And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
- William Blake
Fears about the climate are neither new nor urgent, as many climate activists look to state today. As the quotation above shows, even in the late eighteenth century, there was staunch opposition to the rapid industrialisation in Britain, which gave birth to the Romantic movement, glorifying nature and seeking solace in its vastness. Indeed, intellectual and literary reverberations from this worldview continued up to nearly a century afterwards to the 1870s, with writers like Dickens taking the converse view in critiquing squalid city life. Why is this on my mind and why is it relevant?
The reason is the recently finished COP conference. The COP26 conference was the main focus of the news for the beginning of this month. In a situation where travel has been very limited, and interaction discouraged, the conference in Glasgow has been unique as a place where many famous international dignitaries mixed, and wider international policy questions discussed. Scottish culture has been relayed to a worldwide audience, particularly in the discourse around the Irn Bru drink, a novelty to many people outside the British Isles. However, entertainment aside, the reaction to the diplomacy itself has been somewhat disgruntled. Indeed, although all nations stressed the importance of a tendency to net zero carbon emissions, the rate at which this commitment has been made is variable. Moreover, the question of rising sea levels has been stymied somewhat — nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu have not received adequate provisions for the safety of their islands, lest they be submerged under the rising sea. However, the most noticeable case was the eleventh hour reversal about coal reductions — the official term was changed to ‘phasing out’ as opposed a word implying the complete elimination of coal’s usage as a fossil fuel. In such a scenario, we see the criticisms of the summit brought to the front page: insufficient commmitment from developing countries, necessary expediency in light of overwhelming energy demands and setting deadlines far too long for current leaders to be held accountable.
Nonetheless, such pessimism is unwarranted. Although triumphs on the negotiating table have been rather limited, the publicity from the conference has been a galvanising force. Indeed, nations large and small participated in this collective endeavour of climate security, and climate scepticism, a figure of recent years past, has not surfaced in neither the conference nor the media surrounding it. Perhaps this is a product of our times; the coronavirus exposed the fragility of our man-made world, showing that nature still has the potential to radically alter our lives, leaving one aware that worldwide crises are not just those that can be caused by other men. Hence, the tactful solemness of the conference’s proceedings. There has also been good progress in talks concerning the safety and sustainability of the world’s forests.
The main fallback, as I have already presented, is the lack in agreement over what to do with coal (Nicola Sturgeon calling the deal overall as ‘inadequate’). Developing countries, like China and India, are simply far too dependent on the resource to agree on its complete elimination as a fossil fuel.
Overall, the reasons that COP26 has been underwhelming in terms of output is complicated, ranging far beyond the question of coal. Still, maybe the quotation at start can explain why, if only partly. The mills that Blake speaks of, although they seem sinister due to their prominence, seeming dark in juxtaposition to the pristine English countryside, ultimately fuel a society’s progress. It is this, and not the spending of time in bucolic rural settings that has given us the privilege of living longer and more affluent lives. And denying other countries from obtaining this privilege quickly, though there will cost to others, is both morally and logically questionable.
