Lifestyles 2 Change

Climate Changes. The Miracle of Copenhagen

2009-11-20T04:19:00.001+08:00

MANILA - Are you looking for a miracle in Copenhagen in December? So am I. Only a miracle can save the day for climate change in that premier city of Northern Europe, Scandinavia's "most fantastic city" (Copenhagen.com). This city has the oldest monarchy in the world. Some things never change.

Know what? Climate change is too big for Copenhagen, that's why we have to pray to God for a miracle - and then we have to go ahead and work for it anyway so that God will answer our prayers. We have to have an unshakeable faith like a child.

So now all roads lead to Copenhagen, and hardly anybody is paying attention to somebody else. Everybody's talking at the same time. Some climates never change.

For one, nobody seems to be listening to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, who is in charge of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to be held 7-18 December 2009. I expect extreme weather at that time, intellectually speaking.

The latest I know who have spoken strongly, aiming to greatly influence the forthcoming Copenhagen conference, are 64 of the world's intrepid agriculture scientists and leaders; they have just come up with a statement, "Food Security and Climate Change: A Call for Commitment and Preparation" (croptrust.org), all of 421 choice words (including title). Their main message is this:

No credible or effective agreement to address the challenges of climate change can ignore agriculture and the need for crop adaptation to ensure the world’s future food supplies. We urge countries at the Copenhagen Conference to give due attention to crop diversity conservation and use as an essential element of the commitments they will make for climate change adaptation.

What they are saying is that the Treaty of Copenhagen cannot ignore the science of agriculture. It can but shouldn't. And why the emphasis on the multiplicity of crop species? They say:

Crop diversity is the raw material for crop adaptation. This diversity, primarily found today in seedbanks, contains the traits that plant breeders and farmers will need to incorporate into tomorrow’s resilient, climate-ready crop varieties. Agriculture - and people - cannot do without it.

Diversity is the spice of life, not only of science. We can live without science, but not without spices.

What I'm worried about is the diversity of the crop of opinions and statements about Copenhagen in December. I have written on this previously (see my "Climate Redux. Adapt, mitigate or reduce risk?" americanchronicle.com), pointing out among others that:

(1) While the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP talks about "UNDP Adaptation Strategy," it fails to state clearly what that strategy is.

(2) The Norwegian Church Aid is financing climate change adaptation in developing countries now; it argues that mitigation will make a difference only in 2030. I see that they haven't been to the Philippines since Typhoon Ketsana. Let them read my "Ketsana Madness. Marikina? A River Runs Through It" (americanchronicle.com).

(3) There is confusion leading to Copenhagen. I have yet to meet any warm body who has differentiated adaptation from mitigation. The problem with that is that they talk about adaptation and yet mean mitigation, and vice versa. If they don't define their terms properly, how can they discuss properly? To adapt is to modify one's behavior in response to an event that you know will happen again; to mitigate is to reduce the impact of that event the next time it does happen.

With climate change, crops need science today to adapt rapidly; people can adapt and mitigate on their own but they have to be able to differentiate the two. Clarity is necessary in management. While adaptation is long-term and mitigation is short-term, climate change compels us to address both needs simultaneously.

I have read at least 100 Web pages on climate change. Not only the diversity of minds on Copenhagen boggles me; climate change dwarfs the minds of even the mightiest countries in the world. So I'm not surprised that some people have come out with what appears as the hidden agenda of this United Nations conference: a super-government.

Janet Albrechtsen asks, "Has anyone read the Copenhagen Agreement?" (online.wsj.com) and then points out that Christopher Lord Monckton, adviser to Margaret Thatcher in those days, has revealed that there is already a rough draft of the agreement, the UNFCCC itself, dated 15 September 2009, that is 181 pages long, and that the draft treaty aims to establish a new transnational "government" that will "directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Treaty of Copenhagen." They're asking for another miracle.

Lord Monckton also says, "But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He is alarmed. I am not. I have already dismissed Copenhagen in my mind (see "I know what will happen in Copenhagen, americanchronicle.com). Truth to tell, in that essay I was encouraging a kind of Atlas Shrugged in reverse: the intellectuals of the Third World silencing the intellectuals of the First World with their own arguments against climate change.

Yes, may I know how can the United Nations create a super-government that can upset even the UN itself? The UN can hardly upset the affairs of a member country.

I doubt the United Nations is thinking of putting up "another" government - it cannot because it's too weak; it cannot even govern itself. The UN is the biggest example of runaway management - running in all directions. To my mind, the only UN agreement worth celebrating is the report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, IPCC. Those UN managers should go back to school (say Harvard), or study strategic management the way the most successful Harvard dropout did it: Bill Gates.

That is to say, we ought not to pin our hopes on any Treaty of Copenhagen. 181 pages, my God! Probably single-spaced, probably pdf. Even with a new, fast and gorgeous Adobe Reader 9, or even if you can convert with one click of the mouse into Word 2007 for quicker access, who would like to read online or onscreen a treaty that long, much less think well enough to sign it? "Brevity is the soul of wit," says Lord Polonius (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2). So, is the Treaty of Copenhagen the soul of without?

Imagine it happening in the Philippines in the 16th century when a treaty was being signed between ambitious Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and determined Filipino chieftain of Cebu Rajah Humabon - a blood compact was called for, and if they would have to sign 181 quilt-written pages with their blood, they would die before they could shake hands and vow to keep their word.

I raise the issue of blood because if you want a treaty to be respected, it would have to be signed with everyone's own blood, not with somebody's pen, whether Parker, Sheaffer or Cross.

So, I prescribe a blood compact for Copenhagen, to seal the treaty. And to save everybody the trouble of seeking order out of the chaos of 181 electronic pages, I say, "Delete!"

To save blood, in lieu of verbosity, the universe of reasonable minds, I prescribe creativity, the universe of fertile minds, that is, only 5 pages for the Treaty of Copenhagen. First page is Preamble; the next 4 pages are from the advice of Yvo de Boer, who insists that there are only "Four essential steps to the Copenhagen agreement" and clarity is essential in each one (project-syndicate.org); and I happen to agree with him. So here is the modern Treaty of Copenhagen as I see it myself and through the eyes of the UNFCCC chief, who has called for clarity:

Cover: Title and Preamble to the Treaty of Copenhagen

Page 1: Developed countries - Clarity of targets: "We promise this much to reduce our emission of greenhouse gases. No more, no less." (Adaptation)

Page 2: Major developing countries: Clarity of limits: "We promise this much as limit to growth to regulate our emission of greenhouse gases. No less, no more." (Adaptation)

Page 3: Developed countries: Clarity in financing: "Now then, this is how the developed countries are going to finance the necessary adaptation and mitigation programs in the developing countries." (Both)

Page 4: Developed countries: Clarity in governance: "And this is how we are going to manage the funds."

By the way, you have a huge saving of 97.24% of the paper if you have a treaty that is only 5 pages long instead of 181.

Let them debate 7-18 December on those broad terms. I'm sure Copenhagen will draw blood, lots of blood. Notice that 3 out of 4, the developed countries are on top of everything. They wouldn't agree without battle, would they?

And should the Big Guys renege on their promises, the Treaty of Copenhagen will remain on paper. At least, it's environment-friendly. It's only 5 letter-size sheets of bond paper, not too much waste of tree.

Even so, whether the Treaty of Copenhagen that everybody wants will come out, or a blood compact will happen, or nothing will, in the end it will have to be the countries themselves who will have to help themselves. Don't forget: Copenhagen in December is not for mendicants! For no countries are so poor that they cannot help themselves, or none are so rich that they can only help themselves. Some climates should change.

