[Reader-list] The Urgency of Global Warming

[Nagraj Adve]

  The Urgency of Global Warming
Never has there been a clearer case of Nero fiddling while Rome  
burnt. Only in the case of global warming, it's the Earth that's  
burning and we are not merely fiddling, we are stoking the flames.

The recently released Summary by the Intergovernmental Panel on  
Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007, The Physical Science  
Basis: Summary for Policymakers, makes it clear how bad the situation  
is and that it will worsen. It says there has been a sharp increase  
in carbon emissions just in recent times, from 6.4 billion tons per  
annum in the 1990s to about 7.2 billion tons per annum in the years  
2000-2005. This is an increase of 12.5 per cent in just a few years  
and that too at a time when the Kyoto Protocol was in effect. This  
has resulted in carbon emissions increasing to 26.4 billion tons of  
carbon dioxide each year. [1]

Consequently, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280  
parts per million (ppm) around the time of the Industrial Revolution  
to 379 ppm currently. To this if one were to add other greenhouse  
gases, primarily methane, we reach carbon-equivalent levels of  
roughly 440 ppm at present. As a result of these greenhouse gases  
hampering the Earth's heat from escaping, the average temperature  
over the Earth has increased by 0.76 degrees celsius.from what it was  
at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

The Summary also concludes beyond normal doubt that human activity is  
responsible. This has, incredibly enough, been a bone of contention,  
with some arguing that changes in solar radiation is primarily  
responsible, hence any effort to mitigate global warming is not just  
a waste of time, it is actually detrimental since it would hamper  
economic growth. But the latest Summary states that the influence of  
"changes in solar irradiation since 1750 .. are less than half the  
estimate in the TAR" (the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC  
published in 2001.)

Based on late 20th century experience and trends, the report says it  
is 'virtually certain' (99 per cent certainty) there will be warmer  
and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas. It is  
'very likely' (90 per cent certainty) there will be heat waves more  
frequently, and heavier rain as a part of total rainfall in a season.  
It is 'likely' (66 per cent) that intense cyclonic activity will  
increase as will areas affected by droughts and extreme high sea  
levels, but excluding tsunamis (p. 7).

Not merely are these changes based on late 20th century trends, many  
of these observations and freak weather events have become part of  
people's regular conversations. What is not part of common sense is  
that the time to act is very short, a matter of barely a few years,  
because beyond a certain point, climate change becomes irreversible.  
One of the reasons for that indifference is not just because most  
people already have their hands full with immediate problems of  
sustenance but perhaps because the scientists' dire predictions seem  
very far away.

For instance, much of the press reportage, though dire, mentions  
predictions of 2090-2099, little under a hundred years away. The best  
case scenario, one that hypothetically includes a population decline  
after 2050, the wide adoption of clean technologies, and equity in  
social and economic relations, models an increase of 1.8 degrees over  
the year 2000 and hence of 2.4 degrees since the Industrial  
Revolution. A more plausible scenario, and one that has been widely  
quoted, is what the Summary calls a "best estimate", an increase of 3  
degrees celsius, and "likely to be in the range of 2-4.5 degrees C  
(p. 9).


Why Acting Now is so Urgent

What's missing in the press reportage is the damage that will be  
caused by much lesser levels of warming. The Summary says that  
effectively a rise of 0.2 degrees per decade is unavoidable. George  
Monbiot, in his remarkable book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning  
(Allen Lane, 2006) makes clear what will happen at a rise of 1 degree  
C: "At less than 1 degree above pre-industrial levels, crop yields  
begin to decline, droughts spread in the Sahel region of Africa,  
water quality falls and coral reefs start to die ( Heat, p. 15).  
Since we are already at 0.76 above pre-industrial levels, we should  
get there in little over a decade. In fact, the IPCC report already  
states that that "drying has been observed in the Sahel, the  
Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia". With 1.4  
degrees of warming, the coral reefs in the Indian Ocean may become  
extinct. Quoting various official reports and peer-reviewed science  
journals Monbiot writes, "At 1.5 degrees or less, an extra 400  
million people are exposed to water stress, 5 million to hunger, 18  
per cent of the world's species will be lost and the onset of  
complete melting of Greenland ice is triggered." (Heat, pp. 9,15).

The urgency to act also comes from something else, what the IPCC  
Summary calls "positive feedbacks". These work in two simultaneous  
ways: currently the land and sea absorb at least half the carbon  
dioxide emissions. As the Earth gets warmer, the capacity of the land  
and sea to absorb carbon dioxide will reduce, hence more remains in  
the atmosphere, warming the Earth even further.

