Climate: Right or wrong?

This question has always mattered whenever there has been a controversy surrounding a public act, whether in the local sphere, in the national domain, or in the international arena. And it is because this question is always asked that issues, no matter how small, become interesting to sensible people. This is because the query always leads to a review of larger issues because of the "global" relevance of the normative propositions involved.

Take, for instance, Nandigram. Was it right for the West Bengal Government to acquire land in the way it proposed doing for the chemical hub in question? Were the "outsiders" (whoever they were) correct in whipping up the issue to the level of a national controversy? Was it correct for those involved not to allow the police to enter certain areas for months on end? Was it correct for the Opposition to blow up the entire issue manifold when they were not in a position to control the developments on the ground, etc?

Take Gujarat. Was it right for the Chief Minister to inject populist themes into election-meetings pertaining to subjects which had a clear communal ring? Was it proper for the head of the Congress Party to call the Gujarat CM names, the legal propriety of which is now an issue before the courts? Indeed, is judicial activism good for the country given the "separation of powers" doctrine, which forms a basic part of the State-structure of the republic?

Internationally, has Moscow done the right thing by shipping nuclear fuel to Iran? In Geneva, are the rich (and the poor) doing the sensible thing by sticking to their negotiating stances on the Doha Round despite the fact that the delay in the negotiations is helping to kill the Round altogether? Will the WTO die if the Doha Round fails? Are the Malaysian authorities treating citizens of Indian origin with fairness? Is General Musharraf right in imposing "security and stability" on Pakistan? Come to think of it, is the French President doing the right thing by publicising the fact that he has a new girlfriend?

TWO SIDES TO A COIN

The point of running through the list is to suggest that there are always two sides to a coin, which means that a debate is to be expected, which could be erudite or otherwise depending on who the participants are. In fact, this is precisely the way human civilisation has developed over the centuries, mankind debating its way (sometimes with the help of bows and arrows, sometimes with a couple of nuclear bombs) through the haze - but nearly always making "progress" over time.

Thus the use of the atom bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima can be said to have been both good and bad in that while it was instrumental in ending abruptly the six-year-old World War II, it also resulted in unimaginable suffering to a large section of mankind. Today, the very fact that the debate is continuing on whether or not to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield is a direct spin-off of the concern and anguish which the A-Bomb-destruction generated around the world more than 60 years ago.

But, as regards climate-change, are there two sides to the coin? Briefly, there isn't, because if the emission of carbon into the atmosphere is not slowed down now, all debate will end (perhaps even in the foreseeable future) because mankind itself will become extinct. Why is Washington, and others, playing their transient games today on this specific subject when doomsday is staring human civilisation in the face?

RANABIR RAY CHOUDHURY