Introduction. Latest Headlines on effects of climate change has
warned that much of Mumbai would be under water due to sea-level rise by 2050. (But
Indian Scientists have refuted such claims.). Further, more than 11,000
scientists, (in the journal Bio-Science,) have warned of "untold suffering"
due to global warming and that “Earth is facing a climate emergency". It said if the Paris treaty's goal is to be
achieved emission of (warm causing) gases must be reduced by 50 % by 2030 and to
net zero by 2050. However, another team said Paris carbon-cutting pledges itself
are "too little, too late". Yet another report says, sea water
warming and level rising is long term phenomenon and even if, emission is
stopped, sea level will continue to rise for another hundred years. Contradicting
all, one study declared, Earth’s cycles consist of both, cold glacial periods
(ice ages) and warmer interglacial periods (present period) when the ice thaws
and sea levels rise and the same (sea level rise) will continue in spite what
human beings do. Meanwhile US President
has walked out of Paris treaty saying, treaty is unjust towards USA and puts
heavy burden on it. Hearing/ Reading all these contradictory things, one gets
confused and is unable to decide what / who is right. Whether, phenomenon is cyclic
or structural, manmade or natural, reversible or irreversible, what about
development v/s nature, developed country v/s developing country and so on. So
let us understand different point of view one by one.
Inadequacy of science. The Physics
explains that gases CO2 (and fossil-fuel burning is increasing CO2) in the
atmosphere trap heat received from the sun and so the climate system has
changed. Is it so simple? No. Reason, we
are having atmosphere, oceans, icecaps, seasons, and flora and fauna to get in
the way of simple radiative (absorption, reflection and re-radiation of sun
ray) physics based on which above calculations are based. Modeling the Earth's
climate is one of the most complicated tasks and creates the largest
uncertainties. Even supposing models have been very effective in predicting
climate change, they have not been as effective in predicting its impact on
ecosystem[s] and human society, which is not a pure science. So,
major effort should be made to monitor climate change as well as its impact on
ecosystem[s].
Changed and failed Theories. Further, for a common man question is if a tiny (It
is measured in parts per million and is in range of 200 to 400 ppm in earth
atmosphere) concentrations of carbon
dioxide can cause enough heat to create a global warming impact on Earth, why
is Mars with 95% carbon dioxide cold? Can this theory be wrong? Earlier also science
has discarded many old theories. Galileo changed Earth centric universe.
Einstein changed Newton’s Classical Physics. And now CERN researchers have
found neutrinos travelling faster than light that have proved Einstein theory wrong.
Darwin’s life theory is also under clout when scientist found life could have originated in deep-sea hydrothermal vents and
not in warm shallow pools of water (as Darwin stated). In socio political theories too Malthus predicted (mathematically)
population explosion to be followed by calamities, but proved wrong due to new
scientific invention like Birth Control devices etc. Further, what could be
side effects (ageing population, slowing of economy etc.) of controlling
population was not understood and within 50 years China had to reverse one
child policy adopted in 1970s
In view of above,
argument is that even if, predictor is sincere and correct about impending
danger like, Antarctic ice melting etc,
that doesn’t mean rising CO2 is the CAUSE of it (nor is “human activity” the
“cause” of rising CO2 levels, since nobody is taking actual MEASUREMENTS of all
of the CO2 sources and sinks). Correlation does not equal causation – one of the most basic
foundations of ACTUAL “science.” Computer modeling of the climate is at best a
speculative hypothesis of what might happen. It is not science in itself.
Science is about observation and experiment. If observation bears out the hypothesis
then and only then it is science. Further, now quantum physics (
i.e. science) tells that absolute objectivity is not possible in
describing observed phenomenon( ie for a single event two, observer can have
two different conclusion) So, What will happen if tomorrow it is proved
that carbon emission is/was not cause of global warming or for that matter
warming has improved certain things on our planet (about Ozone hole written
down below).