The second element of positive feedbacks is actually the Earth itself  
contributing to warming. In 2005, researchers discovered that a vast  
expanse of ice in Western Siberia was thawing, which could release  
over time the 70 billion tons of methane in the soil underneath, [2]  
and methane, mind you, is 23 times more potent as a warming gas than  
carbon dioxide. In general, as trees burn or plants die, microbes in  
the soil will process them faster, emitting carbon dioxide rather  
than soaking it up, One paper has argued that in little over three  
decades, living systems will actually emit more carbon dioxide than  
they absorb. At some critical point, warming will trigger off  
feedback on a huge scale, effectively making global warming  
irreversible. That point is widely accepted as a 2 degree rise [3],  
or just 1.25 degrees from the present. According the recent UK  
government report authored by Nicholas Stern, that level or even  
exceeding that could well be reached by 2035. Some put that date as  
near as 2030


Its Class Effects

The second element missing in much of the coverage is class, of how  
the effects of climate change will be felt differentially and will  
exacerbate existing inequalities, and food and water scarcity,  
particularly in India. Agriculture in India will be hit for a  
multiplicity of reasons. Rising sea levels due to warming will mean  
flooding in coastal areas – which are often the most fertile – and  
over time salty sea water entering groundwater sources, upon which  
agriculture partially depends. Monsoons will become more intense and  
heavy rains former a greater proportion of rainfall in a given  
season, hence affecting agriculture patterns. Dryland farmers will be  
badly hit. A rise of 2 degrees will result in falling rice yields,  
says a study by scientists at the Indian Agricultural Research  
Institute. Also, according to the glaciologist Anil Kulkarni, a study  
of 466 Himalayan glaciers revealed that their surface area had  
receded from 2,077 sq km in 1962 to 1,628 sq km at present, a 21 per  
cent decline. If the recent news report on submissions made by Indian  
scientists to the IPCC is to be believed, Himalayan glaciers will  
shrink further to one-fifth their present area, from five lakh sq km  
to 1,00,000 sq km. This will mean increased water (or even floods)  
for a while followed by even greater water scarcity than at present.  
This report suggests that agriculture yields could decline by over a  
quarter. [4] These levels are projections but the fact of significant  
decline in yield is not in doubt.

This in a country where thanks to other man-made policies,  
agriculture is already in deep crisis. Due to the agrarian crisis,  
operational holdings have declined by 4 million between 1993 and  
2003. The number of operational holdings below one acre has lessened  
by nearly 5 million because for these poor households, it is simply  
not worth their while. [5] In a country that already has the highest  
number of malnutritioned children in the world, in which per capita  
consumption of foodgrains has declined in recent years, the impact on  
the rural poor of agriculture and water supply being hit by climate  
change can barely be imagined.


Flawed Responses

Yet, the Indian government's response has been akin to Nero's. It has  
merely been saying that the developed world is primarily responsible  
for global warming and that India will not forsake growth for the  
environment. As a recent article argued, "Besides activity in the  
market for 'clean development mechanism' projects, which will have  
little impact on emission trends, India is practically silent on the  
international stage." [6] There is no doubt that the First World and  
capitalism are primarily responsible for the plight we are in –  
America alone emits almost a quarter of the world's carbon emissions  
– but given the little time to act and given that all scientific  
studies indicate that South Asian and Indian water sources, forests,  
biodiversity, shorelines, and agriculture, are already getting and  
going to be get worse hit, the Indian government needs to move fast.  
Unfortunately – and this is ironically tragic – since issues of  
survival, employment, food security are so much at stake and on  
people's minds, one major cause that will make these more precarious  
seems a faraway fancy of the environmental fringe, and far removed  
from immediate concerns. Among many Left friends, mention global  
warming and one gets a blank look. It's hardly surprising the  
government is doing little; there is hardly any popular pressure on  
it to do so.

There needs to be far more research funding and subsidies for cleaner  
technologies like wind and solar power. The Indian government has  
been exploring two avenues, nuclear power and biofuels – more due to  
concern about the growing demand for power, and the rising prices of  
conventional fuels rather than to tackle global warming. Both these  
avenues are being explored outside India even more and both have  
their associated hazards.

 From the current production of merely 2,720 MW, the Indian  
government is planning 24,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, and  
President Kalam has been urging a target of 50,000 MW by 2030.  
Elsewhere too, governments have begun to look at nuclear power much  
more fondly. The US, which has not built a nuclear plant for over two  
decades, is having a rethink. To nudge the construction of new  
plants, the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides tax credits to new  
potential nuclear plants for the first eight years of their  
operation. More than 20,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity have become  
operative globally since 2000, much of it in East Asia. [7]

Whereas nuclear power certainly deals with the problem of carbon  
emissions, it is deeply flawed for three obvious reasons. One, the  
lack of safety associated with generating nuclear power (the effects  
of Chernobyl are still being felt as far afield as Western Europe).  
Two, the problem of storing spent fuel and as Deutch and Moniz have  
argued, "no country in the world has yet implemented a system for  
permanently disposing of the spent fuel and other radioactive waste  
produced by nuclear power plants". Given that nuclear waste remains  
hazardous for several millenia, current practices seem not very  
convincing. Additionally, plutonium leaks both accidental and  
intentional, have been unearthed in England and in Scotland; whether  
companies will be any more careful in the Third World where  
regulation tends to be less carefully ensured is anybody's guess. As  
it is, these are considered security matters in India and out of the  
domain of public knowledge. Three, the question of linkages between  
nuclear power and nuclear arms and the possible dual uses of enriched  
uranium. The greater spread of nuclear fuel simply means the greater  
possibility of nuclear arms proliferation.

