“Climate change will lead to future wars.” How true this line is.

Before anything, let’s see: Why climate change is exactly said to be such a great threat in first place?

It rises sea level and alters climate pattern. So?

Well, sea level rise will decrease the land available to humankind and mass-sink whole civilizations on coastal plains. Also climate pattern altering is key factor to imbalance the global food production.

So can’t it be dealt?

May be or may be not. But one thing is certain. Any futuristic solution will need adequate time. Technological advancement is on rise but nowhere, as per the current trend, we are close to solving the climate change effects, which are due a couple of decades from now.

So who will be affected? Everybody?

Yes. Everybody. That’s why scientists and activists across the globe is making the big deal out of it, and it is a big one indeed. But which areas will be the worst affected?

Let’s rewind. Land area will decrease and food production will fall. Where shall the effect be the ugliest? The densely populated countries, which immediately hints to Asia. And which are the ones capable of going to wars?

The South Asia.

The Indian subcontinent although has good trade network and similar historical ties but between the nations, as history tells us, if the situation worsens they wont stop until war outbreak. Top players will be the big nations: China and India, additionally fuelled by Pakistan, Bangladesh and if the need arises then Sri Lanka. Maldives and Indonesia no doubt will be too badly affected being archipelagos.

Even before we talk of extreme situations where islands are vanishing and coast is submerging, the steady effects in near future will lead to drop in food grain production, rise in food prices, extreme stress on existing freshwater resources, worsening of population at the bottom of pyramid, which is a major fraction in these countries. This will eventually give rise to armed conflict. There is still a chance that it may not happen but evolution says species get into conflicts when natural resources are heavily conflicted upon. In the recent version of IPCC’s fifth assessment report released on 31st March 2014 in Yokohama, it has been estimated that even a rise of 1 degree Celsius can bring down the GDP by 3%.

The above factor may still look unconvincing to few people but let’s magnify them further. The major densely populated coastal metro cities will be affected pushing the population away. By 2050 the fisherman community will be affected due to fishes and marine animals getting vulnerable. Wheat production of India and Pakistan will be greatly affected. Maize production in China will be affected as well. The Himalayan river water sharing will create problems between India and Pakistan. Brahmaputra is already in crisis with border disputes involving the triple nations of Bangladesh, China and India. Glaciers will wear out creating floods to worsen the health and hygiene conditions in basins, before dying out and bringing droughts…

OK, you got it. The further delay of our actions to mitigate climate change will only paint a ugly picture. One can still argue that “Hey, come on. Not wars. Definitely not.” But then how worse can a war be when the nature retreats.

 

 

 

Global Burning

In 2004 NewScientist reported that air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. Medical News Today also published the story and went further to give more a bit more facts, reporting that in a controlled experiment set up by a group of Italian scientists. They left a turbo diesel 2 litre engine idle in ignited condition in a closed garage for thirty minutes and then proceeded to open the doors and allowing ventilation for next four hours. In subsequent part of experiment they lit three filter cigarettes and recorded the air quality after one hour.

In the first case combined particles levels in the first hour after the engine was started was 88 ug/m3 and with cigarettes it was 880 ug/m3.

I will not talk on the cigarette filter pollution or the deforestation for tobacco plantation which reportedly is responsible for 2-4% of global deforestation itself. Rather I will limit this blogpost to an incident which I recall at Helsinki Airport.

I was waiting for my flight back to India with a couple of my friends. Tired of the same faces around I took a stroll and finally settled at a couch which interestingly gave me a direct peep into a glass chamber where a proud font displayed the words: Smoking Zone.

It was nothing that very interesting. Most public places do have this zone to save the passive smokers. But then something else crossed my mind: cigarette emissions. I sat there for 30 minutes, between 1715 and 1745 hours of 11th July 2012. I spotted 17, 8 males and 7 females,  smokers going in and out at different times. One of the ladies smoked two joints. So in a span of 1800 seconds 18 cigarettes were smoked up!

Now a bit of high school mathematics please:

– In a span of 24 hours it can be expected that 864 cigarettes should be smoked up in that glass chamber. Introduce a 16.67% error and we are still left with 720. So let’s assume that on an average Helsinki Airport smoking zone supports 720 cigarettes.

– Now in a regular year of 365 days, we have 262, 800 cigarettes burnt up in the chamber.