Effect of Human Intervention. Thus, Science
itself has not uttered last word about nature and seems does not understand nature’s
cycle fully. Further side effects of human intervention have not been properly
evaluated. Thus, though science has improved our life, but many of today’s
problems are due to shortsightedness in achieving so called progress. Thus
industrial revolution is cause of today’s CO2 emission. Chemical fertilizer has
destroyed the natural soil. Invention of plastic is cause of much solid waste
and sea pollution. Similarly, it is highly probable that, today’s heavy dependence on
Electromagnetic Waves (for communication etc) may give rise to some future
physical or mental disease in mankind. Near home, consecutive actions
in Punjab starting from 1970s -
encouragement for paddy crop, mechanization (leading to stubble in field after
harvesting) and stubble burning, and a ban on early sowing ( before monsoon, to
conserve water) led to late harvesting when wind direction is towards Delhi- is cause of smoke problem in Delhi. But even
in this season with (temporary) change of wind direction and daily rainfall ,
the share of stubble burning in air pollution in Delhi is only 2%, (in PM2.5
Air quality Index) on some day. This shows how one by one well intended human
intervention leads to new unintended problems. This also indicates, nature is
still more powerful (ultimately wind direction is deciding level of pollution)
than human in control of pollution and climate. Further it points that media
and public outcry over any problem can be biased ( calling it problem of Delhi though problem
is of North India)and tends to highlight external cause then internal one.
Failed predictions. Now we analyze earlier predictions about
climate change and find that none of prediction on climate and environmental
disaster since the 1970s has come true. Illustrative
brief list is. 1970:
Ice age by 2000( Boston Globe, April 16,
1970). 1970: ‘America subject
to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’ (Redlands
Daily Facts, October 6, 1970)
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’. But no such ‘great peril to
life’ has been observed as the so-called ‘ozone hole’ remains: 1988: Maldives completely under water in 30
years. (Agence France Press,
September 26, 1988). 2002:
Famine in 10 years. ( The
Guardian, December 23, 2002).
2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020. (The
Guardian, February 21, 2004).
2008: Arctic will be ice-free by 2018. (Associated
Press, June 24, 2008). 2009:
Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet. (The
Independent, July 9, 2009).
2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’.
(The
Independent: October 20, 2009.) Further, after Oil crisis, in 1973, the
‘experts’ predicted there was less than 20 years oil left in the world and that
in the year 2000 all computers would stop working and so on.
In 1970
scientist warned of global cooling but now they warn of warming. We must remember there’s
environmental science, and then there’s environmentalism. Environmentalism has
more in common with scientology than science. General preface to any prediction
is “if
present trends continue”. The
issue, however, is that present trends do not continue. They change
dramatically for a number of reasons within 10 -15years. Innovation happens, leading to change
in Consumer behavior (due to price signals) toward quantum and type of energy consumed
as well as on side effects generation (pollution etc).
Changes
brought by science. Every year brings new inventions. If we
were to try to name the greatest invention in human history, it would be hard
to beat the stone chopping tool and the hand ax. They marked the crucial
turning point when human being realized the ability to produce things and began
to see the world as malleable to their needs. I am sure from that age onward
nature v/s development debate must be eternally going on. Beginning
of Agriculture practices led to destruction of large area under forest. In last
two centuries invention of electricity and the internal combustion engine
greatly changed our lives and now Computers (more efficient quantum computer is
on the horizon), Digital Camera, TV, Smartphone, TCP/IP, WWW all are changing
our lives, energy needs and material consumption un-imagined 50 years back. Particularly
Photovoltaic Solar Energy and LED lights are redefining pattern and need of our
energy. Further there has been invention
of a battery that can run for 320 kilometers on a single charge for about 10
minutes only giving boost to e-vehicles. In medicine, Birth-control devices,
vaccinations, Non-invasive laser surgery, Coronary Bypass Surgery, Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI), etc has changed birth and death rates beyond imagination.
It is well known that CO2 is pollutant but
less known fact is CO2 is also useful feedstock, an input into variety of
industrial processes from plastics to concrete. So a team of researchers has devised a method where in, Carbon of CO2 (due to
fossil fuel burning) is captured and oxygen returned back to the atmosphere.
