1610-1984, 1896-??

In the year 1610 a scientist named Galileo came to the radical conclusion that the moons of Jupiter are well...the moons of Jupiter, i.e. they go around the planet Jupiter. Sounds lame? In fact, it was the nail in the coffin for the geo-centric model. There was proof that there are atleast a few celestial bodies that don't seem to care too much about us or in fact about the planet that we inhabit. It took till the year 1984 for the most powerful institution of the 1600s to agree that Galileo was right and they were wrong in threatening and bullying him.

It's been 110 years since a Swede named Arrhenius came up with a rather loony idea that maybe the carbon dioxide released by all the coal burning might be heating up the atmosphere. Since that point, numerous scientists contributed to this radical idea that we tiny humans are slowly but surely changing the world that we are living in. In a philosophical reversal, the same humanity that couldn't be convinced that we were inhabitants of an inferior rock mindlessly circling the sun are now steadfastly unwilling to believe that we as a whole are big enough to cause immeasurable harm.

The current high church of humanity, Anglo-America and the free traders that it spawned and continues to cherish and nurture still refuse to buy into the arguments of scientists. Half-hearted agreement with the conclusions have not resulted in any far-reaching steps. It is stunning to think how narrow businesses and governments can be in defining themselves and their interests. Stunning given the fact that large corporations usually are the last people who need to be reminded that their primary aim is to make money and keep making money. What is irreconcilable? The simple fact that every decade since the 1960s, the cost of natural disasters has doubled (source: UK insurance report). Yet, it took the insurance industry till 2003/2004 to wake up to the trouble it was in. The energy industry is happy to behave in a manner similar to the cigarette industry of the 70s. Leave tomorrow's problems to the day after tomorrow. BP and Shell are happy to pay lip service by investing peanuts in greener technology and providing "education" on their websites. And, thank you for driving. A simple redefinition of what their business is or even a re-reading of their own websites can prevent them future headache and help avoid irrelevancy. They are not in the oil business but the energy business. Yet, why don't we see Shell/BP/etc sponsored cleaner fuel technology development? Finally, no one has ever accused any government of thinking too far into the future. But the incapacity to listen to people who are paid to do so verges on the immoral/insane. A very likely scenario in the years to comeby is a couple of Katrinas in one year and the insurace industry hitting the ejector button leaving the government to fly a energy-starved plane from the wingman's seat. Do the governments have a plan? Will they survive 350 years to apologize to all the scientists that they are rubbishing now?