In the end, the rule is: Think globally, act locally. The best example of that in climate change is the Cities for Climate Protection Adaptation Initiative of Australia, as they have come up with the "Local Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit" to prove that they mean what they say and say what they mean (click the link if you want to download the pdf from iclei.org). With some adaptation, I want to communicate that the Australian toolkit should prove valuable here, there and everywhere.

Don't forget the wisdom of the ages. And don't forget the mass media: They too have the right to be taught what they don't understand.

In communicating the knowledge of science and certainty of folklore towards application for climate change, I respectfully offer the old AIDA technique. A for Awareness, I for Interest, D for Desire, and A for Action. In advance, I give Copenhagen in December A for Awareness, that's it, that's all. Actually, the 3 others make up political will; the Interest, Desire and Action will not emanate from Copenhagen; it will emanate from us. If we will.

Climate Citizens. FAO’s hunger & paradigm shifts

2009-11-15T22:49:00.008+08:00

Manila - Today, 11 November 2009, is the beginning of Climate Citizenship (my term). For all that, even in the midst of world hunger, in all innocence or guilt, we all need to make a paradigm shift or two.

The Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO has launched an online anti-hunger campaign (fao.org). Director General Jacques Diouf of FAO announces his personal concern and declares he is going on a 24-hour hunger strike and calling on a global 24-hour hunger strike against worldwide hunger. The FAO is holding a 3-day world summit on food security 16-18 November 2009 in Rome; almost at the same time, 16-19 November 2009, in Manila, a world conference on rice genetics will be held, led by the International Rice Research Institute, IRRI (prweb.com). More genetics to feed more of the hungry. Well, I wish the FAO and IRRI luck. They will need more than a 24-hour hunger strike, more than even a 3-day conference of world leaders and science experts, but my wish is all I can command.

“Eradicating hunger is no pipe dream,” Diouf says. “The battle against hunger can be won” (quoted by Ariel David, boston.com). Of course! That’s why I want more than just to eradicate hunger. And IRRI can breed us a dream crop: Golden Rice, with Vitamin A. Certainly! But I want more than just dream the possible. There is no challenge in that. I want to dream the impossible!

Pay attention now: My creative mind tells me that any strike for or against hunger is calling attention to hunger. Creative thinking gives me this paradigm shift, and so I’m calling on the capitalists to invest more wisely than just invest in hunger, and my double-bladed advice is:

(A1) You want to invest in hunger? Please don’t!

Because you have better use of your TIME: time, intellect, money & means, and energies (including biofuels). To spend TIME eradicating hunger is investing in hunger. You are assuming that hunger is a given, that it should always be there. The hungry we have always with us because we think so poorly of them, those of us who think not on an empty stomach but on an empty head.

You know why you are fixated on hunger? You’re too logical, left-brain-right-brain thinking. You are too focused, I mean, you’re paying too much attention to the same things you have heard so many times before. You are thinking critically, not creatively. You are not looking at the problem with a bird’s-eye view. The birds always have a better view of things: they can see forward and backward, including cause and effect. If birds can think, they must be doing what Edward de Bono prescribes: lateral thinking. Surely, you are more intelligent than a dog that practices vertical thinking: He digs exactly the same hole but deeper and deeper? He doesn’t know enough to explore the horizon and dig more holes to find more bones. So, explore the horizon for better bones, bonehead!

No Sir, hunger is not the problem; rather, hunger is the symptom. You don’t try and eradicate the symptom, because that’s palliative, like getting rid of the headache when you have a mouth infection. Eradicate is also too negative, too strong a treatment. To think more creatively now, don’t think hunger; instead, think food. ICRISAT does. IRRI does.

You know why the poor we will always have with us? Because we think of the poor - we don’t think of the rich. We invest on the poor, when we should invest on the rich!

Instead, why not deal on the positive and invest in the opposite of hunger, which is abundance? So:

(A2) Instead, invest in the opposite: Plenty.

Considering the capitalist world in its long-standing incarnation, that’s an impossible dream. But listen to Microsoft’s Bill Gates espouse and expand on creative capitalism. Among other people, I told you about it already a year ago – see my “Bill Gates, Nobel Prize for Economics 2008! Well He Inspires US to Creative Science” (28 October 2008, americanchronicle.com).

Paradigm shift: He didn’t ask the capitalists to save the poor; instead, he asked them to serve the poor. Very practical-minded sort of guy. A genius. That’s starting not from the perspective of the poor but from the rich. When it comes to knowledge diffusion or technology dissemination, creative capitalism is the only capitalist tool I love and would like to take advantage of!

“Creative capitalism,” explain Tracy Williams, Michael Deich & Josh Daniel, “starts from a fundamentally different premise - working with the incentives faced by business to find common ground between their interests and those of the poor” (creativecapitalism.typepad.com). Since it’s hardly ever explored and yet it promises salvation, this has to be sacred ground!

So, as a businessman, how do you invest on the idea of poor being rich? Simple. Let’s take the farmers of the tropics, especially those in the dryland areas; for instance, if you help the farmers:

(a) Produce more? You will buy & sell more.
(b) Create more with less? For a bank, this multiplies resources.
(d) Do more conservation agriculture? Then they can save more of US. The farmers feed us in the Philippines, but we don’t treat them like they do in the United States: with enough love, and with more subsidy.

For all that, we have more climates to change; here are a few more:
(hypo)critical attitudes
lack of political will
pandemic mendicancy
First-World liberalism (meaning licentious)
Third-World journalism (meaning third-rate).

If you are in the art & science & business of agriculture, can you improve on the example of the International Center for Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)? You can make the paradigm shift and help change:

(1) The climate of water management. Global climate change means the coming of more droughts in the tropics in the future. So, breed those crops that can tough it out with the long, hot summers. ICRISAT has bred varieties of water-miser pearl millet, sorghum, pigeon pea, peanut, and chickpea.

(2) The climate of fertilizer application. Since people tend to apply more fertilizers than they should, to get them to use the recommended amounts is already an achievement. But you also know that chemical fertilizers contribute to global warming, so when you prescribe micro-dosing - the technology of ICRISAT - to me you are prescribing climate citizenship. It’s a patriotic thing.

(3) The climate of credit control. They call it warrantage, and the FAO and ICRISAT and partners initiated it in West Africa (September 2007, entomology.unl.edu). Also called inventory credit, it’s an old idea whose time has come again:

Warrantage is a credit system in which farmers stock their produce at harvest when prices are low with a local entrepreneur, and receive cash on credit. Together, they sell the produce about 4 months later when prices are much higher, and achieve up to 40% (higher) profitability. The system allows farmers to raise cash to buy farm inputs including fertilizers and improved seeds (for the next cropping).

(4) The climate of science at work. In 2006, from Medak District, Andhra Pradesh in India, ICRISAT and Rusni Distilleries reported success in their joint attempt to produce commercial quantities of bioethanol using the patented extraction technology of Rusni and the sweet sorghum breed of ICRISAT (icrisat.org). The bioethanol plant, costing US$ 7 million, now benefits 3,000 Medak farmers directly, not to mention the multiplier effect of the value added by bioethanol to sweet sorghum. That’s why I wrote, “Sugarcane is sweet, but sweet sorghum is sweet smart” (see my “Smart Revolution,” 16 January 2008, americanchronicle.com).

