The fresh talks over emission cuts did little to move the nations to commit to emission cuts. As they always do, the advanced nations accused India and China of running away from their responsibility of partaking in cutting emissions. Let's look at what makes emission cuts such a contentious issue at such high level parleys, and how the losing side is always our planet.
Hot and Happening...
Unless you have been living in a cave, and have come out only because you heard of this blog and wanted to check it out, you would probably know the two buzzwords - 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Global warming causes climate change. But it is not the only thing that causes climate change. Without going into the details, I'll just link a site where you can read all about global warming. Global warming is changing weather patterns and crop cycles, melting glaciers, causing droughts and famines in some parts and excessive rainfall in others, and even snow in Dubai. But every theory has its share of naysayers, and so does global warming. Some say that global warming is not causing climate change. Scientists are busy verifying contesting arguments for climate change, such as solar activity. People are saying temperatures are decreasing rather than increasing. But global warming or not, climate change does seem real and we must make efforts to reduce pollution and emissions into the atmosphere and use cleaner technologies, for the only reason that we have to make our home a better place to live in.
The Awakening...
The pressure from the Green lobby led to the 'Kyoto Protocol' which has since been ratified by 183 countries. It talks about reduction of emissions by certain countries such as the United States, Japan, the European Union from their 1990 levels, by about 5.2% by 2012. That does not seem to be happening. In fact, emissions by the world's largest polluter, the United States, has increased. The US has not ratified Kyoto. There is no definite commitment from the developed world about reducing emissions and the Kyoto Protocol is not going to meet its objectives. The developed countries are instead pushing the developing countries to adopt cleaner technologies and reduce their emissions which are far less than the developed world in terms of per-capita emissions. Kyoto does not use per-capita emissions as a basis for reduction targets. The developing countries argue that adoption of cleaner technologies is still expensive and the cost factor and the need for economic progress outweighs the need to cut emissions as the per-capita emissions are still low. So they should be allowed to develop without the emission constraints which would otherwise hamper economic progress. They demand that the developed world should own up to the responsibility of reducing emissions, as much of the climate change being witnessed is due to the emissions caused by advanced nations over the last few decades. The developing countries had far less emissions in those years than they have today. The two sides are always at loggerheads over this issue and never seem to make any headway in negotiations, leaving planet Earth in the lurch.
Carbon Credit Escapism
The emphasis on Emissions Trading in Kyoto spawned the market of carbon credits. Companies in countries trying to limit emissions buy carbon credits from companies that have accumulated carbon credits by using cleaner technology, usually in developing countries. Companies manage to cap emissions are able to bundle the cut in emissions as carbon credits and sell them to other companies. Companies in the developed countries also sponsor clean technologies in developing countries in order to reduce their global carbon footprint. Whether the so-called clean technology has reduced emissions, is found out by checking its claim using the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM), again part of the Kyoto Protocol. Though trading in carbon credits has become a huge market, criticism rages on about its effectiveness, as the developed countries as a whole have not seen significant reduction in emissions. At the heart of the criticism is the CDM itself, as actual benefits do not seem to match benefits validated under CDM. Expansion of commercial establishments from the developed world into the developing world means no real reduction in carbon footprint as the expansion adds to emissions anyway. Many clean development projects are taken up with an eye on bottom-lines rather than the urge to reduce emissions. Adoption of cheaper, cleaner technologies in the developing world not only earns carbon credits but also helps companies to have an 'environment-friendly' image in the public eye, which in turn makes good business sense.
What the developing world can do...
Though the developing world may spar with the developed world over emissions cuts, it is in the national interest of every country to reduce emissions, if not in the planet's interest. Adoption of cleaner fuels will reduce emissions which is good for the local environment. For example, use of biogas across villages will reduce emissions due to burning of wood, and a steady supply of gas will improve cooking methods which will further reduce emissions. Lighting of streets by solar energy and indoor lighting by CFC lights or even LED lights will save thousands of watts of energy in every state. So even for developing countries it is absolutely necessary that they move towards cleaner technology and emission reductions in whichever way they can. The growth of companies selling clean technology will also create new jobs. It is necessary that the Indian government promotes use of cleaner technologies aggressively. Like the way we accuse the developed world now, we would not like to see India accused of being a major polluter by some fast developing African economies in the near future, do we?
__________________________________________________________
* Tailpiece *
The above photo, called The Blue Marble, is a famous pic of Earth taken on December 7, 1972 by the crew of Apollo 17. It will be 40 years, since the first Apollo landing, on July 20, 2009. The entire space science establishment, the world over, has lined up a series of events, to commemorate the historic event of the 'One Giant Leap for Mankind', all this week.
I am reading a book, Bhabha and his Magnificent Obsessions in the 'Vignettes in Physics' series by Dr. G Venkatraman. I have read his Raman and His Effect, which I received as a prize in a science competition many years ago. The books in the series are very well written and I hope to complete the series.
__________________________________________________________
Posts
1 comments:
Well-written, and informative as well (and nice links!) I, though, am not optimistic about how we can bring down our emissions without running the risk of halting development (due to the present high costs of investing in infrastructure for alternative fuels). India and China are rapidly developing countries who don't cannot bear those high costs if they are to continue their rapid pace of development. The foray into alternative energy must be made by the developed nations, which is precisely the point India and China make.
On the other hand, Cecil Adams argues here that if that is so, the emissions from developing countries will swamp the emission cuts from the developed ones. Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I think this point is well-taken.
The developing nations have to compromise on their development to, as Global Warming advocates put it, "save the planet". And hence I believe your post makes important points. I hope we can see them getting implemented in the near future.
Post a Comment