So here we are debating climate change

Last Friday, my dear friend Olivia who works for the Mairie (town hall) of the tenth on town planning and sustainable development issues asked me along to a play/debate on climate change. Out of solidarity and a little curiosity I agreed : it seemed original- a play put on by journalism students- and was free.

It was playing by the canal at the espace Jemmapes. A nice room with a fair sized stage, decorated to look like a café and terrace. The play was uneven: at best amateurish, at worst hopelessly incompetent. The plot was pretty good : we are in an undetermined near future, the warming of the planet is significant and the government & scientists have injected the atmosphere with sulphur to cool it down. (FYI: this is a real theory and solution put forward by... the Nobel prize winner for chemistry). However acid rains, respiratory problems and hideous climate change in other regions of the world have appeared as a result, though all this is hushed up by the government.

So various characters wander through the café giving their opinions and showing the various positions that people have on the issue. One girl is conspiracy-theoried up, suspects the government and is depicted as being closest to the truth. Her aunt is a farmer whose crops are suffering. There is a incompetent journalist who doesn't research anything but is spoon fed her story by a stern and corrupt climatologist. The plot gets a bit complicated as the long-forgotten murder of a climatologist is introduced and trails off, which is disappointing as the general idea was pretty good, though perhaps portrayed in a slightly black & white way (EVIL government! NICE hippie!). The acting was very uneven, some good, some forgetting their lines. Little things like empty glasses and crappy props made it difficult to suspend disbelief. That said, the one hour didn't feel too long.

What got me a little worked up however was the debate that followed. There were three experts : a young chick, a funkily dressed man and a quiet older guy. The chick knew nothing and kept turning to funky man for answers, figures and arguments. The funky man I quite liked: he had the guts to say that we were potentially all fucked and that it was possibly to late to do anything about climate change, and was also stern about some of the hypocrisy that underlies the climate change debate (do as I say not as I do, especially rich countries vis a vis poor ones). Then the third chap started to talk. He said that it was't so hard to save the world: we "just" have to cut out CO2 emissions by 4. So : if you have a car, always fill it up: by driving four people around instead of just one, you are cutting emissions by 4. Er... He then said that we had much to learn from the developing world. "Look at Senegal!" he said. Taxis and busses only leave when they are full. So let's do that in Paris! Er... Finally he said that we had a lot to learn from Ethiopian housing, which is biodegradable and moveable as made of mud. Great! It also lacks plumbing and electricity would dissolve in the rain, but who cares! It's all about saving the planet right?!

I left after he suggested this master world-saving solution. I am all for saving the planet and do my utmost to reduce at my own little level my CO2 emissions (public transport, veggie box, no shitty imports, avoid planes, recycle and so on.) but live in a mud hut in Paris? Lol. We could also suggest only having electricity one day in four (at the local hospital e.g) and that would also save energy.... This is the problem : we need feasible solutions that won't actually make the situation worse, so let's forget mud huts, car sharing and sulphur injections... and reopen the nuclear debate...