(5) The climate of empowerment working. You haven’t heard of empowerment through technology (icrisat.org). At the village of Umra in Maharashtra State in India, ICRISAT has touched off a second non-violent Indian revolution. I didn’t see it like this a year or two ago but now I say this is a flowering of ICRISAT’s mantra, Science with a human face (icrisat.org). At Umra, the ICRISAT groundnut (peanut) production package has improved yields, incomes - and, if unexpectedly, social relations. This is India surprising even the Indians! One thing had led to another: Better science led to better crops that led to higher yields that led to higher incomes that led to higher demand for labor that led to higher in-migration of labor that led to higher wages that led to better working conditions. Ah! And the balance of political power shifted - the landowning households (mostly upper caste) “consciously began improving relations with the labor community, and for the first time a lambada (tribal) became deputy head of Umra’s village government,” Cynthia Bantilan reports. And more marriages and family ties with those outside Umra. You must know

India

, the land of the caste system, a revolution waiting to happen. So now it has begun to happen, thanks also to ICRISAT.

But leave hunger alone, please. Hunger is mine!

This time, my hunger is different. I hunger for the sharing of Filipino leaders who want to change the political climate of my country:

Share with me, Noynoy Aquino, what you have that the other would-be candidates for President don’t? So far, you have demonstrated popularity – of the Aquino name.

Share with me, Manny Villar, how can you propagate entrepreneurship? So far you have demonstrated your entrepreneurship.

Share with me, Gibo Teodoro, how can you cultivate scholarship with soldiership (and vice versa) at the same time? So far you have demonstrated yours.

Share with me, Chiz Escudero, how can you convince the youth to act like they are the hope of the fatherland? Because they are, unless you show them otherwise.

And I hunger for the mass media in the Philippines, including the blogging community, to stop flaunting press freedom and start changing their message from bad to good. Surely, Catholics or Protestants, they can recognize dreadful from grateful; they can differentiate construct from destruct. Unless - they’re verbally challenged.

I hunger for the sharing of the newspapers who want to change everything:

Share with me, Philippine Daily Inquirer, how can you contribute to national development aside from cutting down people to the quick or to the size you want? So far, you have demonstrated editorial pride.

Share with me, Philippine Star, how can you develop the power of the printed word to convince Filipinos to contribute to the benefit of their country instead of to her misery? So far, you have demonstrated being #2.

Share with me, Manila Bulletin, how can you excite us when you write about exciting news in agriculture in a boring manner? So far, you have demonstrated the journalistic prose of 50 years ago.

It’s time for climate change in the mass media, my other impossible dream:
Stop the shaming and start the sharing!

Or as our international singing sensation Charice puts it in another context, and with a smile: “Share, share.”

Climate Redux. Adapt, mitigate or reduce risk?

2009-11-06T07:26:00.007+08:00

Climate Change has forced a paradigm shift among radicals and conservatives: We have seen the enemy, and it is all of US. Sadly, for now we see, as in a glass, darkly. I hope soon, we shall see face to face.

Confidently now, everyone's talking about climate change, and there are two major responses that have so far come out: adaptation and mitigation. One is proactive, the other reactive. Actually, I have just found that those terms are not appropriately defined, and that's the first problem, because people assume that they can distinguish one from the other, and therefore can intelligently proceed to decide what to do based on that position. Shifting sands.

To illustrate, here are some of my readings:

The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility of Australia is convening the 2010 International Climate Change Adaptation Conference to be held 29 June - 1 July 2010 at the Gold Coast Convention Centre in Queensland, Australia (nccarf.edu.au). Not only science but decision making in the midst of uncertainty will be tackled. I like that. If you can't decide when you don't have all the facts, you can't manage.

The Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) is a research and capacity development program that "aims to improve the capacity of African countries to adapt to climate change in ways that benefit the most vulnerable" (idrc.ca). The whole program is science-based. However, it does not attempt to demarcate what it refers to as adaptation.

The United Nations Development Programme supports "Adaptation To Climate Change" and that includes identifying financing for initiatives (undp.org). It calls for concrete actions to reduce vulnerability of the poor and increase their capacity to adapt. It has a headline 'UNDP Adaptation Strategy' and yet fails to state clearly what that strategy is.

The Climate Change Adaptation Forum in Australia will be held 24 November in Melbourne and 26 November 2009 in Sydney (dealersgroup.com.au). It says, "Organizations need to develop strategy and business models that are adaptive and resilient" on top of mitigation. Let's wait and see.

There is an International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative for Australia's neighboring island countries (ausaid.gov.au). The emphasis is on assessment of vulnerability and planning adaptation measures in response, meaning risk reduction, not really adaptation.

The European Union is preparing a comprehensive EU climate-change adaptation strategy for after 2013 (euractiv.com). While the language is that of adaptation, the actions being called for are in the nature of mitigation.

The United Nations approved in 2007 a "climate change adaptation fund" in Bali, Indonesia (scidev.net). The fund is intended both for conservation of resources and reducing risks to peoples, including early warning systems and new agricultural techniques. (So where's the fund now?)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "stressed the urgency of climate adaptation measures for the most vulnerable" in a recent visit to Mongolia (climate-l.org). He mentioned the need for countries to transition to low-carbon economies and to be adaptable. 'Climate change carries no passport,' he said. 'And no country is immune.' Climate change covers a multitude of sins!

The World Health Organization and the UNDP have a joint project called "Health Adaptation to Climate Change" funded by the Global Environment Facility (who.int). The goal is to decrease health vulnerability. That is more risk reduction and less adaptation.

UN-Habitat supports "The Cities in Climate Change Initiative" (unhabitat.org). It calls mostly for risk management, including risk reduction. The pilot cities are Sorsogon (Philippines), Esmeraldas (Ecuador), Maputo (Mozambique), and Kampala (Uganda). It calls for raising awareness, education and capacity-building. The cities have to learn to do it themselves what they have to do.

The US Government Accountability Office is talking about "climate change adaptation and strategic federal planning to help officials make more informed decisions" (gao.gov). It notes that there is no coordinated national approach to adaptation. What's the matter, guys - storm scattered you?

There was an International Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Change in West African Agriculture in April 2009 (wmo.int). The expected outcome was an enhanced capacity to identify and understand impacts and vulnerabilities and to respond to such for sustainable development in West Africa. I would expect that the report be out by now, 6 months later.

The City of London launched in August 2008 the "world's first" strategy to prepare London for climate change, London's Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (London.gov.uk). The strategy proposes the greening of the city to keep it cool during summer. Green and bear it!

Under the Alaska Climate Change Strategy is the Adaptation Advisory Group of the Governor's Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change (climatechange.alaska.gov). The Group is tasked to focus on areas such as how to address impacts on infrastructure, human health, and ecosystems. Big words, big work.

The Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries has called on leaders of the world by issuing a statement: "Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society" (insaindia.org). It emphasizes that "the strategic approach to adaptation must be based on the principle of sustainable development." What about mitigation?

There is the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation project sponsored by CIFOR and CATIE with financial assistance from the European Union (cifor.cgiar.org). The focus is on forests and how they contribute to sustainable development. I can tell you from where I sit: In the Philippines, the forests don't contribute much - they're mostly gone.

Norwegian Church Aid is financing climate change adaptation in developing countries (kirkensnodhjelp.no). The emphasis is on adaptation, as it is argued that mitigation will not start to make a difference until 2030. But we have to start to make a difference now.

And right down my alley, the "Climate Change Adaptation Award" among the many Earth Journalism Awards sponsored by Cop15 Copenhagen - unfortunately, the deadline for submission of nominees was 7 September 2009 (awards.earthjournalism.org). Awards notwithstanding, the webpage says (ANN):

It is crucial for nations around the world, their citizens and the media as a whole to grasp the need for adaptation and behavior change in the face of climate change, and to embrace efforts made to minimize its effects that use the best of our ingenuity.

