Long-term Calamity vs. Short-sighted Denialists
December 4th, 2009
As US politicians on the right stumble over each other to massage themselves with the Bush-era glee in response to the ‘Climategate scandal’ erupting from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, the ‘great water tower of Asia’ continues its relatively speedy recession. The glaciers of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau span across the borders of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and China. Each spring, the glacial thaw births the mightiest river system in the world: the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Yellow, and the Yangtze. Together, these rivers give material and spiritual sustenance to 3 billion people, nearly half of the world’s population (Walsh). Since 1960, the great water tower of Asia has lost nearly 20% of its glacial volume. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the glaciers in the Himalayas are “receding faster than at any other place in the world.” Keep in mind that the IPCC assertion that, “the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence”, has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all major industrialized countries (Krosnick).
Recently, China and India have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in acknowledgment of the long-term risk both countries face with respect to global warming. Days before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, India promised to cut the ratio of greenhouse gases pollution to production by 20 to 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. China pledged weeks ago to commit to a 40 to 45 percent reduction in carbon intensity from 2005 levels over the next decade (Cappiello). It is important to note that no pledge-enforcement mechanism has been agreed upon at this time.
As expected, pundits from Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ) mocked India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s efforts to curb global warming. Shikha Dalmia, in his December 2nd 2009 WSJ article titled, “Emissions Cuts Would Cost India Dearly,” laments the notion of new energy efficiency standards in building codes, new fuel economy standards for vehicles, and the establishment of a national renewable portfolio standard of 20%. Dalmia goes on to write, “The increased expense will put homes, air conditioning and cars out of reach for more Indians—all of which will make them, especially the poor, less able to withstand floods, heat waves and other dire effects of global warming should they ever materialize.”
This year Chinese researchers projected a 43% decrease in glaciated area in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau by 2070 (Walsh). The loss of Himalayan meltwater places three of the world’s nuclear powers on a collision course for severe resource competition. Following Shika Dalmia’s logic, India would be better served by a substantial increase in its nuclear stockpile and military capability than by taking preemptive steps to slow the loss of Asia’s great water tower. Please click here for the reference articles (Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3).
-Kirk Story
Entry Filed under: 2010 Student Blogs, India, Misc.
7 Comments Add your own
1. Hemanth | December 5th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Kirk,
I understand where you are coming from, and your frustration with the right regarding their attitude towards climate change. However, Shikha Dalmia at no point supports increasing nuclear stock pile, or for that matter bolstering military capability. She is just restating India’s genuine concerns.
The developed world for decades polluted the world with all kinds of carbon emissions. By burning those fossil fuels, and on the strength of those carbon emissions, developed world has accumulated trillions, and trillions of dollars along with economic progress, and infrastructure. Now, they are talking about climate change brought about by their own carbon emissions and in turn lecture what developing countries need to do (i.e..curb carbon emissions). It is a pathetic argument because, India’s energy consumption is 15 times less than America and half that of China (Two of the World’s biggest polluters).
This is not some far RIGHT opinion. Its been India’s official argument which I completely agree with. It is in India’s best interest to not accept this bunkum. You and as well as I know that it takes trillions of dollars of subsidies to reduce carbon emissions (eg. Margins on solar panels are so puny at this point of time). The carbon emission reduction will reverse India’s economic progress and reduce the chance of bringing millions and millions of people out of poverty. People at the highest echelons know it. India and China did not declare the reduction of carbon emissions because it is the right thing to do. Both the nations are vying to be part of the developed world and so they did that to keep the monkey of their back at the climate change conference. The targets (20%- India, 40% China) they have declared are unilateral, and they are not likely to agree on any legally binding framework. It is in the best interest of India to evade this climate change debate because, neither is it the world’s biggest polluter, nor does it have the money and resources to spend on climate change and compromise economic progress. That is why Dr.Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India needs to be very careful in the climate change negotiations and act conscientiously in the interest of Indian masses.
I do think it is very important to take preemptive steps to slow the loss of Asia’s glacial water towers. However its developing world’s responsibility to show the way to the rest. United States and the developed world do not have moral standing vis-a-vis climate change until and unless they can reduce their emission level to that of India’s. Unfortunately, this is similar to Rights’ ideology (your hated ideology) with respect to climate change. Change your RIGHT before you tell us what is right! Its sadly true that emissions-cut would cost India dearly. To clarify, I am not a denialist (of climate change), I am just practical.
