The Unifying Factor: The Hand that Chopped off the Foot

The recent UN convention was enthralled with the notion that we all must fight global warming. It is seen by many as one of the few issues where there is international consensus. This is not to say that there is equal consensus in the method of solution, or the extent of sovereign responsibility. In fact critics argue that the lack of consensus reaches deep into and partially stems from an epidemic of incoherency emerging from the scientific community. However, when it comes down to the realities of what is occurring -what some objectively minded individuals would claim are “naked facts” there is no debate. The global environment is changing (some would argue that it is not warming), no nation or scientist disputes the shrinking North Pole ice cap. At this level, there is singular international agreement. This is evident from the endless stream of head-of-states declaring their support and national initiatives to fight global warming. Russia, China, America, and Europe agree!

What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.

It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.

Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.

What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?