While it is true that, as the webpage says, 'the media plays a vital role in informing the public on how to adapt to climate change in matters that are sensitive to the contexts and situations in which people live,' the Climate Change Adaptation Award assumes that the media does understand what climate change is all about; that, I submit, is a very dangerous postulation. The media people themselves need very much to be educated on climate change, and fast!

All in all, you will note that in the above websites visited, the single word most used as a needed reaction to climate change is adaptation; however, in application, it actually refers to both adaptation and mitigation.

Out of the ordinary, I found both Spain and my own country the Philippines as seriously considering both adaptation and mitigation. As far as I know, both are necessary. Even then, I have a problem with both.

Spain's National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (circle-era.net) calls for mitigating human interference; the bigger plan is for adaptation to climate change to be integrated into the planning systems of Spain. However, the document does not clearly differentiate the two even as the neat conceptual framework shows the arrow of adaptation going right and the arrow of mitigation going left. In fact, in the succeeding pages of the document, the plan completely does not mention mitigation at all.

Arguably much better, the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729; you can download the full text here: mndlaw.net), signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 23 October 2009, creating the Climate Change Commission, defines the technical terms used, as it should. Thus:

Sec 3 (a) “Adaptation” refers to the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Sec 3 (n) “Mitigation” in the context of climate change, refers to human intervention to address anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all GHG, including ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes.

And yes, I have a problem with all that! (I have already pointed out a major error in judgment of RA 9729; see my "Philippine Climate Change Act is self-defeating!" Blogspot.com).

Here, I want to point out that the definitions in that law are not particularly inspired. The lawmakers did not define their terms first thing so as to make them mutually exclusive - somebody else or they probably defined the terms after the law was done; that is, they discussed the law without delimiting their premises first.

And I think that in fact, that's the problem with all those national and international plans as responses to climate change, from Alaska to Australia to the United States to Zimbabwe, including the United Nations and its agencies - so, they can't tell which side of the coin is up: Adaptation or Mitigation, Heads or Tails. Do they realize that in fact, it is but a single coin?

To establish the case, first, let me refer to a reliable source, my favorite, the American Heritage Dictionary. It tells us:

To "adapt" is "to make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation." Synonyms: adjust, conform, fit, reconcile.

To "mitigate" is "to moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity." Synonyms: relieve, allay, alleviate, assuage, lighten, palliate.

Now then, with RA 9729, it aggravates me that:

One, the law of my country says adaptation also refers to anything that "moderates harm" - the reference is mistaken; that's the other side of the coin, Tails; that's mitigation.

Two, the law of my country says mitigation also refers to the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions or ozone-depleting substances - the reference is mistaken; that's the other side of the coin, Heads; that's adaptation.

I anticipate therefore that when they try to come up with the implementing guidelines for RA 9729, they will argue on methods, how to get there from here, because they are not clear exactly where is here. Therefore, there is the imminent danger that they will emphasize either adaptation or mitigation, not address them as both urgent. This is an emergency!

The way I see it, the 2 intelligent responses to climate change at any given time can be stated simply:
(1) Reduce pollution. (That's adaptation.)
(2) Reduce risk. (That's mitigation.)

That's clear enough, isn't it? So, "disaster risk reduction" is mitigation, period. By definition, by its very nature, DRR doesn't include adaptation; it can't. The very title of the GECHS Report 2008 of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (gechs.org) has the correct delineation: "Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation And Human Security."

Simplify, simplify! said the American Henry David Thoreau, so I will do more for the Philippine Senate and House. I have already simplified it actually: "reduce pollution" and "reduce risk." To simplify further:

In one word, the proper climate change action is? Reduce.

Now, I did imply that adaptation and mitigation are two sides of the same coin. Well, the way I see it, they are. When you reduce pollution, you reduce the risk of climate change occurring, right? Adaptation leading to Mitigation. When you reduce the risk of people suffering from the climate changing, as in moving out all those squatters from riverbanks, you have to follow that up and make sure that you reduce pollution in the new location, right? Mitigation leading to Adaptation.

The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (unisdr.org) says, "Disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change share the same ultimate goal of reducing vulnerability to weather and climate hazards." No Sir, I think that is incorrect. They do not share such goal; in fact, they're opposites. That is to say, decreasing vulnerability is mitigation; increasing invulnerability is adaptation. 2 sides of 1 coin, not the same side. One side doesn't make a coin.

I have just been browsing some more, and I find in the GECHS Report 2008 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines climate change adaptation as "adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities." That definition for adaptation definitely includes the concept of mitigation. If that Nobel-Prize-for-Peace definition is correct, then everybody should stop talking about mitigation as well as disaster risk reduction and just talk about adaptation.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization is different, as it talks about "Climate Change Adaptation And Mitigation In The Food And Agriculture Sector" (ftp.fao.org). And yet, incongruously, it adopts the IPCC definition of adaptation. Some things never change.

Likewise, the people of California are now discussing their 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy in a draft form (climatechange.ca.gov). It calls for climate adaptation and mitigation to complement each other. Even so, as does the FAO, California adopts the IPCC definition of adaptation, which dilutes, at the very least, the role of mitigation as a reaction to climate change.

Now then, since I never give up so easily, here's another attempt of mine to simplify climate change actions:
To adapt is to reduce the causes of climate change: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane.
To mitigate is to reduce the effects of climate change: death, destruction, diminution, dislocation.

Yes, we need both adaptation and mitigation at the same time. You can't have one without the other!

And no, it is not correct to state that the poor are the most vulnerable, or the low-lying areas are - ladies and gentlemen, Sir or Madam, as the case may be, climate change is no respecter of persons, or places. Wasn't that dramatically shown to the world by Super Typhoon Ketsana in Marikina near Manila on 26 September 2009, just a few weeks ago? Government officials estimated the total economic damage to run easily to $400 million; in a small country like the Philippines, that's big money. That is why it cannot be business as usual. We all have lifestyles to change.

Why am I doing this? As an online journalist, I'm trying to help the countries communicate properly to their own people first and to the rest of the world next. Climate change is too important a subject matter to be left to experts with their ambiguities!

As for me, being a practical man, I want to simplify some more and use the second most-memorable 3 words in the world as my climate change actions:
Reduce.
Reuse.
Recycle.

To identify stakeholders to change

2009-11-02T13:31:00.002+08:00

I came across a very interesting webpage on 'Social Change' by the City of Albuquerque prepared by the Climate Action Task Force and recommended to Mayor Martin J Chavez (cabq.gov). The part of the stakeholders caught my attention. Below are some of the stakeholders identified by the Task Force working groups:

Residents - General public, Parents and students, Seniors, Neighborhood associations, Sports parents, Hikers and bicyclists, Homeowners, Landlords, Farmers, Greenhouse builders, Grocery shoppers

Businesses - Utility leaders, business owners, green energy business owners, local farmers, Grocery store owners

Media - Key local leaders, reporters, editors, schools, university researchers, thought leaders

Institutions - Department of Health, Department of Agriculture

Development industry - Future urban farmers

Transportation industry - Department of Transportation, City Transportation Department, others

Designers - Urban planners, city inspectors, landscape architects, design engineers

Association leaders - Solar Energy Association, Rebuild New Mexico, Sierra Club

So many! And all the above, I understand, is only a partial list. What I can say is that if you ask me, I can simplify the list above and simply say, 'The stakeholders in climate change are none other than Everyone.' Everyone is affected, and I mean everyone. We are all in this together.

