Chaos effect (a.k.a. butterfly effect). More often than not, this basic theory involving one butterfly, a flap of wings and the wider world is used by environmentalists as the ultimate causal factor that should help international leaders decide on more sustainable forms of maintaining and improving the world’s economy and development. More often than not, the theory is overrated and makes little, if any, sense. Butterflies do make a point, however: they like democrat blue above all colors, followed by yellow and white. They are repulsed by purple and republican red. When a group of butterflies gather to eat rotten food and drink in a moist, soggy piece of land, scientists call the somewhat chaotic event a “puddle party”.
No place could be soggier than Montréal, over the last few weeks. As pre-Christmas snow thawed, the grainy soil of Québec’s major city soon grew to a full-fledged swamp, while George W. Bush and Australia’s Premier John Howard crashed the party and splashed the puddle, murkying the waters and making any negotiation almost impossible. With an early election on his doorstep, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin probably regrets having welcomed the United Nations Climate Change Conference to the country. With nearly ten thousand delegates present, the first significant post-Kyoto discussion on climate was on the verge of failing completely. Emotions ran high as Canada lead many other countries to a quasi-offensive thrust against the US and Australia, the only two heavy-weight nations that opted out of Kyoto. At the last minute, crucial decisions were made, including the Kyoto prolonguement beyond 2012, and the acceptance by US representatives of a non-binding negotiation of terms after that date. However fragile, it was the first time the United States accepted a negotiating position on climate change since George W. Bush was elected, thus strengthtening the case with developing nations like China and India, soon to represent a big chunk of the world’s emissions. The country’s position changed drastically and progressively as former President Bill Clinton was brought on the stand to strike a strong blow, calling the American position “flat wrong”, and prompting a standing ovation from the delegates, leaving the US to fend for itself.
Post-Montréal tensions were soon to be felt in Canada. In two aggressive speeches given just before Christmas, the American Ambassador to Ottawa clearly stated his Government’s impatience towards its northern neighbour, warning Paul Martin against blunt anti-Americanism as an electoral maneuvre. Overnight, Canadian national sensitivities surfaced, and the usual good neighbours sent harsh messages back and forth. George W. Bush is said to ignore where Canada is, or even what the nosy guy in Parliament Hill in Ottawa is called.
Canada has, in fact, taken a stand for the world, with very selfish interests. Being a member of the G8 and responsible for a considerable amount of emissions, the country is simultaneously one of the most vulnerable to climate change. While the Arctic Circle region remains one of the less polluted in the world, it is also the most sensitive to climate changes. The ozone layer is significantly depleted in this area; melting and drifting icecaps are growingly a danger for both nearby navigation and far away coastal communities; and fragile ecosystems are in jeopardy. In 1996, Canada pushed for the creation of the Arctic Council to address these issues, and the country is always at odds with its industrial character versus environmental conscience.
Yet, ironically speaking, Canada could use some climate change. Its wild and faintly populated northern territories are freezing beyond understanding for most of the year, while a year-round opening to navigation of an iceberg-free Arctic passage would bring extensive commercial profit and increased importance to the region. If temperature heights could change the Arctic forever, different ocean currents could bring change to coastal Canada. In fact, studies on global oceanic circulation suggest drastic alterations in climate patterns in the North Atlantic. With oceans flowing like enormous rivers, heat exchanges between the Arctic Stream and the Gulf Stream are an important factor in mantaining weather conditions in Europe and North America. From 1957 onwards, these heat exchanges dropped by 50%, and routes have also changed. If the trend persists, some defend, coastal Eastern Canada could have a temperate northern Mediterranean climate by 2050, while northwestern European winters would grow substantially colder within the same timeframe. This applies also to pollution. In 1997, scientists suggested (not without opposition) that the snow in remote Ny Ǻlesund, a Norwegian coal community in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard – a short 500 km from the North Pole – could show signs of pollution at levels similar to those of England in the height of the Industrial Revolution. The revelation proved the point for oceanic circulation and the changes it had been suffering.
One blatant example of consequences of both climate changes and increased emissions is the threat on biodiversity. One iconic case: the polar bear population in Canada, the species' stronghold, risks a dramatic drop, according to recent studies. The big mammals dependance on ice-covered water surfaces to survive is an example of the urgency involved. Thin icecaps could make their migrations much more difficult: in Hudson Bay, the world’s southernmost polar bear community, they could be extinct by 2055, with all trends continuing on this path. They are literally walking on thin ice. Although polar bears are among the strongest swimmers in nature, icecaps breaking and floating into open sea leave them little chance of survival. In fact, life in the region could change all together, if icecaps are not there to be crossed in the winter. It is a problem related to habitat changes, a problem caused by climate change, and a matter for industrial nations to discuss. Yet, some refuse meaningful debate. Others (that could use some warmer climate), are on the forefront.
Walking past Mimico, on the shores of Lake Ontario, in a sunny but windy day of December, I for one lament the fact that Canada could one day be less cold. That Canada could lose its distinctively beautiful four seasons; that twenty degrees below and whipping, piercing wind on the face might not be an experience for future generations to have.
Christmas 2005 brought the memory of Southeast Asia’s tsunami. It was furthermore a year that saw an almost unprecedented increase on the coriolis effect, responsible for many hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons. Arguably consequence of global warming, they created widespread havoc in many regions of the globe, and for many, it could not be any clearer that Nature is finally striking back. Call it butterfly effect, if you will. I call it getting what you asked for.
On the other hand, the theory might not be so silly afterall. On the first day of autumn, walking with an exotic friend in Hannover, Germany, I was approached by an environmental group whose name escapes me. We both looked very much like “global faces”, and were requested to stand and smile for a photograph, while holding a white card with messages to George W. Bush in English, German and Portuguese (reasonable doubt exists as to whether he speaks any of the two latter), to be delivered in Montréal earlier this month. That is perhaps why the chaos theory might not have been so wrong this time: an European and an African “flapped their wings” in Germany, and planted mayhem in Québec three months later. Chaos theory at its best. Touché.
<< Home