Regarding biofuels, the planting of jatropha has begun in many Indian  
states. Ethanol, made from corn, has been blended with petrol and the  
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation recently announced a new  
plan to blend ethanol with diesel. [8] Biodiesel-run buses ply in  
Haryana and Pune as well. In the US, companies sold 16 billion litres  
of ethanol in 2005, But this again can do more harm than good. One,  
because of the environmental impact of fertilizer used, its gains  
regarding global warming are suspect. Daniel Kammen, Distinguished  
Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley,  
concluded that ethanol may reduce US dependence on foreign oil, but  
"it will probably not do much to slow global warming unless the  
production of the biofuel becomes cleaner". [9] Second, biofuels have  
actually contributed to global warming by forests being felled to  
grow palm oil instead in Malaysia and Indonesia, and ethanol in  
Brazil. Palm oil plantations were responsible for 87 per cent of the  
deforestation in Malaysia between 1985 and 2000. The cutting of  
rainforest to grow palm has led to forest fires in Indonesia that  
released enormous carbon emissions. [10]

Third, above all else, though state governments in India claim that  
biofuels will be grown on 'wasteland', it will impact livelihoods  
adversely. There have been bitter protests recently in Rajasthan  
against transferring land to companies for planting jatropha. These  
'wastelands', people say, are used by communities for fuel and  
fodder, and as catchment areas for water bodies. [11] Additionally,  
some amount of irrigation is needed for biofuels when grown on a  
large scale, and there is the danger of using forestland or land that  
could potentially be used for foodcrops. Already, according to the  
FAO website, the growth of biofuels has led to a rise in the prices  
of essential food items. Rather than having fewer cars, we are now  
actually taking over vast tracts of land to grow cleaner fuels for  
them! This in a country where already, according to Utsa Patnaik, per  
capita calorie intake is declining among rural households in most  
states and where an average family of five consumed 114 kgs less of  
foodgrains in 2001 than it did in the early 1990s, [12] This is  
bizarre, but as long as cars proliferate at the rate they are and  
markets are allowed to dictate what is grown, this will only unfold  
and intensify.


There needs to be the understanding that the problem lies with  
unchecked capitalism. It's not for nothing that in IPCC's reports and  
other literature carbon emission values are presented relative to  
what they were at the start of the Industrial Revolution. In passing,  
much of the recent alarm over China contributing to global warming  
omits to consider that it is capitalism's drive for cheap production  
that has contributed to so much manufacturing shifting to China.

Whether sustainable solutions can be found under capitalism is moot,  
and some have persuasively argued that "a plethora of blueprints for  
an ecologically sustainable world fail … because they do not accept  
that capitalism is incapable of bringing them into being." [13]  
There's a problem though. Even if we disregard Left experience of the  
20th century – which was scarcely inspiring in this respect – the  
fact of the matter is that socialism on a meaningful scale to be able  
to tackle climate change is nowhere on the horizon and even small  
levels of warming from the present will have huge impacts. Since  
greenhouses gases stay in the atmosphere for decades, what we do now  
will be felt decades into the future, and differences of degree, say  
through the wide promotion of clean technologies, would buy us time.  
But the window of opportunity before climate change becomes a runaway  
process is closing fast. That urgency of climate change needs to be  
underlined, governments pressured to act to mitigate some of its  
impacts, even as we incorporate the inevitable environmental  
destruction that capitalism causes in our understanding and our quest  
for a sane society.



Nagraj Adve


Email: naga2 at vsnl.com


[1] IPCC report, pp. 2-3. The multiplier between carbon and CO2 is 3.67.

[2] Ian Sample, 'Why the News About Warming is Worse Than We Thought:  
Feeback', Guardian, 3 February 2007.

[3] Heat, pp. 15-16.

[4] Quoted in the Hindustan Times, 2 Feb 2007; Sonu Jain, 'Warning in  
New Report, Indian Express, 12 February 2007.

[5] J. P. Singh, "Changing Agrarian Relationships in Rural India',  
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Jan-March 2006, p. 43.

[6] Clive L. Spash, 'Climate Change: Need for New Economic Thought',  
EPW, 10 February 2007, p. 483.

[7] John Deutch and Ernest Moniz, 'The Nuclear Option', Scientific  
American, September 2006.

[8] The Hindu, 31 January 2007.

[9] 'The Rise of Renewable Energy', Scientiifc American , September  
2006, p. 58.

[10] Heat, pp. 157-161.

[11] Ruksan Bose, 'Wasteful Plan', Down To Earth, 18 February 2007

[12] Utsa Patnaik, 'Food Stocks and Hunger in India,  
www.macroscan.com, 3 August 2002.

[13] Norm Dixon, Change the System, Not the Climate,  
monthlyreview.org, 10 February 2007.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20070330/e1a52dd6/attachment.html