Expressions – Bhagwad Jal Park

Some of you might have noted a recent lack of climate change posts on this blog. That’s because I’ve lost hope. Our civilization is pretty much screwed. As George Carlin said, we’re going to be just another failed mutation.  We’re circling the drain now. I was really hoping for something good to come from Copenhagen in spite of the naysayers, and I’m disappointed to find that nothing happened. Nothing has changed. Everyone hawed and hemmed and basically stuck to their positions.

This simply shows that we humans are unable to change our short term habits and stave off long term disaster. For this shortcoming, we deserve to go extinct. Don’t mistake me though. Obviously the earth itself isn’t going anywhere – we are! Watch this video where George Carlin eloquently explains how we’re screwed. Initially it seems as if he’s against environment protection, but then 2 and a half minutes into the video, he reveals his real agenda. Kind of an odd way to look at it at first, but then it makes sense. Carlin argues that the planet is just fine – it’s the people that’re fucked!

To cap it all, climate change skeptics are pointing to the recent cold wave sweeping the US and Europe and are saying that this disproves global warming. This really makes me lose hope and question the concept of humans being an intelligent species. As if you can disprove decade long trends by a single data point. As if climate is the same as weather. And worst of all, as if they really think that global warming means that the whole earth is just going to get warmer and warmer each year – like switching on the thermostat!

So you think we have some hope left eh? Let me tell you why that’s an illusion.

The amount of CO2 the planet can handle without catastrophic climate change (catastrophic for us that is) is 350 ppm. Here is proof for that. And here is more proof. Our current level is 390 ppm and we’re predicted to touch 900 ppm by the end of the century! So basically:

Required CO2 concentration = 350 ppm
Current CO2 concentration = 390 ppm
Projected CO2 concentration = 900 ppm
Last time the earth had 400 ppm = 13 million years ago!

And in case you think we can cut emissions to reach 350 ppm, let me disabuse you now. Here is what we need to do to reach 350 ppm:

1. No further oil and gas exploration
2. No more dirty coal burning by 2030

If the US or China takes either of the above two steps, I’ll eat my iPod Touch. Nuff said. So pack your bag folks, we’re leaving. It’s been a nice 100,000 years on this earth of ours. There must be another one out in space somewhere but we’re so separated that they might as well not exist. It’s just as well we didn’t find any actually – fucking up one planet is enough! And I’m so glad I’m not having any children. What’s the use? We’re gonna all die anyway, and I don’t want my progeny to curse me.

What do you think? Are we screwed?

 Loading ...

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• The Environment? It’s not just us! – September 23, 2009
• How Patents stifle and go against Human nature – September 21, 2009
• Patents standing in the way of Combating Climate Change – September 16, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009
• Manually Removing Carbon Dioxide from the air – July 10, 2009

When discussing climate change and the environment in general, a common type of argument I hear is “it won’t really affect humans so much.” Whether we’re talking about the effects on rainfall, sea levels, seasonal disturbance, or running out of oil, there are always those who claim that by virtue of their geographical position, economic status, or lifestyle, they personally will escape the brunt of the devastation that climate change can cause.

Some proclaim that they don’t care since they will be long dead by the time any such effects are in a position to harm them, and you know what – they’re right. There is an excellent chance of most people currently living not being affected by climate change. As Bjorn Lomborg so eloquently puts it, Bangladesh would probably have become rich enough after a hundred years to escape the problems caused by rising sea levels. This he argues, is enough reason not to sink money into environmental protection efforts.

Discussions on the environment at a global level almost exclusively deal with the effects on humans. Whether such and such country’s economic progress will be affected. Whether or not the threat to this particular coastal city is real. Whether or not we will have enough oil. Overuse of natural resources is an issue only so far as it affects human lifestyle.

However, I feel that most of these people are missing a crucial fact. Even assuming that you don’t feel regret for ruining the planet per se, aren’t we ignoring the large number of non-human living creatures on the planet? How many multicellular living creatures are there on earth anyway? With how many conscious creatures do we share the earth? To put things in perspective, let’s just take insects. There are a hundred million insects for each human on earth! Assuming there are no other species, what percentage of the conscious life do we make up? Answer: 0.000001%

Not that the insects really have much to worry about. They’ll survive long after humans have gone even in the event of a nuclear holocaust (kind of relieving isn’t it?) But what about all the other species whose lives are affected by our activities? The amount of suffering we cause them is incalculable. Yet we never think of them because they don’t suffer in front of us. Well, I want to bring some of it forward. Into our faces. This is what we do:

Image Credit: Save_The_ Planet

Bird Trapped in an Oil Spill

Fish dead due to pollution

Polar Bear trapped on thinning ice

These are just isolated examples. There are so many more. Ask yourself. Even if our policies were to have no impact on humans whatsoever, do we still have the right to cause so much suffering by our actions? I’m not exactly a bleeding heart animal lover – it’s just a question of what is fair and what’s not. If these animals had votes, we wouldn’t be so casual about them would we? What exactly gives us the right to mess up resources that we share with an overwhelmingly large majority of other conscious creatures?