2. Kirk Story | December 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Hemanth,
Let’s be clear on what we’re actually discussing. India, Brazil, and China are all developing. These countries have not enjoyed the 100 year fossil fuel orgy that the developed world has enjoyed and exploited to grow their economies. For this reason, it is unfair for the US or Europe to dictate the means by which the developing world chooses to stimulate their growth. This is why there has been no pledge-enforcement mechanism agreed upon at this time.
Since Kyoto, the US has been very busy invading and occupying other nations, giving tax cuts to the wealthy while converting a budget surplus into a budget deficit, and re-debating stagnant issues like gun control and abortion, but all the while absent from the global climate change discussion. The very fact that India, China, and the US are at the same table discussing this global issue is significant. Nobody is asking India to shoulder the burden of greenhouse gas emission reductions on their own. India currently accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions while the US and China each account for over 20% of global CO2 emissions.
Notice that the ramifications of CO2 emissions are global- hence, a global response is warranted. It is in India’s best interest to be a part of this response. Will India or China reduce emissions levels by 20% and 40% respectively? No, probably not. Can these developing economies afford this sort of reduction right now? No, but there is a multitude of basic actions that all nations can incorporate to reduce impact: a catalytic converter here, a stack scrubber there and wammo! You’re part of the global response and global consensus moving forward. In the recession of the ‘great water tower of Asia,’ India will benefit from forward progress.
With respect to Shikha Dalmia, let’s repeat her words, “The increased expense will put homes, air conditioning and cars out of reach of more Indians—all of which will make them, especially the poor, less able to withstand floods, heat waves and other dire effects of global warming should they ever materialize.” First of all, working toward sustainable living doesn’t have to be a negative-sum game– believing so is a complete misunderstanding of a)the definition of sustainability, b)the effort it takes to make sustainable choices, c) the minor short-term costs of addressing the issue compared with the painful long-term costs of not addressing the issue, d) the profit potential India may achieve by participating in a global green revolution. Second, let’s look at Dalmia’s contention from a logic perspective. She essentially says, let us accrue wealth so we can be better prepared to withstand the effects of global warming. But what good is the wealth that India accrues now if it finds itself dehydrated and staring down the barrel at China and Pakistan in 60 years? Sticking their head in the sand and hoping all goes well is not in India’s best interest. It is important to be cognizant that global warming entails not only environmental consequences, but also geopolitical consequences. Third, let’s look deeper at Dalmia’s logic and apply it to another situation. Imagine you and I are farmers in an agriculture town on the downstream side of a dam. Let’s pretend that water starts leaking from the dam. What does Dalmia’s logic suggest we do to address the issue? Should we address the problem, work with other downstream towns to fix the dam and incur a slight decrease in our crop production; or should we build some small boats so we can continue 100% crop production now and float when the dam bursts? What does Dalmia’s logic suggest? It suggests we build boats. But what happens to the farm?
3. Vitus Holzner | December 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I have complete understanding for the Indian argument that they do not want to be held responsible for the “100 year fossil fuel orgy that the developed world has enjoyed“, as Kirk put it so eloquently. However I think we all agree that the climate crisis is real and this is not the time to point fingers and say “you go first!” That is simply not how we will solve this problem and I believe we can not afford another minute of dithering.
Hemanth your observation that the US and China produce significantly more carbon emissions than India is certainly correct, but is 40% of a lot not more than 40% of a lot less? I mean we are talking percentages, so India would pull it’s weight as the worlds fifth largest polluter. And to be clear, yes, it will cost India dearly but it will also cost the US and China and the rest of the World dearly to attempt to fix the crisis we are facing! If you are heading towards a concrete wall doing 150mph, it doesn’t help if you have a person on board that slams on the accelerator (even it it’s only a little guy). I think that would be the appropriate time to agree on using the brake pedal and if it’s only ever so slightly.
And on a different note, I have to agree with Kirk that reducing carbon emissions and economic prosperity is not mutually exclusive. I think the contrary is true! Now is the time to gain an edge over other countries in terms of renewable energy sources and green technology, but that is a topic for a whole another blog post.
4. Yuxiang Gao | December 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
My Graduation Thesis is bout the how the multinational corporations in developing countries affect the nature environment and economic environment at the same time, from all the research I did; I found that for some of the companies, the profit they brought is even smaller than the damage they did.
Now it is a hot topic in China about the greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, that it is kind of long-term loan, we are borrowing nature resources in the future and using it now. At the end, we need to pay back anyway, the point is can we create the enough benefit to pay the interest.
For most of the developing countries, such as India, Brazil, and China, greenhouse gas emissions is unavoidable. There are millions of people is living on the industries which are highly related to greenhouse gas.
