Climate change is a scientific fact and I never would have thought that
it could bring much debate on the floor. If it’s a fact, then there
should simply be an acceptance of it; simply do what you can do in your
own corner. Yet I guess what really drives debates over it, is that we
actually could still do something about it but we often just disregard
Back home, in the Philippines, there are more urgent problems to be
discussed, which is why environmental issues may often be set aside
Chris Nash reminded us in his
plenary lecture of the one question that journalists – always keen
on ‘finding the facts’ – miss. We ask ‘who?’, ‘what?’,
‘when?’ and ‘where?’, but in our rush to get the story out we
don’t always have time for ‘why?’.
‘Why’, Chris pointed out,
is the most important question.
In the conference presentations
I’ve heard, a lot of questions have been posed. I suppose from an
academic perspective this is the ideal, if we’re trying to find n
There are aspects of the structure of a conference which can be dangerous. I was concerned about this before coming; not about whether we would be bored or interested, whether the presentations would seem relevant or not - you cannot, or course, please all the people all the time. Rather, there is something in the formal structure itself which, while allowing ‘conversation’ of a kind, also limits our ability to interact.
Politeness and convention require that we sit still and listen - even when