M D NALAPAT discusses the dangers posed by climate change and suggests urgent measures which may help avoid economic and social upheaval and ensure sustained development.
The climate is changing. That is clear. The monsoon is becoming less predictable, average global temperatures are increasing, and summer Arctic ice cover is decreasing.
The causes are complex, with some factors more certain than others. The most common culprit accused is an increase in Green House Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. The idea is that the GHGs make it more difficult for heat to escape from the planet, warming the globe like the glass walls and ceiling warm a green house. One GHG is carbon dioxide. One way carbon dioxide is created is as a by-product of burning oil and gas for energy production.
Often, this is where the discussion stops. A straight line is drawn between energy use, carbon dioxide creation, and a changing climate. This straight line has been used to justify a range of policies. Upon examination, many of these policies are designed to support an existing economic or political agenda.
For example, one proposal, as introduced at the ‘climate talks’ in Copenhagen in December 2009, would have created a global market, based in the West, in which ‘carbon credits’ could be sold. It would entail nations, sectors and/or businesses being given a quota of the amount of carbon dioxide they could produce. Those who were under their quota could sell-off the excess to those who were over their quota. Carbon trading already existed as a $180 billion industry. The hope was that it would grow to $2 trillion by 2020.
These new financial mechanisms proposed in Copenhagen for trading in ‘carbon emissions’ were, in some cases, designed by the same people who designed the economy-destroying credit default swaps, leading to questions about if the mechanisms were really intended to have a meaningful impact on the global climate or if they were at least partially to bolster the crippled financial service sectors in London and New York.
Other policies that dovetail with pre-existing agenda include: using carbon dioxide emissions as an excuse to push for the slowdown of industrialisation in developing countries; more politically useful funding for Western renewable energy industries to bolster energy independence; and reviving the lucrative nuclear power industry using the justification of it being a ‘clean’ energy.
As a result of this West-based extremely narrow and linear approach to the climate change (energy use à carbon dioxide emissions à climate change), the traditional energy sector in particular has felt itself under threat and has been active in trying to discredit the whole concept of climate change.
This is a case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. The energy sector itself is likely to be badly hit by a changing climate. Globally, key coastal facilities, such as those along the U.S. Gulf Coast are already experiencing increased flooding. Nuclear power stations in France are suffering repeated shut-offs and powering downs because higher river temperatures are not providing enough cooling capacity. Projected increases in storm strength are already causing disruptions to off-shore facilities, as was seen when Hurricane Katrina destroyed over 100 platforms in the Gulf. Hydro is being affected by changes in precipitation patterns, glacial melt and competition over scarce water resources. In many sectors, due to these new variables, insurance and operating costs are increasing.
Generally in discussions about energy and climate change, the focus is on the sector’s impact on the environment. That is no longer sufficient. Planning must now also include the impact of a changing environment on the security of the energy sector. And all other sectors.
So how can one really increase stability and profitability in a time of increasing change? One way is to re-examine the challenge, stripped of the embedded agendas.
Take GHG emissions. Even if the carbon-focused policies produced their stated goal and dramatically reduced carbon dioxide emissions, while that would help, they would only address part of the problem. There are other GHGs, some much more potent than carbon dioxide, for example, methane.
According to one UN report, the global livestock industry produces more GHG emissions (largely in the form of methane) than the global transportation industry. Yet there has been no real push to incorporate vegetarianism – or at least the reduction in meat consumption – into policy solutions. In fact, there has been active undermining of the attempt to get the issue discussed by Western agricultural lobbies.
Similarly, there are vast stores of methane hydrates under the seabed (it was a methane ‘bubble’ that triggered the destruction of the BP rig in the Gulf). If that methane is allowed to just release into the atmosphere, it may cause exponential damage and yet, so far, methane hydrate extraction for energy use (a field in which India is one of the leaders), is not generally considered part of the solution for GHG emissions, perhaps in part because Western energy companies lag in its development.
In the same way carbon dioxide production from energy use is just part of the GHG picture, climate change itself is just part of the larger environmental change picture. For example, in many areas aquifers are being depleted, requiring wells to reach down deeper, and yet the water they are touching is often of poorer quality. Similarly, previously good growing land is becoming exhausted, producing fewer crops with greater effort. Climate change may make these things worse, but these problems would exist even without a changing climate. Any real solutions must incorporate these challenges as well.
Currently, the discussions around the impacts of, and solutions to, climate change (which, as mentioned, does not even include the larger challenge of environmental change) have been largely framed by the West. As was seen at Copenhagen, emerging countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa have rejected that framing. However, it is not enough to simply reject what is proposed. What is needed is another vision forward. One that, like the global environment itself, is more complex and interrelated than the current linear offering.
There are many mutual gains to be had. To take one small example, by slightly decreasing meat consumption in a meat rich diet, one can not only cut GHGs, but also improve health, reduce stress on the land (which is particularly important in a time of climate variability), grow more agricultural produce (which can result in a net increase in employment depending on the methods used), and cut water usage (one kilo of beef can take at least 15000 litres of water to produce).
Environmental change is an urgent and serious challenge that has the potential to dramatically undermine economic development and social stability. The problem is too critical to leave the proposal of solutions to others. We must find our own ways forward; one that is science-based, inclusive, and effective. And we must do it now.