(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
[14. December 2007] The oil spill that spread from the Statfjord field west of Bergen on Wednesday is one of the most immediate environmental problems we have. While the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment discussed the climate challenges of the future on the Bali coast, the coastal people in Western Norway could worry about a possible disaster just hours away. Only idiots will deny that increased security on oil platforms are necessary measures to protect the environment. We know what can happen and we know how to stop it.
The climate challenges are more difficult to grasp, both for a general audience, for politicians and for scientists. Unfortunately, the debate often ends up in the trenches, where climate skeptics argue with doomsday prophets and politicians are vying to attack each other's environmental policies most harshly, while promising the greatest possible sum for simple and immediate measures. This is how the debate can work against its purpose: Dramatic doomsday prophecies or total refinement of the problem can lead to impotence and selfish behavior, or to hasty solutions without concrete results. It will lose both man and nature.
We do not know how much the planet's water level and temperature will increase. Climate models will always have a certain imprint of uncertain predictions. But there is little uncertainty associated with humans affecting the nature around us and that we must be prepared for climate change in the future. Thus, it becomes important to remember that the world has solved major environmental problems before. As we describe in this issue of New Time, politicians and business responded quickly and effectively both when the hole in the ozone layer became known and when acid rain in the 1980s threatened to kill all Christmas trees in Europe. The CFC gases quickly disappeared from both spray cans, freezers and refrigerators and were replaced by new products that conscious consumers quickly used. Pollution control dramatically reduced sulphate emissions, and humanity was able to reciprocate with another successful environmental struggle.
Thus, the futile debate in the Storting becomes difficult to understand. The government's billions for rainforest conservation are commendable and important, but control over emissions here at home and new measures to prepare us all for a more dramatic climate are necessary and should be uncontroversial. An open and open-minded debate on sober prospects and sensible solutions is the first step. This week, the Nobel Prize and the Bali Conference have put the problem on the agenda. Now the next step must be to stop the picking competition and start investigating concrete, knowledge-based solutions. In this way, man can once again show that environmental problems exist to be solved.