The webpage goes on to state:

While communications to the general public will be ongoing, we recommend that the stakeholders be identified by their 'readiness to change' to prioritize communications.

If you ask me, 'readiness to change' is not a precondition to conduct a communication campaign. In fact, the aim of the communication campaign should be, as minimum, for people to acquire 'readiness to change.'

A communication campaign is always for change. It goes through these AIDA stages:

Awareness - You want to tell the news to the people about some development that either they don't know anything about or don't realize its significance to their lives.

Interest- You want to increase the knowledge of the people about such development so that they will become more concerned about it.

Desire - You want to increase their concern so that it will graduate to a need to do something positive about such development.

Action - You want the people to take action, more than just yearn to do something.

Full, Full, Full!

2009-11-02T12:04:00.003+08:00

'Full, full, full!' was what Oprah famously said of Charice's first and amazing performance in her TV show, 'Oprah,' aired 12 May 2008, when the young Filipina was 16 years old, when the bigger world began taking notice of the extreme singing performer she was, is. Oprah was awe-struck; so was the rest of the world, as far we know. Charice is the little girl with the whole, huge, divine singing voice the world has hardly ever known or heard before. Or since.

Inspired by Charice's story, let me tell you another 'full, full, full' extreme story, from the Philippines. This one is about a Filipino multi-millionaire, Juanito Dela Cruz, who had 13 highly successful companies, the most successful of them being the one that manufactured Japanese zippers; he was shipping out of the country 13 million zippers every month. He loved zippers because they always suggested to him possibilities that were open. He had forgiven the Japanese for their World War II sins. He was very creative, his mind always searching for open doors, if not open windows. That's why he had 13 incredibly successful companies: chain of bookstores, fruit juices, telephone, cell phones, wireless Internet, personal computers & peripherals, chain of fast food restaurants, real estate, middle-income houses, toothpaste, shoes, chain of department stores, and zippers.

He was prolific in another way too. He had three sons: Arsenio, Bernard, and Chris. Triplets. He also had 2 other sons and 8 daughters. 13 children, 1 wife, no adoption, no extra-marital affairs. No wine, women but song for him. And the Internet, hours and hours of surfing, and blogging. He had many ideas he wanted to share with the world, in case the world was surfing, including about climate change. He famously blogged, 'If we don't minimize climate change, climate change will minimize us.'

Juanito was getting old in the matter of years, though not in the matter of mind. So, on his 69th birthday 11 November, he called his eldest 3 sons, the triplets, while he was lying on his bed, because he was sick. Besides, he thought it was a funny thing to do, telling his sons the truth while he was lying.

'Sons,' Juanito said, 'I have maybe 20 years more in me, I pray to God, but that would be all. So, before time runs out on me, I want you to do something about your lives. I want one of you to be the President and CEO of all my companies. The best of you. But you have to show me the best manager in you first.'

He didn't know who of his sons had the leadership qualities in him, and he wasn't really in a hurry to find out. Not only that; he knew you can't hurry out the manager in you. You can't do that with an MBA. You need experience, both in succeeding and in failing, and that is an immersion process. Somebody can take the credit for your success, but as to failure, you have to do it yourself.

He brought out 3 envelopes, each with an ATM card for 1 million dollars. Philippine National Bank, BancNet.

'I am now giving you the first part of your inheritance from me. Here's your ATM card for 1 million dollars, each of you. I don't care how you spend it, just spend it! I want you to come back to me in exactly 13 years and show me that you can truly fill up this room all by yourself alone. The one who can do that will become majority stockholder of all my 13 companies, owning 87% of all stocks. President and CEO 13 times.'

Juanito wanted to find out who was the most creative of the triplets. This is the story of the prodigal son in reverse; not only that, the father was in danger of making not just 1 but 3 prodigal sons.

I forgot to tell you that the sons were all of 13 years of age. And they went their separate ways and never talked to each other again for the next 13 years. And since we never heard of them again, and had nothing to do with their lives after they left, the many years rolled by very fast.

On the 11th of November 13 years later, they all gathered at the palatial home of their father in an old Spanish mansion in Old Manila, the triplets, their 8 sisters and the 2 other and younger brothers in full attendance. The mother was also there.

'Happy Birthday, Dad!' they all said.

'So, sons, what have you to say now that I'm 82?'

Arsenio was the first to speak, being the eldest by 13 seconds.

'Dad, I brought you Heat,' he said. And he brought out a gas range and ignited all 13 burners. In a few minutes, the heat filled the room; all of the room became hot, anywhere you were. Everyone said so.

'Full,' said Arsenio.

'Fool,' said Juanito. 'Hot air. Next!'

'Dad, I brought you Success.' That was Bernard, younger than Arsenio by 13 seconds. He brought out 13 boxes, full of his medals, trophies, awards, citations, recognitions, commendations and honorary degrees. He was indeed a high achiever, and he was hugely proud of his accomplishments. He made everyone envious of him. His life was indeed filled with much success, and his pride filled the room.

'Full,' said Bernard.

'Fool,' said Juanito again. 'Pride before the fall. Next!'

From out of nowhere Chris, the third son, youngest of the triplets by 26 seconds, quietly brought out 13 red Bibles, counting them out one by one, the same New Revised Standard Version, 2008 Roman Catholic edition. Everybody laughed, including the father. You can associate the Bible with creativity, but only in the sense of God the Creator. Not the mother. You can always count on the mother to take your side if you are a son, even if she doesn't understand you. She was smiling.

Why not the King James Version, the KJV? Why the NRSV? Because Chris knew that the KJV and the NRSV were loved both by the Protestants and the Roman Catholics for their majestic language, but the KJV contained much error in translation. The NRSV corrected the errors of the KJV while retaining much of its magnificent language. Besides, Chris secretly knew, through his mother, that his Dad loved that version of the Bible himself.

But the father saw a problem, a huge problem. That's what fathers always do, don't they - see a huge problem with one son or another?

'Ho!' Juanito said. 'I love that book, but how can 13 little things like those fill this huge room? Ha! Show me. Maybe you can show me the Roman Catholic Church in that, the one in Rome?'

The sarcasm wasn't lost on Chris too. Fathers are always like that - they can't wait to be shown. They like to open their big mouths first.

I the narrator forgot to tell you that Dad's bedroom was not only huge; it was mammoth. If you want to be biblical about it, it was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. All of 135 meters long, 22.5 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high. Higher than a 3-story building.

Chris smiled kindly at his old Dad. 'Live well, laugh often, love much' had become his motto in life. He said:

Full, full, full! I love you, Dad. The 13 copies of the Bible were only for show, to get you to laugh. I succeeded, didn't I? Dad, you forgot that the Bible contains Noah's Ark, which measured exactly like this room: 135 meters long, 22.5 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high! In one calculation, its deck area could hold 36 lawn tennis courts.

Quiet filled the room. Counting once. Juanito clutched his breast but didn't say anything. Sometimes fathers are speechless when assaulted with the truth.

And Dad, the Bible contains the River Jordan, where John baptized Jesus, remember? Not only that. A voice from above, from a pedestal certainly much higher than 13.5 meters, proclaimed, 'This is my Son, of whom I am well pleased!'

Quiet filled the room again. Counting twice. Juanito's eyes widened but still didn't say anything. He was still clutching his breast. Sometimes fathers are speechless when they know they're beaten. They know better.

And Dad, the Bible tells us of the scene in the manger where Mother Mary had lain Baby Jesus, with Father Joseph looking and with the shepherds adoring on Earth and the angels singing up high among the clouds, 'Glory to God, Peace on Earth to men of good will.'

