Climate change and making babies

Today I had along call with the country chief of one of my markets. I would be having nine more of these as we map out the region’s 2008 public relations programme.

During this call I asked him to take off his hat as a country chief of a global company and put on the hat of the Minister for Energy for his country. In that role, what would policies would he put in place to effect desired changes in the energy market?

It took him a while to “change” roles. At times, the genious that he is skipped two steps ahead of me in terms of implications of policies.

CC: I would definitely reduce the limit of emissions in that area. But you know, the companies are moving very slowly in reducing emissions and as a result the government is not giving out permits to build newer plants. And because of that the rate of investment has declined. There needs to be incentives or tax breaks for companies to adopt technologies that enable lower emissions.

NY: And you want to lower the limit even more.

CC: As a member of the public and if I am Minister, yes.

At times he could not totally remove himself as a corporate chieftain in charge of meeting sales targets.

CC: That’s what I say as a normal person. But if the oil and gas companies can’t build their plants then I cannot sell to them.

You see, the revenue from technologies we sell to reduce emissions doesn’t quite offset the loss of revenue from selling technologies that generate power.

My company is in the business of providing technologies for power generation and power plant management. My colleagues and I are daily confronted with issues like energy security, fuel efficiency, and climate change. This power generation technology provider is painfully aware that the energy sector is one of the greatest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions.

When I first found out that conventional coal-fired plants achieve only 30+% efficiency, and the most efficient gas turbines about 50+% efficiency, I wanted to cry. The chemical elements and potential energy that are not converted into electricity are what makes for polluting particles and heat that is lost to the environment.

Technology providers are investing heavily to machines that increase efficiency, reduce emissions and innovation to reduce leakage along the grid and within power plants. I disagree with NGOs who for rhetoric and entrenched cynicism for big business labeled “green energy” as “greenwash”.

Don’t blame the power producers. We, consumers, are the ones responsible, with our insatiable and irresponsible demand, at the conclusion of the matter. Why drive a SUV when you can drive a smaller, more fuel-efficient car? Why turn on the air-conditioner to 16 degrees Celcius when the optimum temperature for human productivity is 25 degrees Celcius?

What has this to do with making babies? To some, everything.

My colleague is 34 and recently married. Having a baby is a critical issue.

“When I think about climate change I wonder if I want to bring a baby, another life into this world.”

My opinion on having kids has swung from one end of the spectrum to another and now suspends in midair. Lucky for me I don’t have that decision to make.

I remember when I was 25: I urged an older friend to have kids because they are God’s blessings for us. The very next year I sang the opposite tune.

Years 2001 and 2002. The Nasdaq crashed and so did the lives of many. Argentina defaulted on debts and its currency became mere paper. Russia decided to default, too. September-11 happened. War in Iraq happened. The generation born after that would never know a world before not being able to carry more than 100ml of liquid in a clear plastic bag when boarding a plane.

In London, it seemed like representation of every nationality and cause congregated at Hyde Park and LSE, my university. Being right in the middle of it all, I felt as if the air was so heavy with the burdens of the world. If each droplet of the London mist could contain bits of these burdens; I imagined I could stretch out my hand and feel its weight on my palm.

With the state of the world as it was, I thought bringing a kid into this world was being unfair to the life that has to live it with no say on whether life on earth was worth coming into; and that having kids would just be to fulfill selfish desires.

Today that familiar feeling came back. Just before the call with the country chief, I attended a public lecture by a law professor from Standford University who has been participating in Kyoto Protocol negotiations and would be participating in the next round of the United Nations Framework for Climate Change Convention in Bali, in December.

I bet you didn’t know that the Kyoto Protocol would be phased out in just five more years. It is uncertain whether emission reduction targets would be met, and with the recent earthquake that damaged Japan's nuclear reactor, the country already said it is unlikely to meet its target. (Nuclear power generation doesn't emit greenhouse gases and Japan would now need to substitute nuclear with other fuel, very likely coal, because LNG contracts don't get delivered as quickly and oil is too expensive in the spot market). The significance of the Bali Convention is the start of negotiations for what’s next after 2012.

The Rio Summit, the first Earth Summit, was held in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005. As a university student in US in the mid-90s, I remember the academia being swept away by debates on whether there really was climate change and the economics fraternity was asking if the cost to mitigate damaging effects would be worth it if climate change were not really the effects of human activity. It took that long for people and governments to understand scientists, to see the problem and get serious about it.

We cannot afford to wait another 13 years. That’s almost one generation. The generation of your children, and my children if I have them. A few degrees of temperature change can change a whole lot. Islets get submerged and people are displaced. It rains where it shouldn’t and doesn’t where it should. Polar bears swim from one iceberg and never meet another and drown from exhaustion. Sea currents change. Ecosystems are be affected. Your ecosystem. My ecosystem.

I don’t blame my colleague for thinking the way she does. When you are aware of the reality and choose to acknowledge it and let it hit you in the head, you would also be faced with the same conundrum.

I am not saying we should not have kids, not at all. But that if we should have them, it follows that we need to do our part in making a better world for them. It starts with acknowledging the problem and let it hit us in the head. And then adjusting our behaviours.

Remember how Neo had to make a choice between "realities" in the Matrix? So, blue pill or red pill?