Opinion Leaders,follow us

Such a world,delivered quickly enough,would offer hope of survival for even the most vulnerable nations,including low-lying island nations like the Maldives. It would also soften and eventually dismantle many security threats other than climate change.

A world no longer geared to oil,for example,would be far less prone to both the creation of terrorists and the recessions that tend to oil price shocks. A world no longer burning coal would see a restoration of our fresh water resources along with a reduction in the high levels of mercury in your fish.

How quickly could the renewable-energy industry perform this security-building paradigm shift?

Many industrialists believe it could happen within as little as two decades by simply shifting the $72 billion in subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries each year — a commitment that has been made but not yet implemented at the last G-20 meeting.

A recent study by American scientists,published in Scientific American,mapped out the route down to the last wind-,solar-,and water-powered plants,and the relatively small acreages of available non-arable land that would be needed.

Some observers,those who prefer to cling to the status quo,will deem this far-fetched. But consider that 20 years ago,at the time of an earlier oil price shock,the Saudi Arabian oil minister,Sheik Yamani,warned his fellow OPEC ministers that “if we force Western countries to invest heavily in finding alternative sources of energy,they will. This will take them no more than seven to 10 years.”

That was with the technology of 30 years ago. In 2008,China became the largest manufacturer of solar in the world and renewable energy attracted $150 billion in new investment. A continued growth rate of just 15 per cent per annum is all that would be required to make sure that renewable technologies do not remain dwarfed by oil,gas and coal in the next two decades.

If we can find the collective will to make good on eliminating the $72 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and defy the vested interests,we can de-carbonise the world,building layer upon layer of common security as we do it. This is a bright vision that is real. The thousands of people in the streets here believe it. So too do the visiting investors and entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley.

Business is already leading; governments simply have to keep up with the pace of change. Retailers are competing with each other to see how deeply they can cut carbon,and right across their supply chains. Investors are pouring billions into clean energy. Communities are acting too — low-carbon initiatives are proliferating in cities and towns across the world.

At one level,all we have to do is accelerate what is already going on. But we do need governments to seize the

historic opportunity that Copenhagen provides them with. There must be an agreement that has teeth: one that sets the world on a course where there is a realistic chance of greenhouse gas emissions on a scale that can offer the most vulnerable countries hope for

the future.

Some day we will have to learn that our security is best built by making sure our neighbours are secure as well. Global warming is in the process of teaching us that. Its beachheads are becoming clear in proliferating climate extremes. Floods and droughts are already showing us how they can destroy the economies of entire states. Insurers tell us that if we do not change course,we risk destroying wealth and value faster than we create it before we are half way through the century.

We must defeat this enemy. We know we have the technologies,the tactics,and the people to do it. What we need is fewer pronouncements and more leadership.

The writer founded the Virgin Group and co-founded the Carbon War Room.