And quiet filled the room again. Counting thrice. Juanito looked up but still didn't say anything. Sometimes fathers can't speak when good will assaults them.

And Dad, the Bible tells us of the house of the rich man to where Jesus went, and when people derided him for hobnobbing with sinners he said, 'Don't you know that it is the sick who needs a doctor?'

'Say no more!' said Juanito. 'I am sick. Bring me to the doctor, quick! But I'm glad I have a son who knows how to fill a room with quiet, with the light of goodness, thank God.'

And the 8 sisters applauded, the 2 other sons applauded, and the mother applauded, and their applause filled that enormous room with their gladness.

Full, full, full!

Then they rushed Juanito to the hospital.

Back at the Philippine General Hospital, the heart specialist said that Juanito was just suffering from heartburn, that's all. And Juanito said as he stepped out of the car when they reached home: 'Fool, fool, full!' I don't know if the family noticed the exact words, the inflection, but I did. I was the family driver and of course he was always talking to me.

And so they all lived happily ever after. And why is that? Chris' heart was too full of love to be selfish even to his brothers who were. He knew that if he loved only those who loved him, what good was that? Even fools did that among themselves. He had known that the world was full of fools who were full of themselves. Full, full, full! (An original story by Frank A Hilario)

Change climate? Look at me, not energy!

2009-10-28T22:14:00.015+08:00

MANILA - Today, a radical new view on climate change flashed in my mind. I now present to the world a new equation, my highly unusual, very original

E ≠ c2.

Energy is not equal to Climate Change. Before I explain it, let me say this is a radical non-equation that I believe at the very least matches the power and significance of Albert Einstein's genius of an equation

E = mc2

Energy equals Matter times the Speed of Light squared. Einstein's formula is in the positive, and therein lies its atomic power; mine is more in the negative, actually, and therein lies its universal power. With Einstein's formula, he intimates how the power of matter can be harnessed by man; with my non-formula that suggests another formula, I intimate how the power of man can be harnessed over the limitations of energy.

With E ≠ c2, I will show you why we can never solve climate change unless we shift our paradigm from matter to mind.

Here's where I'm coming from. Let me explain by first assuming that the times, they're a-changing. Are all you radicals, rebels, revolutionaries, recalcitrants - antis of all kinds - are you aware of what's happening overall? Are you paying attention? If you don't mind, never mind.

These are the times that fry men's souls - if you have souls. If you don't, I know you have bodies, and that's enough for me. Your bodies are being targeted right now, not your ideologies - I'm assuming you really have binding ideologies and not merely hidden agendas.

So I'm not worried anymore about enemies of the state, enemies of peace, enemies of the body politic, enemies of reason, enemies of marriage, enemies of gender, enemies of family, enemies of population, enemies of the rich (I don't belong there), enemies of the poor (including the poor themselves who would rather not help themselves).

We have a common enemy, and it's bigger than all of us combined. And its defeat must be as soon as possible, ASAP.

Bill Bigelow quotes Bill McKibben (rethinkingschools.org) saying 'that the question is of transcendent urgency, that it represents one overarching global civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.' If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.

And just what is the question? Climate Change, which is not a question anymore. It's an equation, and it's mine:

Climate Change = Global Warming + Global Cooling.

And who are those who blast into the atmosphere the most greenhouse gases that lead directly to climate change? The richest countries; and of course, the US is #1. Shame on #1! The poorest countries suffer more for the sins of the richest. The quality of mercy is quite strained.

The problem is that climate change means nothing to most people, and top leaders of the world simply ignore it. I'm talking about the adults of this world. They're hopeless. Only the youth remain to be our hope, as the Philippine national hero Jose Rizal put it in Spanish, la bella esperanza de la patria mia (the fair hope of my fatherland).

As to you adults, including winners of the Nobel Prize for Peace: Your nuclear threat, or your genocidal tendency, or your racial vengeance, or your imperial designs are nothing compared to this looming global menace. We are in all this together, enemies to the end if we don't watch out and do what must be done. And the end is not as you like it.

Their Old Testament times are visited on our New Testament times. It's David versus Goliath once more. Do we have enough stones for our slingshots? Actually, we need only one stone: our faith. (What can I say about those who leave their faith behind when they report to work in a government office? Pathetic.)

It works this way:

The popular paradigm is to look at climate change as the issue of energy use and abuse. ±E = ±c2. That is, plus or minus Energy equals plus or minus Climate Change. It's just a matter of Hot & Cold, right?

Fire and Ice
Robert Frost, American

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

I just love Robert Frost; he published this in December 1920. It's obvious, isn't it? Yes. But: If you see only the obvious, you're only half thinking.

89 years after Fire and Ice, it just occurred to me a few minutes ago (at about 1300 hours 28 October) that looking at climate change as an energy problem is wrong. Climate change is neither fire nor ice. In ±E = ±c2, Energy is only the symptom of the disease; in fact, climate change simply is the sign of the disease; it is neither the cause nor the disease itself!

Degradation is the disease. You cannot degrade matter, right? You can only transform it. Neither energy. The real cause of the disease has to do with our degrading lifestyles, not with our spending energies. The true cause of Climate Change is ±Materialism, Plus or Minus Materialism. Materialism degrades Earth; it does not ennoble Man.

Energy is neutral; Materialism is not. Energy is subject to wise use; Materialism can only be abuse.

No wonder we're having an excruciatingly difficult time solving ±Climate Change - we are looking at the huge thing with crossed eyes. We have the lights that failed.

The correct equation is ±L = ±c2. Meaning, plus or minus Lifestyles equals plus or minus Climate Change.

For the Christians, they must look into the mirror of Christianity to check their lifestyles and resolve Climate Change. For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. We must all act on the basis of the common good. If you ask us Roman Catholics what we think constitutes the common good, we will have to consult the Teaching Authority of the Church who must consult not only the Holy Bible but also Holy Traditions. Right now, all I can frankly say is that the Roman Catholic Church does not advocate materialism:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Matthew 6: 19-21 NRSV

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi, Indian

God invented Matter; man invented Materialism. In the United States, they call it Gross Domestic Product. I call it Gross. Capitalism is neutral; materialism is not.

The best things in life aren't things - Art Buchwald, American

The high price of materialism is Decay. -Materialism, minus Materialism is the solution to the cause of the disease called Degradation that is masquerading as simply Climate Change. The need to reduce our materialism to the nth degree is the most inconvenient truth about climate change. If we go on clinging to our entitlements and human rights, as in, continuing in the relentless pursuit of the American Dream, we'll never resolve climate change - now then, climate change will resolve us.

So, what am I saying: That we abandon our efforts at reducing consumption of energy all over the world? No, but I'm telling you it's only a second-best solution. For myself, I want the best!

With so many creeds and colors, races and religions, how do we look for the common good? Like The Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz, we must look into our hearts; like The Straw Man, we must look inside our head; like The Cowardly Lion, we must look for bravery within ourselves; and like Dorothy, we must look with our feet how to go back home to where our family is.

Another way of putting it is this:
What we need less are changes in our energy consumption.
What we need more are changes in our lifestyle.

Let us strive so that every little thing that we do contributes to the common best. Let us strive so that each little one of us contributes to minimizing the risk of climate change. Right where we are now, whatever we do whoever we are wherever whenever.

To be practical about it, all we have to do is remember 3 little words, the greatest of the 3 Rs:
Reduce.
Reuse.
Recycle.