I am not saying the developing countries don’t have duty to the environmental problems. In fact, as what I mentioned before, it is a hot topic in China now. We are working on it.
But on the other side, the developing countries have not enjoyed the 100 year fossil fuel orgy that the developed world has enjoyed and exploited to grow their economies. For this reason, it is unfair for the US or Europe to dictate the means by which the developing world chooses to stimulate their growth.
Every country has duty to global environment. But you can’t ask developing countries to pay the interest of the developed countries.
5. Erika Bylund | January 3rd, 2010 at 9:31 am
The U.S. has had the benefit of an industrial “head start” and many view that benefit manifested in its great wealth, the high standard of living of its constituents, and its prominent political power. Most people (and Americans especially) can appreciate and identify with the drive to improve one’s own circumstances, and, more importantly, the OPPORTUNITY to improve one’s own circumstances. The notion of self-reliance and the ideal of the American dream are concepts that have become global along with everything else.
The U.S. is an undisputed global leader in many terms, and it should take that position as passionately and devotedly in environmental affairs as it has in its financial and military affairs. As the adage goes, “to whom much is given, much is expected.” Not only do I feel that the U.S. has the best market, models, and resources to achieve environmentally conscious industry,but imagine what kind of trend we could start if we took a leading role in reducing our carbon emissions. If we demonstrate how to do it profitably, and actually do it, others will follow. It is hypocritical for us to expect others to change when we ourselves choose not to do it proportionally.
At the same time, it is narrow-minded and ignorant to justify economic advancement at any and all cost. And that’s what many (including China, India, and the U.S.) espouse. We are not separate from the environment, just as we are not isolated from each other.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has some of the most stringent environmental regulations and regulatory agencies. As a result, Americans enjoy great satisfaction from clean air, water, and soil compared to many other nations. But we also enjoy the benefit of a clean environment because we’ve outsourced our pollution and pollution-creating industry to countries like India and China. How much will you be paying for your clothes, furniture, and cars when India and China decide to put a “green tax” on manufactured goods? Since we only seem to take action and respond to monetary incentives, maybe that’s what China and India should do- pass on the costs of pollution to the consumer (the U.S.). I would be willing to pay that tax. Would you?
6. Hemanth | January 18th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Kirk,
The title of your blog “Long-term Calamity vs. Short-sighted Denialists” suggests that we are indeed staring at a long term calamity. Are we really staring at one? Thats the question. Your blog talks about how Himalayan glaciers are melting due to human intervention in the environmental processes. Really? How much is your assumed reality actually real?
Please take a look at the following article in timesofindia (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms). Supposedly the scientists at the Intergovernmental panel of climate change (IPCC) have overstated their claims and made an alarmist and dire projections of glacier melt. They have made their claims based on fallacious, decrepit and specious evidence.
Sadly, ‘climate change’ is not a science anymore. It has become an opium of the masses. Whoever comes up with an argument against climate change is being termed a denialist, and an atheist of climate change. Climate change is the new religion. The only thing left is chanting and prayer halls for ‘climate change’. I just hope ‘climate change’ concept is viewed as a science and not as a religion or as an agenda to barter standard of living of developing countries like China and India.
7. Kirk Story | January 20th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Ok ok, you got me Hemanth. As you said, “‘climate change’ is not a science anymore;” it is a religion and an opium of the masses. You’re right. In fact, the climate change hoax goes way beyond that. Although disguised as a subject propagated by crazies who are concerned about the well-being of future generations and earth herself, the concept of climate change is actually much more sinister than most would think. The truth is 97% of the world’s scientific community created this farce just so they could slow the growth of evil empires like India and China? You do, however, have to give the climate change propagators some credit. I mean, this whole thing was pretty well executed until you figured it out. By reviewing the historic creation of the climate change farce you can see that it was at first just the scientists who had it in for the developing world. Then we hit a minor speed bump when the Bush administration took office and tried to politicize the issue. Man it’s tough to stamp out developing nations when they have Rush Limbaugh on their side. Luckily, someone must have let Bush in on the secret because even he bashfully acknowledged and began to propagate the climate change farce late in his brilliant tenure. Ridiculous and disgusting! I apologize.
Oh yea, and that whole ‘greenhouse effect’ thing we both learned about in second grade- hah! What a joke! Greenhouse gasses don’t actually act as a blanket trapping heat within the surface-troposphere system. Greenhouse gasses actually protect us from solar flares that try to enter the troposphere as the sun and stars rotate around earth. Good thing you were able to see through all this climate change nonsense- we really had you going for a while there.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed