The problem of the global changes, and the global warming issue, in particular, represents one of the major points of the heated discussion in the modern society. Political parties promise to protect their electorate from the global warming effect, global corporations include the sustainability aspect in their corporate strategies, eco-friendly associations and movements are established on an ongoing basis. In the meantime, the question arises as to the subject of the common debate and its relevance to the modern reality. My interviewee’s view suggests that the problem of global warming is being intentionally exaggerated by global corporations and fund in order to receive more governmental resources under the slogans of environmental protection.
The first argument that proves this point is the fact that climate changes are not a novelty as the mass media and politicians try to represent it. Their thesis relies on the fact that human activity expands and interferes with the natural processes what causes the prompt response from nature which tries to protect itself. In the meantime, history shows that the climate tends to change notwithstanding the extent of a human interference. Moreover, these changes can be rather radical. In this view, it might be rational to refer to the example of the Ice Age. To date, experts still argue regarding what was the major driver of such dramatic climate changes. Needless to say, the human factor is not the top reasons being discussed in the frame of the discourse. As such, it is critical to acquire a clear understanding of the fact that climate is one of those factors that cannot be controlled by a human will; instead, these are humans that need to adapt to the natural changes around them.
Another important point that needs to be discussed is the major aim that all the debates around the climate change issue debate target. In this vie, my interviewee believes that most companies and corporations mask their vested interests under the slogans of sustainability. As such, the protection of nature and the environment, as well as the slowdown of the global warming, seems to be a very respectful mission that is most likely to be supported by both the government and the authorities. In other words, environment-related initiatives appear to be the best way to gain sponsorship and to create a competitive image in the eyes of the customers. Moreover, the issue is likewise very popular at the governmental level. Those candidates that gamble on the global warming and other related problems are immediately perceived as more responsible and conscientious. As a result, rational people no longer believe in the relevance of the climate change problem, perceiving it as another point populists use to gain the interest of the public.
Finally, speaking about the alternative solutions to the problem, my interviewee believes that it should be addressed at the ideological level. In other words, the major clues to reducing the impact on climate changes and the global warming are to get people educated from the early childhood. In other words, sustainability should become a state of mind so that there will be no need to speak about it in the course of one’s election program or to include it in the company’s corporate strategy agenda. Instead, people should be brought up to think in a sustainable manner which will result in their acting in a sustainable manner in the long run. This task should be, first and foremost, completed by the government. It is up to the government to promote sustainable ways of thinking at schools and universities as well as to impose the relevant restrictions on those companies that do not comply with the sustainable ideology.
1. What do you think of Climate Change?
To my view, it is an uncontrollable process, something happening notwithstanding our will. Climate had been gradually changing before we were born and it will continue changing whether we want it or not.
2. What do you think of Global Warming?
I assume that it is a natural process businessmen exploit to further their personal initiatives.
3. What makes you thinks so?
Well, let us just look at the ecological programs that mainly aim to protect us from the global warming effect. What they basically do is collect money to develop programs that are supposed to prevent the inevitable.
4. Do you think humans can have an effect on changes in the climate?
To some extent, yes. On a larger scale, though, I believe natural processes flow independently on a human. Let us look back at the Ice Age, for instance. There was no human interference in the natural processes; meanwhile, nature would still change its course radically.
5. I see. But, do you see any effect on nature humans have now? Is it positive or negative?
The effect is mostly negative. I mean, the industrial progress is essentially negative for nature – all this pollution and so on. Moreover, it seems that global corporations are mainly focused on increasing their gains rather than preserving the nature. Of course, they include an eco-friendly context in their public appeal; but, in fact, little is done to improve the situation.
6. Do you think there is anything out of the ordinary or abnormal about it?
No, I think it does not contradict the human nature which is not very long-sighted. I mean, it is rather typical of people to take the advantage of nature regardless of the long-term impact.
7. Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing?
As I have already said, it is generally bad.
8. Does the fact that a high percentage of scientists, and particularly climate scientists consider it human-caused, affect what you think about this issue?
Well, I cannot say I rely on the scientific opinion much, in this view. I base my assumptions on what I see around me – all those factories and corporations expanding their power whatever it costs them.
9. Could you give some example?
Well, broadly speaking, the principal example is that all the corporations encourage the increase in consumption, which is natural since they are interested in revenues. Meanwhile, excessive consumption is one of the primary causes of the global warming; in this view, it no longer matters whether your company pursues an eco-friendly strategy or not – the scope of its operations is so huge that it inevitably makes a contribution to the global warming effect.
10. Do you think humans should do anything about it? If so, what? Who should be involved in any such action(s)?
It is the government who should address the problem at the ideological level. People should be brought up with the mentality that focuses on sustainability.
11. Do you think it is a divisive issue? Why? What can be done to make it less divisive?
I would rather characterize it as a natural course of thing which you can influence to an insignificant extent only.