As in:
Reduce your hate. Zero Hate, Max Love!
Reuse your mind. Think creatively.
Recycle your garbage. Enrich other people's lives.

Philippine Climate Change Act is self-defeating!

2009-10-27T15:46:00.000+08:00

MANILA - Suddenly, the garrulous Philippine Daily Inquirer ran out of words when GMA signed the Philippine Climate Change Act (TJ Burgonio, 23 October 2009, globalnation.inquirer.net) and reported such an earth-shaking news in only 30 words:

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has signed into law the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 in Malacañang that would enable the country to better respond to disasters spawned by climate change.

(Never mind the split infinitive.) It looked to me like the Inquirer thought it was a waste of words to say more!

It didn't even report that it's RA 9729 for the record. That's how important climate change is to the Inquirer? It was as if to report 13 or 43 more words would be a crime. And it didn't bother to produce the body, I mean to publish the full text of the law. Well, I have it in electronic form, in case anyone from the Inquirer is interested. It's all of 4,313 words (by Word 2007 count, including 27 hyphens).

Well, I have a mouthful to say about RA 9729 myself. As a technical editor with 34 years of experience (24 years using the personal computer), I'm interested in the following 105 words:

Sec. 7. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation of Commissioners. – The Commissioners must be Filipino citizens, residents of the Philippines, at least thirty (30) years of age at the time of appointment, with at least ten (10) years of experience on climate change and of proven honesty and integrity. The Commissioners shall be experts in climate change by virtue of their educational background, training and experience: Provided, That at least one (1) Commissioner shall be female: Provided, further, That in no case shall the Commissioners come from the same sector: Provided, finally, That in no case shall any of the Commissioners appoint representatives to act on their behalf.

With those provisions, except for honesty and integrity, nobody is qualified to become a Climate Change Commissioner at all! Not ever. Why? Because the one to be appointed should have had at least 10 years of experience on climate change - and of course, there is no one by that name. What do you mean 'experience (in) climate change' - there is no office public or private that has anything to do with climate change. Not yet, anyway. Not the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services (PAGASA), not the Department of Science and Technology (DoST), not the Department of Agriculture (DA). In fact, if you ask any knowing government unit, any educated non-government organization or scholarly individual today, it's not in any expert's terms of reference; nobody's responsible for climate change / global warming / global cooling! I wouldn't be blamed for it myself.

So, none of this: 'The Commissioners shall be experts in climate change by virtue of their educational background, training and experience.' RA 9729 must be referring to aliens from another planet who have survived their own climate change and want to teach us a lesson or two about treating our Mother Earth better, much better.

I can see that RA 9729 as worded was a case for editors who knew their stuff, who couldn't be caught with their shirts off or their pants down. I just know the editors of the law didn't do justice to this one; they were sleeping on the job. Theirs wasn't the sleep of the just.

When scientists disagree? We turn to faith

2009-10-26T14:15:00.000+08:00

On one hand, the scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, insist that there is climate change and that much of it is caused by man, by the carbon dioxide that he produces going about his living in modern ways. How credible is the IPCC? This panel was organized by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme of the United Nations. The IPCC is comprised of scientist delegates from member countries now numbering 194. Along with former US Vice President Al Gore, the IPCC received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007, the year that the IPCC declared that man-made climate change is 'unequivocal' - undeniable.

On the other hand, there are many scientists, mostly Americans, who do not deny that there is climate change but deny that there is significant man-made climate change, that is to say, that what man does does not affect the climate in any momentous manner. The Right Wing News screams the headline: 'Mathematically confirmed: There is no climate change crisis' (16 July 2008, rightwingnews.com). The proof, says the source, is contained in a paper published in Physics and Society, 'a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society.' Christopher Monckton demonstrates, according to the paper, via 30 equations that the computer models the IPCC used exaggerated the values towards confirming man-made climate change. If I understand Monckton correctly, there is no significant effect on the climate whatever carbon dioxide is emitted by man's bodies: himself, his car, his house, his office, his school, his factory, his hotel, his restaurant, his racetrack, his casino, his coliseum, his plane, his hideaway.

Now, if you believe the IPCC and the Nobel Prize committee, you know what to do: change your lifestyle. You don't know what to do? Simple: Save, save, save whenever and wherever you can:

(a) Like, stop smoking. You are only making the oil companies richer, the tobacco companies wealthier and the cancer surgeons more affluent.

(b) Like, switch off 25 out of 50 fluorescent lamps to light your office of 40 square meters. (I saw such a number of lamps in a department store in a city not far from where I sit. That's extravagance.)

(b) Like stop aimless driving. Like stop joy rides. Like stop driving your car to buy cigarettes or drinks. Like have a regular tune-up. Like drive a hybrid car.

But if you believe the American Physical Society, there is nothing to change - life goes on, business as usual.

But not so fast! It is only one man (Christopher Monckton) saying the IPCC scientists were knowingly wrong. The journal Physics and Society will publish your paper even if the Editor disagrees with your conclusion - I know; I was Editor in Chief of the Philippine Journal of Crop Science myself 2001 to 2008, and it was I who made that journal credible to the crop science world: I made it ISI. And the 9,999 other members of the American Physical Society have nothing to do with Christopher Monckton or his paper at all.

Of course, there are other scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC; I've known some bad leads, but Christopher Monckton's own takes the cake. Like, he argues that global warming stopped 10 years ago and that surface temperatures have been dropping for 7 years. No wonder everybody in the Philippines feels that the weather has been warming up for the last 20 years. How can Monckton explain that I myself used to wear a jacket come September in Los Baños; now it's too hot to wear anything at all?

What is important is that we're talking here of scientists disagreeing. What do we do when scientists disagree and yet in our bones we feel that we can, that we must do something? Let's leave the scientists arguing among themselves!

We have lives to live. That leaves us our faith.

Look at my photograph that I have transformed into an abstract painting (thanks PhotoShop!): one row of seats in the chapel is empty. You can see the Risen Christ up above. The empty seats represent those who do not believe in either climate change or Christ. But the believers must hang on to their faith and rise with the Risen Christ above the occasion.

My Roman Catholic faith tells me we are merely stewards of Mother Earth, and cannot abuse her. When we cut down the trees and leave the forest unable to regenerate itself, that's abuse. When we dynamite our corals to catch fish; that's abuse. When we over-cultivate our farm, we expose the soil to the elements without protection; that's abuse. When we pour commercial fertilizer on our field without making sure that it does not destroy the balance of nutrients of that soil, that's abuse. Stewardship calls for taking care of a natural resource so that it will sustain this generation - and the next.

Climate change is undeniable. What if global concerted action can mitigate climate change? If not, it is going to be the end anyway. What if man can do something right? If we do what we have to do now, then we would have done the right thing when it was the right thing to do, when there was world enough and time.

I know what will happen in Copenhagen

2009-10-25T18:27:00.000+08:00

MANILA - There is going to be the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December 2009. I'm not invited. Neither are you.

I'm not sorry. If I were there, I will talk too much myself. Too many talks will spoil the truth. The inconvenient truth.

Really, I don't mind. I already know what will happen in that conference. No Copenhagen treaty, no Climate Facility. Am I a visionary or something? No, I'm a dreamer.

I dream that in Copenhagen, the big boys and the small boys will meet at a round table, to be fair, following the legendary example of the British King Arthur. You know what happened to King Arthur's court, don't you? There was complete chaos in Camelot.