Other researchers have come up with a system to remove carbon-dioxide (even at
low 400 ppm concentration) efficiently from the air. Now idea is-
use more, emit less -and it is giving rise to whole new field in
science and technology- carbon capture and utilization (CCU) processes- CO2u(
utilization), CO2p (reduction in CO2 emission/production), CO2r (removal of CO2
from atmosphere), CO2s (storage of CO2)
This is how science and technology progresses and change- human organization,
energy needs, opens up new sources of energy and so on. Under the circumstances it is
hard to predict what will happen 30-50 year hence, and more foolish to believe
such predictions.
Adaption
by System and self healing by nature. As said
earlier, adaptation by the system does also happen simultaneously. The
diversity that we find today in flora and fauna all over the world is because
of adaption done by system over millions of year and this will continue in
future also. Take example of adaption of life in most poisonous gas for life, Hydrogen sulfide (H2S). It is a potent toxicant
interfering with oxidative phosphorylation ( a process) in mitochondria (part
of a cell) and creating extreme adverse conditions in aquatic ecosystems. The
mechanistic basis of adaptation to perpetual exposure to H2S remains
poorly understood, but it is seen to be working. Scientist investigated evolutionarily
independent lineages of live bearing fishes that have colonized and adapted to
springs rich in H2S and compared their genome-wide gene expression
patterns with closely related lineages from adjacent, non-sulfide streams.
Overall, results suggest that modification of processes associated with H2S
detoxification and toxicity complement each other to mediate elevated
H2S tolerance in sulfide spring fishes. Further, according to new research, Sea levels
rose 10 meters, (melting ice was main reason) above present levels during
Earth’s last warm period 125,000 years ago in the last interglacial period and we survived that period. Another example of how nature works/ interacts, (at some
point in the next few days), the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic
will close (good sign and without human effort) completely as a result of warmer
temperatures in the stratosphere (effect of CO2 emission).
While global
energy, poverty and food insecurity remain a pressing challenge, due to
innovation, legislation and adaption, the problems are getting much better, not
worse all over the world. For example in
1999 more than 15,000 people were killed in Orissa due to Super cyclone, but
when similar intensity cyclone Fani hit this year death toll
were less than 10. In fact we should be thankful for economic liberties that
provide people with the means to protect the environment. As a country grows
economically, it increases the financial ability of its citizens and businesses
to care for the environment and reduce pollutants emitted from industrial
growth. Countries with greater economic freedoms have cleaner environments and
greater environmental sustainability. So development should be seen as
complement to fight against climate change and not otherwise.
Resist
Changes. Unfortunately, above facts has been
used by many to belittle environmentalist and overlook dangers of climate change.
They label, environmentalist leftists and opponent of their own political
thinking (implying there is some conspiracy in it, to halt progress), or
lobbyist to boost business of industries engaged in clean environment (To
some extent it is true, by invoking and playing with fear emotion about
pollution, industry of clean water has
been created and same is going to happen with air also.). Selectively
picking statements (and out of context) on scientific uncertainty to contend
that “no one bothers to check that predictions are wrong all the time". They
say, over
the last 5 million years the world has cooled, warmed up, cooled and warmed when
humans were not burning coal. Further, they claim humans have polluted the
world but not to the degree the ‘experts’ want us to believe. Lastly, they tell people, even if problem is real; the
solutions are so drastic that they could send us back to the Stone Age.
Effect on Society. But reality is, rising temperatures, spread of crop
disease and extreme weather events is leading to degradation of local ecosystem
and has made harvests at many places unviable and people are migrating from
there. In this scenario millions of people are forced to choose between
insecure livelihoods and the unauthorized migration. In the absence of coordinated action by global
community there is fear of “climate apartheid.” Further, warming has enhanced economic growth in cooler,
wealthier countries while dampening economic growth in hotter, poorer
countries, resulting in increase in economic inequality. . Climate change has also adversely impacted
food security and emissions are “a clear and present danger to health security”.