Having met some of the people that I have, I know that they will continue to not give a shit about anything that doesn’t bite them on the nose. But hopefully there are others out there to whom this has given some food for thought.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• How Patents stifle and go against Human nature – September 21, 2009
• The Real cost of Natural Resources – September 11, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009
• Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope – January 8, 2010
• US Businesses Challenge Global Warming in Court! – August 28, 2009

Coming to the US has introduced me full force to the Patent system prevalent in the country. “Intellectual Property” as it is called rules large aspects of America’s legal system. Almost anything can be patented – right from software, to hairstyles (as my wife told me), to business practices. Coming from a country where such things don’t enter most people’s minds, I’ve been able to observe it from outside, and have realized that it’s contrary to the very thing that makes humans special.

It’s a travesty and an insult to the natural behavior of humans and goes against the very impulse that has propelled humanity to the top of the food chain. Don’t believe me? Read on!

Read more…

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• The Environment? It’s not just us! – September 23, 2009
• Patents standing in the way of Combating Climate Change – September 16, 2009
• Giving away Green technologies – way to go! – November 14, 2009
• Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope – January 8, 2010
• US Businesses Challenge Global Warming in Court! – August 28, 2009

As we approach the Copenhagen conference in December 2009, we’re finding a divide between developed countries like the US and developing countries like India and China. This is because rich nations want poorer countries to commit to drastic carbon emission cuts that the latter are unwilling to do without assistance.

Clean Technology and Intellectual Property (IP)

Given that it’s in everyone’s best interests to adopt clean energy technologies, it makes sense that developed countries should give poorer ones the means to do so. However, rich nations have issues like patents and intellectual property that they are unwilling to let go of. They want poor nations to pay the high prices for these technologies so that they can profit by selling them. It goes without saying that poor nations cannot afford these technologies as long as they’re sold by the rich countries. It’s no secret that big businesses are not happy with the whole climate change issue and are willing to sacrifice our planet at the altar of their profit.

Image Credit: Dominic’s pics

Opposing Clean Technology Transfer

Developed nations (especially the US) say that a “free market” ensures that lower prices will result over time. But this doesn’t wash. For one thing, the “patents” for clean technologies take several decades to expire before a free market can ensue. Valuable time that we can’t afford to waste. By all estimates, we have a maximum of 10-15 years to cut and stabilize carbon emissions and for that, we must start now.

Developing and Developed – Not on the same plane

The truth is that developed countries have become rich in the first place at the cost of disrupting our planet. Not to blame them as such, since they didn’t know. But it does shift the burden of fixing the problem onto them since they created it.

Secondly, cutting carbon emissions will hurt poorer countries much more than it will developed countries. One reason is that people in rich nations are already well off. On the other hand, there is widespread poverty, lack of electricity and clean drinking water in poorer nations. These people will be doomed to remain in that state if carbon emissions are to be reduced without clean technologies to offset the loss. This is grotesquely unfair since it means that poor nations will be doomed to forever remain poor if they commit to cutting carbon emissions by themselves.

Another reason is that rich countries possess the know how that will enable them to cut carbon emissions without compromising economic development. Poor nations on the other hand will have to stop growing to achieve the same cuts. Once again, this is preposterously imbalanced.

In a way, developing countries are being punished for being poor since by being poor, they will suffer more. This is completely unfair. Certainly, developing countries also have to try and keep emissions in check – and from what we hear, they’re making more grassroots efforts than people in developed countries.

When all the world leaders meet in Copenhagen, it must be understood that it’s not a trade conference. It is meant to protect our planet. Something that they must be willing to make sacrifices for. Developed nations, having caused the problem must by necessity sacrifice more. No one’s asking for direct monetary assistance. The least that can be done is by helping poor nations help themselves by releasing patents and intellectual property rights for solar, wind and other clean energy sources. Given the burden of historic responsibility for the current crisis, it’s the least that can be done.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• How Patents stifle and go against Human nature – September 21, 2009
• Poor people must die first – so says an Economist – November 18, 2009
• Giving away Green technologies – way to go! – November 14, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009
• Manually Removing Carbon Dioxide from the air – July 10, 2009

I really feel it’s time India had another viable party apart from the Congress. The BJP is not really an option as long as it continues with it’s hindutva agenda, disrupts parliament, and keeps inducting people into the party based on seniority instead of merit. For a democracy to work properly, people must have real choice.

Now, there’s some refreshing news coming from Kolkata. The possible introduction of an Indian Green Party gives us hope. Some of us have heard about the recent coup d’etat by the environmentalists in Kolkata who managed to remove all old and polluting vehicles in the city. Of course, they had to fight to achieve this. Auto drivers went on a long strike rendering the city paralyzed, but to no avail.

