Climate Change: Third Wold Perspective

By Guest Writer PG, post was originally prepared for a School Paper

There should be no denying of the fact that the earth’s mean temperature is gradually increasing, this is a fact based on scientific measurements. Debating anyone who says otherwise is a waste of time; one can wake up someone who is asleep, but one can’t wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.  The debate should be more centered towards whether the climate change is human induced or not, or how can we reverse the trend, or do we even have to do anything if the earth can act both as the sink and the source of green house gases (GHG), or are we prepared for any acute climatic catastrophes, etc.

The earth’s temperature, since 1850, has warmed by 1.0 to 1.7⁰F, there are clear signs that glaciers are melting, and the increase in the sea level have been recorded too, these are facts. The sun, the source of energy for our planet, emits the shortwave radiation which is re-radiated back in form of long-wave radiation (thermal or heat energy) after coming into the contact of earth’s surface. The GHG’s, which are transparent to shortwave, traps the long-wave radiation and confines it within the earth’s atmosphere; this is a scientific fact. Hence, the more GHG’s in atmosphere, less heat escapes and earth gets warmer, a simple correlation. Plotting the available human induced GHG emissions against recorded temperature shows strong correlation, a very strong indicator that current climate change is human induced.

There are also strong scientific evidences that help in supporting the claim that current climate change may not be human induced. Based on the study of fossils, minerals and geography, earth in past had gone through periods of extreme warm and ice periods, much before human could have influenced the change. Compared to those historical changes in climate, the scientific data on temperature does not span back enough to be deemed as absolutely conclusive. The earth does require the presence of GHG’s in the atmosphere to keep itself warm, or else it will freeze if all long-wave radiation escapes outside to the space. Thus, GHGs are responsible for maintaining the optimal earth’s temperature, long before any excessive human influence. Also, GHG’s are emitted by nature too.

The debate over the climate change is based on science, as well as centered on economics, if we ignore the digression of religion and myths. The debate based on science is understandable, our ecosystem is very complex and we don’t have the ultimate knowledge yet, about the different biotic and abiotic interactions.  Many researches are undergoing, and presumably more will be required to shed more knowledge. However the debate, primarily based on economics, has to be settled soon.

There might be lots of ifs and buts about the exact science of climate change, specifically on the role of human and whether the earth can recover by itself.  However, no one can dispute the significant increase in GHG emission after industrial revolution, nor should anyone dispute that the earth follows a certain dynamics which if significantly altered might result in irreversible reaction. The West and Japan got most out of industrial revolution; they live better, more luxurious, lives. Now China with their billions of people, India with their billions and other countries like Brazil justifiably want to live similar lives. If they were to pursue the same path as the less populated West did, it is sure to alter the natural dynamics of the atmosphere, the result of which might be catastrophic.

There are countries like Maldives who will be the first to share the lethal brunt of climate change; there are countries like China who wants to have the top economy, best lifestyle, and all the riches for their people, and there are countries like the US who don’t want to relinquish their way of life. Unfortunately for Maldives, the latter two groups of countries are more influential in international geopolitics. Unless the countries of the world are genuinely concerned about the Climate Change, unless they consider the ecosystem when they think about economics, Kyoto or Copenhagen won’t be able to make much dent into human induced GHG emissions.

If the developed countries cannot take significant steps towards reducing their emissions, they cannot and should not be pointing their fingers towards the developing nation. It is hypocrisy of developed world to even suggest the others to not seek luxurious life like theirs because it is causing global warming. Money and weapons might give stability to a nation against humans, but they can’t measure up against the wrath of nature, example Hurricane Katrina, Volcanic eruption in Iceland, etc. Developed nations not only should strive towards significant reduction in their GHG emissions, they should also help the developing nations with technology transfers. It is harder to replace existing infrastructure than create new one, so helping the developing nation set up the efficient industries is the only viable option. Developed countries have to start behaving like grownups and try to conciliate developing nation’s quest for riches in a sustainable fashion.

The developing nations should not blindly follow the route that the developed nations took since the industrial revolution; they should adhere to new technological advancements and environmental guidelines. What’s done in the past is long-gone, they should think about the future. If the earth degrades such that it can’t support life, what will be the use of all those riches? We all are in this together.

The effects of climate change will surely be felt in most part of the world, and some places are already starting to feel it. The United Nation established an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the risk of human induced climate change, adaptation, and mitigation options. It is already time for the international community to coordinate on adaptation and mitigation efforts, especially in underdeveloped countries.

There are different climate models, Global Circulation Model (GCM), available to predict the effects of climate change, for example: Canadian GCM (Canada), Hadley (British), NCAR (USA), etc. These are not perfect as there are many dynamics to consider, and they also routinely undergo the validation process, but these are the best what science can offer at present. IPCC in their Third Assessment Report published a Special Report in Emission Scenarios (SRES). The SRES looks at four different emission possibilities for the future, based on Nakicenovic et al. (2000) the four scenarios are summarized as follows:

“A1 storyline and scenario family: a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies.

A2 storyline and scenario family: a very heterogeneous world with continuously increasing global population and regionally oriented economic growth that is more fragmented and slower than in other storylines.

B1 storyline and scenario family: a convergent world with the same global population as in the A1 storyline but with rapid changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity, and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies.

B2 storyline and scenario family: a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, with continuously increasing population (lower than A2) and intermediate economic development.”

These scenarios can be numerically plugged into the GCM and one can obtain the future predictions, like temperature and precipitation. The international community can thus prepare resources for help in vulnerable areas, for example a region showing temperature rise and lowering precipitation will definitely be prone to draught, especially if it’s a war ravaged African country.

Some of the poorer and most vulnerable countries might already have too many other priorities in their plates to even prepare or think about the “possible” future climate catastrophe, and some of the relatively richer and informed but vulnerable country like Maldives is pleading for joint international efforts as this is beyond them.

In conclusion, the current climate science might not be perfect, but we need to remember that it’s the science that helped human civilization make such a stride; it would be naïve to disregard science at this juncture for economic convenience. The leaders and the citizens of the world should be mature enough to see the earth without the political boundaries, all of us need to make sacrifices and the onus shouldn’t be confined to certain group of nations. The developed world should lead by an example, the developing world should limit their far reaching ambitions and find a common ground, and both of these groups should help the poorer and the most vulnerable nations.