Our view:
Though the first published works of the effects of Carbon di oxide induced global warming from the burning of fossil fuels was recorded as far back as 1896 in Europe, it was only fifty years later that serious and sustained effort was made by the scientists and environmentalists to quantify and co-relate the long term effects.
Sometime during the fifties scientists and ecologists around the world sensed certain perceivably changes in nature which they felt were influenced by the rapid industrialisation of an explosively populace human race. These changes like the melting of the ice cap in the Arctic, the pattern of storms & droughts, and the change of weather patterns to the unpredictable, had happened for the first time in 650,000 years. Further research enabled scientists to pinpoint and conclude that it probably was the rapid rise in Carbon di-oxide levels from 270 parts per million in the pre-industrialised days to over 320 ppm in the fifties ( C02 concentration in the atmosphere is around 390 ppm today) that directly caused global warming and its consequent ill effects on the atmosphere and weather patterns.
Ecologists started creating mathematical models to show the effects of carbon and greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere. In one of the early researches of the sixties ecologists found a definitive relationship that tried to express the effects of industrialisation on Global warming mathematically. This was the IPAT equation, a rudimentary but simple and easily understood formula that stated that the Impact of Human Activity I = PAT where P is the size of the population, A is the level of income per person or Affluence and T is the Technology factor which is directly proportional to the Co2 emitted as per the fuel used for energy requirements globally. In short to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment humans could either control the world population which was fast increasing to the 7 billion mark, or the affluence of its population or improve the Technology factor to bring about new and clean energy technology that emitted lesser or virtually no Co2
Since all three were rather daunting proposals scientists and activists across the world individually tried to attack all these parameters in sporadic efforts to the best of their ability. The attempts by thinkers and writers to convince the world to control population came up against massive resistance surprisingly from some of the most populated countries, whose political leadership had absolutely relinquished control on this paradigm as it was not good electoral politics. Only the communist republic of China with no hang-ups about human rights or democracy took bold, effective and the much needed measures to curtail population growth, a key aspect for which they have not really got the due credit or recognition from the world community or environmentalists. It must be acknowledged that this bold and unpopular step by the Chinese leadership spared the world of almost 5 to 10 % of population growth in what could be a deciding factor as the world moves increasingly towards a critical temperature that will be a tipping point in the ecological balance of our earths atmosphere and the climates it governs.
While China was the only country which made bold attempts and controlled the P factor of the IPAT equation, intellectuals, environmentalists, activists and scientists concentrated on the next seemingly impossible task of reducing the effect of A the affluence factor in the equation. The argument was equally divisive as the onslaught on world population as it effectively meant that if the per capita income of the people around the world was minimised it would help to reduce I the impact of human activity on climate change.
Another possible way to reduce I the impact of human factor on environment is to reduce A which is the affluence of the human race. Today the per capita income level of the human race determines its consumption pattern. With increase in income the consumption rises and since consumption patterns directly affect the energy use, the per capita energy consumed in affluent countries are much higher then emerging or developed economies. This results in higher per capita carbon emissions in the developed nations.
However the BRIC nations with much larger population of 2.8 Billion constitute a emission threat no lesser than the developed nations, simply because of their double digit growth rates of per capita income and rapidly growing population.
A study of Data collected from World Bank for the year 2007 shows the Carbon emission of the European Union to be the highest at 9.75 Billion tonnes per annum followed by the BRIC Nations who emit 7.02 Billion Tonnes The United States producing 6.92 Billion tonnes. Of Carbon emissions is not far behind while the other major emission producer is Japan at 2.26 Billion tonnes of C02 . Between this 4 groups these 25 large nations of the world accounting for slightly over half the global population produces 25.95 billion tonnes of Co2 which is around 87 % of the world’s emissions.
These countries each large sovereign nations or groups of nations are too big, too populous, too rich and too powerful to really mould or curb despite the fact that they may be critically affecting global emission levels due to their high energy consumption patterns , economic growth and population base. So it is the Technology factor that must immediately come into play to make any realistic effect on climate change. The IPCC and major national governments have been wasting a lot of time and effort in Carbon credits , carbon tariffs and carbon trading agreements. We feel that such negative policies that have been tried for the last fifteen years without consensus must be replaced with a positive energy plan to make climate change discussions meaningful and yield positive results.
In this blog from “ecology to economy” we deal with discussion of sustainable practices which we must adopt for the for various aspects of economy as well as climate change. We are focusing in this issue on the proposed regulation of the carbon tariff and trade market and the real implications it has had on the international scene . We feel that a positive energy plan must replace carbon trading as the centrepiece of climate change talks. We could be wrong. Tell us if we are & why? We encourage diverse opinion even if it is from commercially interested groups opposed to our thinking
No comments:
Post a Comment