Expect that in Copenhagen, science will be the flavor of the mouth. They will joust with words instead of swords. They will debate theories. They will discuss assumptions. They will deliberate on methods and analyses. They will delineate findings. They will delimit conclusions. They will dissertate on recommendations. In the end, they will agree to disagree. The small boys have no choice. And, as expected, the big boys will have their cake and eat it too.

You have to understand the big boys. If you force them to do things against their will, they will cry. Big boys do cry. They're spoiled brats.

So, I beg the small boys to show mercy on the big boys and demonstrate to them how to behave in a gentlemanly manner. Or as Christians. You have to show them what they lack in breeding. Or in scruples.

Here is a different idea from Hawa Sow, Africa Climate Policy Coordinator of WWF, as quoted by Morten Andersen (''Africa afraid of being taken hostage,' en.cop15.dk):

If the (Copenhagen) deal does not respond to the expectation of African nations to adapt to climate change, (and) if it fails to provide the necessary finance, technology and capacity building, then Africa should consider not signing in Copenhagen. A really bad deal could be worse than no deal.

To walk out of a conference is in bad taste. It is also an exercise in futility. You're mad. It's not healthy. It's also defeatist. We're defeating ourselves, shame on us!

I say we don't have to ask the big boys for help. I say we small boys can help ourselves.

Starting now. I think I have a brilliant idea. We ought to plan on Copenhagen right this minute. Let the small boys gang up on the big boys and turn the round table on them. Let the small boys grab the mike first thing in the meeting and have the first word. The big boys will be shocked, but they will pay attention.

Now, instead of arguing against the arguments of the big boys, let the best speakers among the small boys come up with the best arguments that they know the best of the big boys will come up with - and let the small boys harangue the big boys with the big boys' own arguments for hours and hours. A privilege speech followed by another privilege speech. A filibuster. Call all the mass media! Tell the whole world! It will be fun to listen and watch, live, via satellite, on TV or streaming video.

Will the big boys believe their own lines?

Let the small boys say to the big boys, for starters:

Quiet, boys, and let's begin by agreeing. So, let us small boys present to you your side of the equation and you tell us if we understand you perfectly. We will tell you what you already know just to see if we are thinking along the same lines.

They already got their attention. And the small boys will tell the big boys that it is not true that we have a window of only 10 years. That it is not true that converting corn to bioethanol results in more carbon emission than continuing to buy oil from the Middle East. That it is not true that diverting corn to biofuel is the cause of the food crisis. That it is not exactly true that there is global warming at all. Frank Roche, candidate for US Congress, is already saying, as quoted by David Morris, 'As more and more scientific evidence is gathered, the case for man-made global warming gets weaker and weaker' (24 October, wake.mync.com). And wouldn't you know! A poll by the Pew Research Center reports that 20% less Americans believe in climate change caused by man (James Heiser, 23 October, jbs.org). No, the Nobel Prize for Peace is not a true measure of global warming. The American opinion is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and what's-his-name were simply talking off the hind legs of different donkeys. And what does the newest winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace US President Barack Obama have to say? He's not saying enough, according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC (google.com/hostednews/afp). Enough said!

Will the big boys listen to the small boys? Those who have ears, listen!

Notwithstanding the reversed roles, I doubt that the big boys will listen to the small boys parroting them. Nobody listens to parrots, ever. Pay attention, but not listen.

The big boys will have the last word of course. Size matters. Big boys will always be big boys. Or should I say, lifestyles matter. The big boys won't change their lifestyles for the sake of the small boys. As in, the American Dream is not for everybody. So, if nothing happens in Copenhagen, I told you so.

Climate change is no respecter of persons. Time, tide or global warming waits for no man. If my expectations are correct, when it's time for all of us to say 'So long, farewell! It's time to say goodbye' simultaneously, at least we small boys can face the big boys, if it's the last thing we'll ever do; we'll point our fingers to them and we'll tell them and be excused for name-calling, shouting at the top of our lungs:

We told you so, you unintelligent, dense
imbeciles!
incompetents!
knuckleheads!
addleheads!
boneheads!
flibbertigibbets!
jackasses!
turkeys!
birdbrains!
madmen!
morons!
ninnies!
nincompoops!
dimwits!
dingbats!
dolts!
fools!
idiots!

Goodbye ...

Village Climate Change

2009-10-25T14:38:00.000+08:00

MANILA - Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country and talk about climate change. But, how do you talk to the villages about climate change? Intelligently, of course. Not above their head. Look into the eyes. What do you see? When you talk, are they listening to you? I'm a teacher, and I know that if you are not looking into the eyes of your students, you are not communicating anything except boredom or drowsiness.
I remember his disciples asked Jesus, 'Why do you talk to them in parables?' And he replied, 'Because that's what they understand.' The Teacher was a good communicator. You talk the language of your listeners, not your language.
And what is the language of your target listener right now? The Super Typhoons Ketsana (locally Ondoy) and Parma (Pepeng). Talk about the death, destruction and despair that those two natural catastrophes wrought on the Filipino people. Mostly in the towns. Commiserate, for God's sake.

If you want to talk about carbon emission, you can't; or, don't talk about it at once. I think it would be easier to talk about plastics, garbage and trash, and squatters living in and around rivers and streams and lakes. About deforestation and about watersheds. Don't talk about whom to blame but how it happens that if you cut down the vegetation in the forest, you are also balding the mountains and thereby destroying the watershed, or the ability of the hills to store water when it rains. What about all that trash, garbage, all that plastic and all those shanties getting in the way of flowing streams?

The rich as well as the poor are to blame for flash floods. The rich, for abusing all those natural resources; the poor for abusing the rest of them.

I mean, when you talk about climate change in the towns, you should be talking about climate change in the cities too.

Poor countries can less adapt to climate change?

2009-10-24T23:04:00.000+08:00

Here are excerpts from the website of Eldis, 'How can communities adapt to climate change?' (eldis.org):

The ability of communities to adapt to climate change is determined by their level of development, their access to resources and their scientific and technical capacity. The impacts of climate variability create challenges for the world's poorest communities as their livelihoods are likely to be more sensitive to climate change. These impacts may be related to more intense and frequent extreme events, like hurricanes or floods, and more long-term stresses, such as water scarcity and increased recurrence of drought.

(1) I note that the option of countries not only to adapt but also to mitigate climate change is not given equal attention or prominence by Eldis the website. This is the one that has the slogan of 'sharing the best in development policy, practice and research' (eldis.org). I don't know why. Or is it because it is the wealthy countries that are more guilty of bringing about climate change and should be mitigating more than the poor countries?

(2) Eldis says, 'The ability of communities to adapt to climate change is determined by their level of development, their access to resources and their scientific and technical capacity' means that the poorest, most ignorant villages are the least likely to succeed in adapting to climate change. I don't think so. Climate change is no respecter of countries. To adapt to climate change is to learn to live with the natural catastrophes that keep increasing in frequency and intensity. The poor have known deprivation and have survived; the rich have known abundance and have flourished - in a natural disaster, or even in a man-made disaster (like the financial crisis), the poor will survive better than the rich.

(3) Eldis says, 'Adaptation can adopt a variety of forms, such (as) better education, training and awareness (on) climate change and more technical measures, such as drought-resistant seeds and better coastal protection' - I think that education, training and the raising of awareness on climate change should be more for the rich countries than the poor. After all, the rich countries do not (or cannot) accept that they are more to blame for climate change.

(4) Eldis says, 'To lessen the impact of climate change on a country's development, people are working to integrate adaptation into mainstream development policies.' Maybe, but that's working with the politicians, and everyone knows we're running out of time and the politicians are the slowpokes of the world. I'd rather that we run out of politicians than run out of time!