Defining absurdity

There was a time that Kyoto was known as the former capital of the Japanese imperial state. And then 1997 came. Kyoto, the city of Emperors and Camelias, is now associated with reductions of greenhouse gas emissions- a consequence of the fact that the a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed there. Rightly so I believe since this Protocol is a landmark in the battle to protect the environment and the future of the planet.

Around the same time, hype terms such as 'global warming' or 'renewable energy sources' started invading our vocabulary: the planet is at risk we were told. Slowly but surely environmental issues made it to the papers and television and smiling newscasters talk now about the dangers of global warming with the same ease they announce wars and catastrophes. Of course environmentalism is no new phenomenon: already in late 19th century one can trace its first steps in the United States; West Europeans have been thinking about the environment quite some time now.

And yet despite that all, environmental news regardless of how serious it looks, it holds a second-rate status. You will never find an environmental issue making the cover story of a newspaper: if you are optimistic you can hope that on the bottom left corner next to the marriage of Angelina or Jennifer there is going to be reference to the gloomy prediction about the ozone layer. With the exception of some west European countries, notably Germany, Austria and Sweden, the ministry of the Environment is 'your typical Ministry': chances are that in a Cabinet meeting you will see the Minister sitting at the end of the table, rarely appearing in the news or protesting about the modest budget.

Worse still than the second class tag we attach to the environment is our hypocritical behavior. Regardless of whether we know or not what 'global warming' is we shake our heads if caught amidst a discussion in a business meeting agreeing that the environment is a serious matter. We approve of recycling and yet we rarely take the newspapers to the designated bins. We complain about poor air quality and yet we refuse to leave our cars at home. Convenience: another big catch.

Instead of pointing fingers or creating dividing lines between state and human responsibilities (as if though the two parties had opposing interests) how about looking at the environment's fate? To my eyes, a dying patient to which we inject venom everyday, the planet no matter how strong it was just a few decades ago seems to lose the battle for life. Species disappear. World temperature rises. Just two days ago "doctors" announced that North Pole ice may melt until 2040.

If the environment was a human being it would be in the emergency room by now. Chances are that "the children of the patient" would be outside weeping and praying to God. What we do instead is to remove the feeding tube and the oxygen supply by the day. Death is slow and painful. This is sad yet certain. The only thing to be debated is the following: Since we will be dying too, are we victims or villains?

The latest on our planet:

In English:
Arctic ice may all melt in summer by 2040 - study

En français:
La banquise du pôle Nord pourrait avoir disparu l'été, d'ici à 2040

Στα ελληνικά:
Θάλασσα ο Β. Πόλος