– Helsinki Airport is not yet listed among the 50 busiest airports. So there is a fair chance that rest of the airports may be supporting much greater number of cigarettes. But let’s take into consideration 40 such airports and assume this modest figure of 262,800 cigarettes being burnt up in smoking zones annually.

– That gives us a number greater than 10 millions! 10 millions cigarettes innocently are smoked up. And this is the most least calculated number. Also there is a fair possibility that airports support more than 1 smoking zone…so there we go 😀

Now 3 cigarettes is reportedly 10 times potentially dangerous than 2 litre diesel engine running for 30 minutes. Now what does 10 million cigarettes tell us? This tells us that that engine had to be left ignited and idle on low sulfur fuel for 190 years without break. And did I mention that this is the ultra-low estimation.

Anyway, FYI I read somewhere recently that smoking releases about 2.6 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere. And 5.2 billion kilograms of methane. Hello Global Warming 😀

Rework of an article published by UNEP Tunza while serving as Regional Ambassador to India.

Prehistoric Account of Climate Change: Mankind initiates.

The year was 2007. Bali Climate Change Conference, otherwise known as COP 13. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon addressed the conference with these lines, “The science is clear. Climate change is happening. The impact is real. The time to act is now.” So the world is threatened. There’s an urgency to act and avoid the consequences. Every nation is engaged in constant dialogue to address this very phenomenon. But a curious mind may wonder what happened to the world all of a sudden. Why is there such a rush all of a sudden? Did they have their eyes closed all these years when the toxins were spreading in the thin air to haunt the coming times?

I heard the terms “climate change”, “global warming” and “Kyoto Protocol” when I was in grade 8 preparing for a quiz, making me feel like hitting a jackpot of secrets. There’s this huge phenomenon called climate change which was happening, affecting the entire planet, and my father was still unheard of it, why? Because it has just started, a brand new discovery by science, or so I thought until I read how it all started…

 

The Very Early Beginning

The history of climate change can be stretched back to the beginning of 18^th century when the English ironmonger Thomas Newcomen put together the ideas of British Thomas Savery and French Denis Papin to create the first working steam engine in 1712, paving the golden path for the Industrial Revolution. Fifty one years later in 1763 a Scottish instrument maker, named James Watt, was hired to repair a model Newcomen engine in the University of Glasgow and discovered how inefficient the engine was. He started working on his ideas and in 1775 he came up with his own engine. Despite the huge fuel efficiency offered by James Watt’s engine, Newcomen’ engine continued to be popular, except at places where coal was expensive. The facts that Watt engine had a higher efficiency by factor of 5 and saves the fuel costs 4 times were not enough for the industrialists to switch from Newcomen’s engines, which were cheaper and simpler to build, for decades to come. So that was the beginning of the man’s greed journey.

Coining “Greenhouse Effect”

Years later in the 1820s, French mathematician Joseph Fourier came up with some wonderful theories unrelated to the industrial revolution. He mathematically concluded that a planet as big and as far from the sun as earth should have a colder atmospheric temperature. This meant there were other sources which were heating up the planet like interstellar radiation and/or the earth was trapping a part of its surface emitted infrared radiation in the atmosphere just like the air in the glass box. This led to the birth of the term “Greenhouse Effect.”

The story remained pretty same for a few decades. The global industrialization was expanding and the rapid development soon led to the beginning of Second Industrial Revolution. It was during this time, in 1950s, when British physicist John Tyndall proved the Greenhouse Effect to be real by showing that gases were not really ‘transparent’ and certain ones, like water vapour, absorbs infrared radiation. Nobody had the slight idea of correlating both the events. And why would they? They had no clue you see.

Connecting the Dots

In 1896, the Swedish Noble laureate became the first man to correlate earth’s surface temperature and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere based on the theory of greenhouse effect. He made few interesting predictions:
1: The global warming then was largely fed by the carbon dioxide emissions made by the burning of fossil fuels.
2: He greatly praised this human emission of carbon dioxide since he believed this has prevented the planet from entering an ice age and was a good sign for the future expanding world population.
3: He estimated that halving the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then would lower the global temperature by 4-5 degrees Celsius and doubling the amount can increase it by 5-6 degrees.
4: At the rate of emissions then from the industrial activities, he estimated that it would take 3000 years for the atmospheric carbon dioxide to double up and hence believed the earth was very much safe.
These predictions were major guidelines for the world. He had given a path breaking relation for sure, complete with easy mathematics to convince the world.

