The story goes that long ago in the Old Testament of the Bible, God forewarned his people of huge floods that would cover the entire earth. Only one person, Noah, heeded this call and built an ark that would later save a called few. 

Later, a man named Lot forewarned God’s anger but would only save a few when God punished the sinful men of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into asphalt. But there was this one man in Nineveh called Jonah that like his predecessors had the unpleasant task of warning the city of pending doom if they didn’t turn from their sinful ways. 

This time the people heeded his call, repented, and God listened, much to the chagrin of Jonah who now felt like some fault prophet. 

On radio, I am now listening to some scientist on global warming with CNN Asha Sassey, and wondering if he too isn’t a prophet of doom. He is quite clear in his message which for once, most scientists seem to agree with; that as of now, it is too late to reverse the effects of man’s activities on global warming. 

Furthermore, even if we were to actively start doing the right thing to reverse this impact, it would take no less than 50 years to see the slightest beginnings of reversal.

I immediately put this to my FB friends to gauge their reactions. ‘Is this simply a scare or have we already set a bad legacy for our children?’About 80% were quick to refute this as some lie or scare. 

About 10% seemed resigned to man’s greed surpassing nature’s call. The rest, more or less believed it was the natural path of the globe in revamping itself regardless of human activities. When I asked if we weren’t possibly burying our heads in the sand like the ostrich, none of them responded.

At the back of our minds, I guess we all have this nagging fear of the unknown and hope for God’s miraculous intervention in one way or other. As we watched the eclipse of the moon the other day, it was unnerving the accuracy with which the scientists predicted its path over Kigali. 

Suppose the scientists are too accurate on global warming as well? What then is our purpose on earth if most of what we do is negatively impacting the very reason for life?

You watch on television the impact of air pollution in Beijing, China, as people go about business wearing masks to reduce inhalation of polluted air. A friend jokingly said that we might start seeing trendy mask designs world over if we helplessly resign ourselves to this. 

In Japan, its dependence on nuclear power turns disastrous as a powerful Tsunami causes leaks in the power plant and the residents have to be evacuated, a terrible reminder of the Chernobyl accident that maimed the lives of many. The common sense question is why the nuclear plants, if the slightest leak causes so much fear?

It is true that many solutions are being tried and tested, including wind-power generators, solar energy, reforestation, recycling, and the like. However, the outcry is still on and scientists are frustrated by the inadequate responses to this by world leaders. A debate between a climate change lobbyist and a head of NGOs on climate change was interesting. The lobbyist was spot on the positive outcomes they had achieved, while the institution head mumbled something about finally getting the government to call a meeting to discuss a framework of actions….

The consequences of global warming are real and already causing a lot of havoc in parts of the world. If only the effort put into political crises and solutions were put into curbing global warming, the world would perhaps be facing lesser threat of climatic change.

Part of the reason given for the lacklustre response states that global warming is presented as a future problem and not in the now, a gross oversight given that sustainable solutions are needed in the now. 

The other reason is that the global world has got highly dependent on the very same things that threaten climate change, like fossil fuels, nuclear power, electricity and gases. 

Ironically, the very things fronted as signs of development such asreal estate, airspace navigations, transportation, habitats, and yes, agricultural expansions, imply deeper encroachment and dependence on nature for sustenance. 

So whereas global leaders have to heed to global warming, they also stand at risk of losing popularity if people lack basic necessities that are taken for granted, but demand natural resource exploitation. 

Territorial power and security also mean that destructive weapons to both nature and humanity have to be applied.It is a delicate balance political leaders have to play between power/wealth and climate change, with the former usually tipping the balance. 

I am watching pacifist Albert Camus being celebrated on France 24. His wise words after World War 11 Hiroshima nuclear bombing were that ‘the world should choose between collective suicideand selective use of science’. Does this make sense? Yes of course. But territorial power and selfish greedwon’t let us be and this worsens with increasing competition for limited resources. 

Our scientist prophets keep preaching doom while chasing against timefor solutions. With the much that has been and is being done already, we do not know if we are doing too little too late. As the consequences of climate change evolve at a faster rate than predicted, we bury our heads in the sand and pray God works some miracle. 

The problem is probably too huge and discomforting to handle. Hopefully like in Jonah’s time, we shall robe the sack, rip our attire and rub our faces in the ash in time for God to finally save us from ourselves.

The writer is a social commentator based in Kigali