co-hosted by the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance and Massey College.
This year's symposium, titled Confronting Complexity: Better Ways Of Addressing Our Toughest Policy Problems, will explore how the media, private sector, governments, and supranational organizations factor into the policymaking process in our increasingly complex and changing society.