In the years to follow, it was reported that the carbon emission had reached 1 billion tonnes per year mark. Three years later, in 1930, the human race has successfully doubled its number what was 130 years back, to hit the 2 billion mark. And climate science was on a pretty fast acceleration.

Progress in Climate Science

In 1938 British steam engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar shows that the earth is warming up. He came up with different conclusions to reason this, including increased solar radiation in the then recent past and the levels of atmospheric dusts from volcanoes, rejecting all of them to finally conclude that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities were the cause. In 1953, a John Hopkins University researcher, Gilbert Plass took Callendar’s studies further and reported to Time Magazine, convincing the world climatologists with his calculations that carbon dioxide could indeed affect the climate and the earth will continue to grow warmer if industrial growth is not checked.

In the subsequent years the researchers came up with a bunch of predictions and discussions surrounding the ocean-atmospheric carbon cycle. Scientists believe that the oceans would be their savior from the rising carbon levels taking away the rising atmospheric carbon. Until 1957 when the American scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess came with the theory that the oceans would not absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide beyond a certain limit due to chemical reasons and hence any further human emissions would stay in the atmosphere to aid in altering the world climate.

Then in 1960 American scientist Dave Keeling detects an annual rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide making the horror real. So the damage was done. Everything was on a rise. The same year humans had added another billion of their kind to the world population to hit the 3 billion mark. The industrialization was continuing to boom. It looked like every nation was or would be burning down the fossil fuels until there’s no more to burn. The theories of science around climate change were getting louder amongst all the chaos and it was during the 1960s when for the first time climate change and greenhouse effect entered into the world of politics and policy.

Not for reproduction without permission. And the further story shall be continued in my forthcoming blogpost due 20th May 2013.

Why should Indians’ care?

 

One day while I was pulling a serious talk on climate change during an extra period in the high school of Ghatau. Now it’s not a big thing that such topics fit nowhere in the school curriculum and you may get teachers skeptical of your efforts of helping education. I was making sea level rise a big deal. Coming from a coastal state near Bay of Bengal, educated in Mumbai near Arabian Sea and being aware of islands countries future concerns I, for a moment, went blank when I realized I was able to connect with my little listeners. How should I explain these school kids who live in the barren hills, wheat valleys and have never been to the next stop town? If I talk of sea…they have never been to sea…if I talk of international concern…you are kidding there right…if I talk of pollution…mother nature so far has been kind to them keeping them unaware of pollution. I took a couple of minutes before pulling myself up and explain.

The burden of Climate Change is a classic example of “her/his responsibility but not my job.” The village folks will say: we are fine with our agriculture, we are not sure of our urban brothers. Youths unless motivated and rightly educated will be very unlikely to take care of waste reduction and energy wastage. The daily worker will blame the two wheelers for burning petrol. The two wheelers will point out to the four wheelers with AC. Indian corporate giants will throw big words like “generating employment for India” and will pass the ball to American corporate who in turn will either feel alone and left out in this global responsibility or will smirk remembering Professor Henry Miller: like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic, a much higher percentage of passengers from the cheaper decks will suffer.

So cutting long story short, why should Indians care?

• Climate change has direct, and of course adverse impact, on ecosystems and agriculture on which 58 per cent of the population still depends for livelihood and contributing a quarter to the nation’s economy
• water storage in the Himalayan glaciers which are the source of major rivers and groundwater recharge will decrease
• sea-level rise threatening the habitations and civilizations on coastline
• Rise in frequency of extreme events such as floods, and droughts which in turn will impact India‟s

1. Food security
2. Water security
3. Economic and livelihood issues
4. Desertification, biodiversity and arable land loss
5. Refugee issue since the demographic units of neighboring nations are quite similar

Talking in plain simple words and breaking it down in more simplicity:

The islands and coastal population will suffer.

The population based on river basins will suffer.

The agriculture based on monsoon will suffer.

The tribal population amongst the jungle will suffer.

The urban population heavily depends on agricultural output. Eg Mumbai, one of the largest commercial hubs in South Asia, will starve after running out of its storage in flat two days if food supply from outside stops. So they will, undoubtedly, suffer.

So my little village where I taught will go into major crisis if its monsoon pattern changes, crop fails, has nothing to export and slowly biodiversity will begin to die out. They, despite being far far away from the seas, will become the beloved victims of climate change.