Climate change: are we up to it?

S P SETH

A three-part documentary series on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef by the British naturalist, David Attenborough, (recently shown on Australian television) highlighted not only the damage already done to Australia’s great international wonder, but, in the process, brought home vividly the tremendous destructive power of climate change. As if to supplement/reinforce the powerful message from the documentary, Matthew Long, lead author of a study published in the American journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, has said, “Oxygen is a necessary ingredient for marine life, for all sorts of marine organisms.” And the resultant deoxygenation from warming climate is seriously damaging marine life. We need to care “about marine ecosystems for their intrinsic value…” He adds, “We are driving pretty massive changes in the environment--- and we’re not just changing one variable. We’re changing a suite of variables to which marine organisms are sensitive, and basically putting significant demands on their adaptive capacities.”

Another study, the High and Dry: Climate Change, Water and the Economy, released by the World Bank, highlights the enormous danger from water scarcity. For instance, warm temperatures can cause more evaporation of water, and wild swings of temperature can both cause intense rainfalls in some regions and terrible drought conditions in others. The study finds that in the next 30 years, “the global food system will require between 40 to 50 per cent more water; municipal and industrial water demand will increase by 50 to 70 per cent; the energy sector water demand increase 85 per cent; and the environment, already the residual claimant, may receive even less.”

These and other studies point to the fact that our planet is under tremendous strain, much of it caused by burning of fossil fuels. On the seas, the warming of the oceans is not only endangering marine life, including corals, but also increasing the frequency of events like tsunamis, tornadoes, cyclones and so on. At the same time, as the delicate balance of the universe continues to be disturbed, we are subjected to unseasonal and destructive cycles of simultaneous droughts and copious rain fall and flooding in different parts of the world. All these events are creating a tremendous crisis in human affairs, including the animal kingdom and marine life.

We are now confronted with the prospect of the submerging of island nations, like in the south Pacific, and the large-scale displacement of coastal communities all over the world. Which, in turn, will lead to massive movement of people in search of new homes and hearths, with serious security implications as relatively more secure nations in terms of resources will seek to shut their doors on environmental refugees. We presently have a refugee crisis from the Middle East, with many people escaping their brutal circumstances but not having much success in seeking refuge in Europe. The number of potential environmental refugees from climate change is likely to surpass any thing that we have seen before, unless the world gets serious about reversing the trend.

The last year’s Paris Climate Change Conference and the resultant Paris Accord has sought to get a handle on the inexorable phenomena of global warming. Of course, almost all countries are agreed on the science of climate change and the need to reverse the process, and certain broad targets have been agreed on. The problem, though, is that even with the broad target of keeping the global warming under or around 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, it still looks like inching towards 3 degrees to do terrible/irreversible damage. And to ensure that all countries abide by their targets to keep it less than 2 degrees will not be an easy task. First and the foremost difficulty is that there is no effective supervisory and regulatory mechanism, even though there is provision for periodic review of targets. The record of international agencies in different areas of human endeavor when it comes to national targets/commitments is abysmal and what is there to suggest it would be any better with climate change? One can only hope that with disaster staring us in the face with increasing frequency of unnatural weather patterns, it might foster a shared sense of avoiding collective hara-kiri. But that is a huge leap of faith.

An important way is to completely rethink our economies, of which the switch to renewable energies is a vital part. And it has to be done fast enough to phase out, if not eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. Which is easier said that done. In the industrial economies and oil producing countries, there are powerful lobbies and financial interests that will do everything possible to thwart it. Second: developing countries neither have the technology nor financial resources to make discernible switch to renewables to make any real difference. They would need immense help, both in terms of technology and finances, to make a credible start in terms of results that will evoke hope in their people.

With varying levels of economic development and rampant poverty in large parts of the world, there is need to integrate the world economy more equitably. And that will require real sacrifices from the haves of the world to have-nots. There is a need to create a sense of common humanity in terms of a minimum needs before there is a common sense of a shared humanity to save the world. Obviously, it will involve massive aid for the poor and the deprived to upgrade their energy sources. There is a broad target of $100 billion for developing countries, which might look impressive on paper but is woefully inadequate. In any case, if the past record is any guide, even this is unlikely to be met.

An unfortunate part of all this is that there were studies going back to the seventies that warned of the dangers from burning of fossil fuels. In his article, Fury Over Fracking, in the New York Review of Books, Tim Flannery refers to a 1971 estimate by Lester Machta, director of the Air Resources Laboratory, pointing out that owing to the burning of fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations would rise by 20 per cent by the end of the century. And even ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil conglomerate’s own research was pointing in that direction. In a 1982 climate change “primer” restricted to internal ExxonMobil use only, the booklet warned of potentially severe impacts on climate, saying that “once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible” and that combating the threat “would require major reductions in fossil fuel consumption.”

Despite all the emerging evidence and scientific consensus, Exxon worked to create doubts about climate science. And this kind of misinformation, still being paraded in some quarters, is only complicating an already difficult, if not irreversible, process of climate change.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.