PANEL DISCUSSION “THE EARTH AFTER COPENHAGEN”
Environmental dilemmas, differing opinions on climate change and the difficulty in uniting the political and financial interests of the world’s countries that became apparent during the world summit on climate change that took place in Copenhagen were explored in the conference “The Earth After Copenhagen” that took place during the 12th Thessaloniki Documentary Festival - Images of the 21st Century, on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at the John Cassavetes theater. Participants were director Kimon (Sugar Town – The Next Day), political scientist and international relations expert Philippos Savvidis, professor of Rural Environmental Policies and Vice Rector at the Agricultural University of Athens Leonidas Louloudis and journalist Dimitris Psychogios. The panel was moderated by journalist Elias Kannelis.
Dimitri Eipides, Artistic Director of the Thessaloniki Documentary Festival welcomed the speakers and the audience to the conference, and spoke about the relationship of the Festival with the great issues that concern humanity. “This is the 12th Conference organized by the Documentary Festival in its 12 years of existence. Important people have met in this room, who have spoken about human rights, genetically modified food, the problems of Africa, immigration. So today we have the opportunity of participating in another important meeting”, he stressed.
Journalist Elias Kanellis, after introducing the participants, said: “The Copenhagen Climate Conference demonstrated the fragmentation of Europe. This fragmentation seems to rise to the surface though the economic crisis that is making our country a European problem. This is the fault of the state and of ourselves, but it also highlights the fact that Europeans can’t see the problem and its solution”.
Speaking about his film Sugar Town – The Next Day and his experience in the areas of Elias that were destroyed by the fires, Kimon Tsakiris stressed that the meaning of environmental disaster is tied to quick profit, when the environment is treated like a product. “We went to Elias after the fires, to see what would happen the next day. Companies and private citizens tried to buy burnt areas of land in the name of development, meaning to later build houses and hotels”, he said and added: “They claimed that since the trees had been burnt the best we could do would be to make the best of it and make as much profit as we could”.
Filippos Savvidis was in Copenhagen for the last days of the conference and, as he said, he saw the conflicts of financial and political interests of the larger countries and the failure of the European Union to create a unified political voice close up. “The final collective announcement has two weak points, it is not binding, and it doesn’t provide for a monitoring and control mechanism to ensure the agreements among countries are kept”. Mr. Saviddis stated that the intervention of the United States is what saved the process, although this was not talked about in the Greek and foreign media. “It was as if the European Union didn’t exist. The leaders of Germany and France we trying to play their own game. Obama’s intervention showed the diplomatic supremacy of the USA and its difference from that of the Bush era. The result was that the agreement was signed. He supported the creation of a monitoring mechanism, but this was passed over”. He added that, until the next conference in Mexico, the participating countries will have to work towards creating a common basis for dialogue without suspicion toward anything coming from the other side of the Atlantic”.
Then Mr. Leonidas Louloudis referred extensively to the conflicting scientific theories on environmental problems and particularly on climate change and the greenhouse effect. “The issue of the environment is characterized by a variety of opinions, scientific and humanistic theories, ideologies, political expediencies and interests. Members of multinational companies are not the only lobbyists, there are also NGO lobbyists. Scientists find it difficult to arrive at a common opinion, and often the environment is used as a way to distract the public from real daily problems, which also include environmental protection”, he said. He then stated that the failure of the Copenhagen conference was to be expected, to a degree: “There were dozens of dissenting opinions among nations and ethnic groups. The problem of environmental illiteracy was noted, that is, ignorance about the meanings and numbers we use when speaking of environmental problems. Given these facts, who could expect that all these people would agree about the future of the world in one afternoon?”
Dimitris Psychogios was in agreement. He expounded on the skepticism among the scientific community regarding climate change and its coverage by the media. “The media love bad news, and this is exploited by those who have a direct or indirect interest to serve. Climate change and the end of the world is the new discovery, the new world religion and denying it is tantamount to treason” he said. He then presented a series of publications and examples using scientific elements on the disastrous consequences of climate change, which were however disproved by the scientific community itself, and posed the question of who gains in the long run by the discussion on environmental protection. “Why are all the governments concerned now about the environment and the sea level which is expected to rise by 25 centimeters? I believe that this is a way to gradually promote the use of nuclear energy, in the sense that the consequences of its use will be much smaller than the consequences of climate change. Half of the Netherlands has managed to live under water using 16th century techniques and humanity won’t find a way to deal with a small change in sea level, if that happens?” Mr. Psychogios asked, in closing.
