ICE AGE, GREAT FLOOD OR GREAT DROUGHT?

Experts are sounding the alarm. In 10-15 years, water may be-come as valuable as oil and gas are today. According to a UN report, by 2025 water shortages will affect some 2 billion people on earth. Experts say that the depletion of water resources and global climate change have already taken on a menacing scale. The economist Nicholas Stern, who advises the British government on environmental issues, compares current climate change with the Ice Age in his 700-page report. According to the British specialist, the world community cannot escape global economic depression if the negative impact on the environment is not halted in time. An even more frightening prediction was made by Russia's Minister of Natural Resources and Ecology Yuriy Trutnev. He believes that the oceans could submerge the Netherlands, North America, parts of Southeast Asia and some regions of Russia as far as St. Petersburg.

"Humanity will be lucky if these predictions prove false," said Danish expert Jan Dahlmann, who has been investigating the problem of global climate change for many years. However, in his opinion, we must face the truth. "And the truth is that the future of the Earth is under real threat," said Jan Dahlmann in an interview with our magazine.

- In recent years, the issue of climate change has moved to the top of the agenda for international organizations and the world's leading countries. Is the situation so dangerous?

- The UN agency dealing with climate change believes that serious consequences may even be felt during this century. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, the greenhouse effect, drought and other environmental changes may have dangerous consequences. Even last year's major forest fires in Canada, Australia and other corners of the earth have had a negative impact. Melting glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains, where many large rivers begin, also leave no room for optimism. All these issues deserve attention to their detail. Can you imagine what will happen if the water level in the oceans rises by at least 1 metre? Some territories, for example the Maldives, could be wiped off the face of the earth.

- What should the international community do to prevent such consequences?

- Detailed information is contained in the UN's Geneva Framework Convention on Climate Change and discussions are being held today on the issues raised in this document. In general, we can say that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, using wind turbines, solar, water and other alternative energy sources. These alternatives have great potential. If need be, we can even use the Earth's thermal energy. None of this depends on technological practicalities, but on political will.

- Does this have only dangerous consequences? Per-haps there are advantages as well?

- Yes, climate change, in a sense, can also yield positive results. For example, my country Denmark could derive some benefit from global warming, as an increase of 2-3 degrees in air temperature promotes the development of agriculture and farming. In other countries, too, food production may grow. But on a global scale, climate change does not promise anything good. 

- Some countries have already begun switching from traditional to alternative sources of energy. Azerbaijan is working in this direction (On 16 November 2009, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a decree on additional measures for the use of alternative and renewable sources of energy in the republic). How important is participation in this process by oil-producing countries like Azerbaijan?

- Oil is not just fuel for cars. It is a very valuable natural resource which is used in many fields. But given the limited nature of resources, many believe that it should be used as economically as possible. In Azerbaijan also, oil reserves are limited. Thus it would be wrong to make the economy dependent on a single resource. 

- Judging by your words, the world community is aware of the threat from global climate change. At the same time, countries are not displaying the solidarity and dynamism necessary to prevent this threat. Are the reasons for their reluctance to work together more significant than the issue of climate change? 

- I think we will find the answer to this question at the international conference on climate change which will be held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December. Unfor-tunately, countries do have sharply divergent views on solving this problem. I will cite one example. Society believes that the West has contributed most to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and, therefore, it should shoulder the responsibility for managing its effects. But along with Europe and the United States, Japan, Russia and the countries of East Asia also have a major role in this process. China and India argue the following: those who created the problem should now resolve it. But the fact is that China currently leads the world in emitting carbon dioxide. Thus the position of the United States - one of the main participants in this process - is that Beijing should be subject to the same requirements as Washington for reducing harmful emissions into the atmosphere. As you can see, there are more mutual accusations than attempts to solve the problem together. The UN takes decisions by consensus, so it would be wrong to expect a quick solution to this issue.

Let us consider the example of Russia. Moscow says it is making serious efforts to solve the problem and, during negotiations, it points to the Siberian forests, which absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide. Australia believes, in turn, that, in calculating standards for emissions into the atmosphere, one must take account of the Amazon forest. However, we should note that while 7-8 years ago there were about 134 different types of forests, this figure has since decreased considerably. 

Another factor reducing the effectiveness of the fight against climate change is the question of employment. Heads of states and governments, and finance ministers, avoid measures that could lead to unemployment. Yes, reducing the number of plants threatens a rise in unemployment. But the magnitude of the negative impact of these plants on the future of humanity is incomparably greater than any damage arising from unemployment.

- You probably know that Armenia is currently causing enormous environmental damage to the Azerbaijani territories it has occupied. The existence of forest fires has been confirmed by OSCE monitoring. Do you think that this problem should worry only Azerbaijan?

- Generally, forest fires and deforestation are unacceptable. However, I do not have accurate information about the extent of forest fires in Nagornyy Karabakh. But in any case, forest fires emit great quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore, Azerbaijan has the right to raise this issue in Copenhagen, although I do not rule out this issue being perceived as a problem of local significance.