With the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, also known as the Conference of Parties, numbered fifteenth, at Copenhagen, Denmark, nearing its end, we can take stock of what has happened and what has been achieved out of this meet.
A few words on climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases since the industrial era have increased the concentration of [primarily] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This threatens to increase the average temperature of the Earth, resulting in drastic changes such as altered rainfall patterns, or, in an extreme situation, an increase of sea levels.
Much of the greenhouse gas emissions are from two primary sources: Consumption of fossil fuels in industrial economies and rampant destruction of equatorial rainforests in Africa and South America. The various climate change summits in the past decade or so seek to address the former. [The later may have been neglected only to be regretted later].
The Kyoto Protocol signed and ratified by almost all the countries [except the United States of America] in the year 1997, enshrines the “polluter pays” principle. This means that those countries, which account for the major share of the emissions [the First-World countries], must take responsibility for cutting their emissions. If third-world countries like ours were to cut emissions, our economic growth would be hampered and it would be difficult for us to extricate our people from poverty.
However, at Copenhagen, the developed countries are singing a different tune. They have rallied some small island states [Maldives, Micronesia, Tuvalu and a few others] and are effectively telling them “Your territories are going to be submerged because of the economic growth of China and India.”
This is ridiculous. India and China together [have] account[ed] for no more than 5 to 6 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Even if both countries were to make drastic cuts in emissions [with detriment to our economic growth], still the impact on the overall scenario would be small.
India did not help its cause initially by being ambivalent on fixing responsibility on the developed countries. India has agreed for voluntary emission cuts, but this will be out of the scope of monitoring by the First-World countries. But they are insisting on monitoring [which is unwarranted]. This is like saying, “We won’t do anything meaningful, but we’ll see that you are doing something, even though we will say that it’s all because of you”.
In the end, there can be no meaningful mitigation of the impacts of climate change until and unless the people of the First World give up their extravagant lifestyles.
Posts
Hey, Nice post.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you when you say that the "First-world countries" need to impose severe restriction on themselves first. However, I have a different point of view as far as India's stand on emission cuts is concerned.
While the US has no business in monitoring our emissions, I think we should conciously impose cuts for the future of this world. And to correct some facts, India is the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (CO2) only behind the US, China, Russia and Japan. So, if the world is being destroyed by these gases, a fair share of the (dis)credit will come to India. You can look at some interesting statistics here:
www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
I personally feel that development cannot be a reason to not impose emission cuts on ourselves. What's the point in development when the world becomes incompatible to life? And even if (and that's a big IF) the US cuts emission and we dont, it is not going to turn this world into a better place. It's not as if greenhouse gases emitted by India remains only within the Indian skies. Development cannot be an alibi to keep destroying nature. And in the name of development, we are also equally guilty of bringing down rain forests in our own country.
The world should follow denmark's example where more than 50 % of its energy needs come from the wind. For that matter, many of the Scandinavian countries stand proof to a success in implementing alternate energy resources. Unless every country without exception chooses to imposed cuts for its own good, I dont think there's any hope for future generations. Because even one country can sabotage the entire planet in this case.
Hi AP
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting on my article. The points you have raised are valid ones.
First, lets look at the site you have mentioned. In that, there's a pie chart [in addition to the bar graphs]. If you see that chart, you'll notice that the U.S.A. contributes to about 25.2% of the emissions, whereas India contributes only about 4.4%.
Now, you want to say [I presume] that if U.S.A reduces emissions by 50% [say], India should also reduce by the same 50%. This is precisely the point I want to rebut. Because, a 50% reduction by the U.S.A. will have a much greater [positive] impact than a 50% reduction by India.
All development results in pollution. Now, much of the world's emissions are due to the fossil fuels used in our transportation systems. Despite 50 years of sustained research, we still do not have any practical alternatives to LPG, petrol, diesel and fuel oil.
Electric cars [and engines] were thought to be a feasible alternative. But, despite having hydel, wind, tidal, nuclear and solar technologies, it is a harsh reality that more than half of our electric power generation comes from coal [another fossil fuel]. Fuel choice is dictated by economics, not climate change considerations.
You quote Denmark and Scandinavia as an example. Are these tiny countries, with populations less than that of our big cities, a benchmark for a country like India, which is one-sixth of humanity? Their needs of energy are small-scale, that's why they can do with wind power. Our needs are large-scale. We need a really large source of energy. Like coal.
You say that every country should self-impose cuts. I totally disagree. Why should a poor country like Chad or Niger [which needs to develop] not increase their emissions [for development]? Why should they pay a price for the First-World's sins?
See, its not that I don't want a solution. But this solution lies entirely in the hands of the First World, because they spend energy the most extravagantly. The Third World needs to develop, and for this it may need to actually increase its emissions in the short- to medium-term. Its better to be submerged by the rising ocean once rather than to remain submerged forever in a sea of poverty.
Other than that, we need to always remember "polluter pays". Don't just compare the emissions of today. Remember that the First-World has been emitting for nearly three centuries, whereas we have been doing it for less than thirty years. So they share a much-greater responsibility for emission-reductions.
Finally, I don't want any externally-imposed solutions. I would prefer an improved technological environment [for this physicists like you can help]. Then only we can find an ultimate solution to the energy and climate crises.
Sorry AP
ReplyDeleteI left out one thing. In my post it should have read "India and China together have accounted for no more than.." that is, cumulative data for the past 250 years. As you have rightly corrected, it is as that site says [China 15.2%, India 4.4%].
Perhaps the issue require elaboration. Firstly developed/industrialised countries are going back on Kyoto Protocol,(USA never accepted the Kyoto protocol.)Secondly they are not worried about others developments. They want the developing countries to be primitive and grow forests and nothing else. (Implications of the EU demands.) Thirdly the source of energy for most of the developed countries is either Hydroelectric/Nuclear/ Gas. (Japan excluded.)Wind power may be feasible in the subtropical region. Total wind power generation possible/potential in India is only about 10 to 15000 MW ( Source: Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Sources.) Perhaps the basic issue is economic dominance. Unless developed countries change their attitude, it is a futile exercise. Of course solar energy is in plenty. But what is the cost of solar cell of 1000 MW? Bio-fuels can be developed only at the cost of agricultural land or forests.It is dangerous to grow Jatropa in many soils in India as it also acts a weed. Alcohol from sugarcane is fine. But what about Irrigation and fertiliser requirements. Let us not beat around the bush. We have to conserve our ecology and environment and at the same time energy requirements are to be met. The solution lies in developed countries giving up their luxury of doing everything with electricity or petroleum/gas.
ReplyDelete