(The health benefits of addressing climate change “far outweigh the costs of
meeting climate change goals). Warming oceans, melting ice, and rising sea levels are affecting
everything from coral reefs to the nearly 10 percent of the global population
living in low-lying coastal areas. Within those groups (living in warm and
coastal area etc), damage to subgroup of vulnerable populations is
disproportionately high Animal and plant species on Earth are threatened with
extinction. This
threat is more (due to the intensive use of fertilizers and chemicals in food production)
for Bees, Butterfly etc. (like small creature for whom conservation program are
not in place but) which help in pollination, making possible flowers, trees, and
agriculture on earth. Further, a new global assessment shows that human impacts
have greatly reduced plant-fungus symbioses (known as mycorrhiza), which play a
key role in sequestering (storing) carbon in soils. To close the paragraph remembering that uncertainty, about change, can work both
ways and we could be underestimating future changes.
Main Polluters and who
should coordinate? We have discussed models, changes
by science etc, and (uneven) effects on society and so on. Now who contributes to problem and how to improve. Just
over half of greenhouse gas emissions come from four nations. At 29 percent of
the global total, China has said it will lower carbon intensity and peak
emissions by about 2030. The US, accounting for 13.1 percent of
the total, has turned its back on the Paris deal. India, which is
ramping up both renewable energy and carbon-intensive coal-fired power, accounts
for seven percent, and Russia -- which has made no pledge at all -- added 4.6
percent. The emissions of the world's poorest nations have been and continue to
be negligible, but steps must be taken today to shape their energy consumption
pattern so that they should not become dependent on cheap fossil fuel energy (Halting
development is no choice). The
most complicated political questions is who should step up to deal with the
harms of climate change, considering that wealthier countries pollute more but
are often shielded from the worst effects. How can responsibility be assigned, and more importantly,
what is to be done? Under
the Paris treaty, developing nations are to receive $100 billion annually from
next year to help curb climate change and cope with its impacts. But whether
they will receive it? Ultimately, it is
debate between development and nature. We all are supposed to commit
national resources on a problem which do not recognize national
boundary for which there are no clear answers. It is not a philosophical question about
earth and humanity (they will adapt and survive) it is political and economic
question of each once place there in.
India. Coming to specific question about
India, the policy has to shift decisively from whether to do, to how to do so,
but as part of development challenge. We need to do five things. First, to
recognize the interplay between climate and development (sector wise), Second,
identify clear areas where there are synergies, and where trade-offs exist,
between two. Third, look beyond short term to longer term strategic
visions of India’s development pathway. Fourth, build strong institution,
Climate Change Advisory Board etc.(like Security Advisory Board) to direct and
coordinate efforts. Lastly, but most important (as climate change is not
bound by national boundary) is climate diplomacy, as a deeply vulnerable country, India has
to push vigorously for more and more effective, global coordinated action on reducing emissions.
Conclusion. While the
exact contours of the future are hard to predict, there is little doubt that
climate change carries huge, negative implications for India and World. So far we
have focused on our immediate development concerns — poverty, jobs and
livelihoods, access to energy services etc —but it is increasingly clear that
climate is crucial to development. There is no longer a pathway to development neglecting
climate challenge.
In the past, climate science reports had an implicit future tense, as in,
“It’s a problem for your grandchildren”. Now, we are left with a
sense of urgency, about immediate and forthcoming climate dangers. The first step
in this is to accept the warnings and create conditions for innovative
solutions to be found. By pushing the myth that we can continue to act as usual
and innovations will magically happen in the future to bail us out, a great
disservice is being done, especially to today’s children. They are being
burdened with the responsibility of not only dealing with the changing climate,
but also innovating and fixing it. We are taking a loan and expecting our
children to pay it off. That is an inter-generational Ponzi scheme. Children
themselves are aware of it and so Greta
Thunberg, a teenager from Sweden, became one of the youngest crusaders against
practices adversely affecting climate change.
That is hope for us and shame on us.