Reading the climate section and international newspapers in the last two months would certainly cause surprise and discomfort to Cartesian minds accustomed to establishing logical relationships between the facts.
In addition to the confirmation that 2024 was the reader would find headlines such as “warmer January already registered scientists” (Financial Times, 6/2), “hottest already registered intrigue climate scientists” (The Guardian 6/2), “this was the hottest already recorded January, according to scientists” (The New York Times, 6/2).
The reading of the articles would explain that the surprise stems from the permanence of record temperatures, despite the cooling of the Pacific Ocean ,.
Other headlines would have the same tone: “renowned climate scientist warns that the goal of (limiting warming a) 2ºC has been dead” (The Guardian 4/2), “jams of Europe have shrunk 40% since 2000” (Financial Times, 20/2), “California faces aggravated drought, although recent thunderstorms” (The Guardian, 24/2), “in hockey, changes, changes, changes, changes, changes Climate reduce the number of skating rings “(The Washington Post, 24/2),” The world’s most famous dog running in the world is lacking snow “(The Wall Street Journal, 4/3).
In the same period and in the same newspapers, other headlines would say: “Earth Fund with $ 10 billion Jeff Bezos cuts ties with climate agency” (Financial Times, 6/2), “EU overstates green rules, head of Siemens Energy” (Financial Times, 12/2), “SEC SUSPENSION ADDERDISHED FOR OIL AND GAS TRUMP supporters” Washington Post, 17/2), “Big Techs learn to share Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels” (The Washington Post, 23/2), “German elections show how the Green wave retreated in Europe” (The Guardian 24/2), “BP should abandon renewable goal and focus on fossil fuels” (The Guardian 24/2), “Banks lower sustainability positions” (Financial Times, 24/2), “how Trump sabotaged the New York Times, 2/3) and” Trump government authorities destroy climate protections and find a key discoveries on greenhouse gases “(Guardian, 13/03).
Seeking to stick to rationality, this reader could assume that such setbacks arise from the honest disbelief of certain people in scientific projections, believing that “climate change” is a left engendered from the left.
After all, it would not be the first time apocalyptic predictions would be unfounded. I like the definition of the average age it offers in its admirable: “About a thousand years when the end of the world was soon.”
Other predictions also failed: in 1910, in 1962, Nostradamus’s forecast for 1999 and even Covid’s pandemic in 2020. It would not be unlikely that well-intended people manifest an atavical disbelief in collapse theories.
Our Cartesian reader could, however, find it unlikely that well -formed people, with vast access to information, simply disregard the abundance of scientific evidence of global warming and all its disastrous consequences.
In this case, it could attribute to the phenomenon, which also has historical precedents, the adoption of strangled attitudes in the face of the certainty of the sunset.
As an illustration, instead of resorting to the story, I prefer to remember the song “and the world is not over,” interpreted by, in which the character says, “I believed this soft conversation/I thought the world was going to end/And I was trying to say goodbye/And without delay I was trying to enjoy it.”
One last hypothesis to consider would be that those responsible for increasing carbon emissions, while not discrediting scientific forecasts, believe that something will happen – a new technology, possibly – to avoid apocalypse.
Our reader, however, would doubt the honesty of this belief, as it was too self -industry, and would frame it together with the mere selfish indifference to the fate of humanity. Irrational but human.
In any case, this deleterious behavior, besides the direct effects on warming, has even more serious consequences. I refer to the discouragement resulting from the perception of a situation of “Liberted General”, “passage of the cattle” before which it is useless to resist.
It is important to have gifts that will be in this conflicted scenario that in November will be held in Bethlehem. We should not be discouraged by it, on the contrary, but failing to recognize difficulties has never been a good method to overcome them.
It will be up to the meeting to coordinate the meeting, instead of giving in to contrary pressures, using them as an element promoting the Union between countries and private agents committed to combating warming.
Among the goals to be persecuted, we can enumerate the sewing of an alliance between countries interested in developing a common carbon market; redouble efforts to reach the $ 1.3 trillion financing goal; advance in the discussion about land use, so relevant to agriculture and the promotion of biofuels; seek to establish global criteria to measure carbon content from various products and encourage China to occupy the.
We know that our team, headed by ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, is already committed to articulating several of these goals; We also know that the task is extremely arduous and challenging.
It is important to have present that combating global warming is a long and discontinuous process; A marathon, not a 100 meter race. Each step taken is important, even if the effect is just to make a profession of faith and denounce those who sabotage the effort.
The truth of this statement can be measured by thinking of the unique role that had the anticondition of Ulysses Guimarães in 1974, in the long process of Brazil towards democracy. In his speech against the electoral college that confirmed the victory of General Ernesto Geisel, he borrowed from Fernando Pessoa the phrase that designates the combat for the good causes, which now also applies to the resistance that COP30 will exert against an adverse scenario: “Navigating is necessary, living is not necessary”.