Perhaps the most important factor was the massive support from the public. Despite facing a tremendous inconvenience due to the strike, they remained steadfast. This showcases an important fact – something that cynics don’t believe to be true – that the people of India are willing to do what is right even though they may have to suffer for it. One commuter said, “I would rather stand in long queues for a bus or a green auto than patronize these polluting vehicles again.” This sort of statement is inspiring and showcases our willingness to look past ourselves.

Indian Green Party of Subhas Datta

Now the man behind this campaign Subhas Dutta is starting a national party based on its environment policies. I’m personally very excited about this. A party that is progressive, based on ideals, and headed by a man passionate about his job rather than keeping power will be a breath of fresh air in Indian politics. He’s certainly serious. The European Green Party (EGP) has invited him to Brussels to give him tips from their experience about what his party’s principles should be. By throwing their support behind him, Dutta’s dream to set up an Indian Green Party has just come a bit closer.

The party’s first step is to fight in the West Bengal Polls in 2011. When it comes to the rest of the country, it’ll have my vote with pleasure.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• Hari Batti’s Musings on Malls – A holistic picture – October 21, 2009
• Want to Pollute? Pay for it – October 13, 2009
• Poor people must die first – so says an Economist – November 18, 2009
• Giving away Green technologies – way to go! – November 14, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009

We had seen earlier how most Americans don’t believe in Global Warming, and I had gotten some pretty interesting comments including a typical American who put forth arguments claiming that human induced Climate Change isn’t real.

Now in a natural extension of this attitude, a coalition of American businesses are challenging Climate Change scientists in court, trying to show the public that Global Warming is false. This is typical of American corporations who try and skew public opinion by manufacturing “doubt” as to what is true in science in order to further their own goals.

Image Credit: http://www.seppo.net/

American Corporations fuel Climate Change denial

I for one, welcome this. It is going to be pleasant watching them crushed. What is amusing however, is that the final decision will be taken by a judge – a non scientist, whereas there is already a global consensus of scientists on the issue. Those familiar with their history will recall the Scopes Trial in 1925 when a science teacher was caught “illegally teaching evolution.” This will be only the second time in history where something like this is happening. The Scopes trial was in the United States as well. Coincidence?

It’s not surprising that American corporations are taking this step as the Government has woken up and realized that it can’t remain in denial about Climate Change any longer, and as a result have introduced legislation that will force these corporations to clean themselves up. Well, bring it on! Let’s watch this farce die a public humiliating death, and then we can finally get on with trying to save the planet if it’s not too late already.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• The Environment? It’s not just us! – September 23, 2009
• How Patents stifle and go against Human nature – September 21, 2009
• Want to Pollute? Pay for it – October 13, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009
• Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope – January 8, 2010

Back in India, Global Warming (or shall we say human induced climate change? Nah – Global Warming is easier) is a big concern. Just about everyone accepts that it’s happening and that we need to do something about it – even to the extent of cutting down on lifestyle excesses. This understanding of how man is affecting the planet’s ecosystem is widespread. From students, to all teachers, housewives, laypersons, and even politicians (hard to believe but it’s true that they agree on something!).

So it was a shock to me when I came to the United States to learn that it was not a given here – after all, it’s a developed country. But large percentages of people (more than 50%) do not believe that man is causing an important change in the temperatures of the earth. My wife and I were ill prepared for this since it was akin to suddenly trying to talk to someone who didn’t believe the earth was round. Several arguments ranging from “Climate change isn’t happening”, “The earth is too big for man to affect it”, “Are you crazy? It’s getting colder!” and even “There is no scientific consensus on the matter.” And the worst response – “So what?”

Image Credit: sepponet

Americans and Global Warming

Well, just for the record, 84% of all scientists believe that significant human induced climate change is taking place. That’s a huge majority. The influence of humans on climate change has not been disputed by any national or international scientific organization (including American ones!) for the past 2 years. And yet more than half of all Americans don’t believe it’s happening. Why?

For one, there have been records of interested groups such as oil companies actively trying to debunk Global Warming since that would lead to a negative image about fossil fuels in the country and therefore against them. Also, when public opinion is divided, the government doesn’t feel enough pressure to seriously think of switching to non polluting energy sources – thus keeping their business models safe. Lobbying in America is bribery of the Government and the public on a colossal scale. For example, the Tobacco industry in the United States once spent billions of dollars on projects funding “research” to demonstrate that smoking didn’t cause lung cancer.

We in India have a huge interest in the American public waking up to the reality of Climate Change since the United States is the largest emitter of Carbon dioxide (though it seems that China is fast catching up.) It has the resources to really make a difference to the world – and themselves of course since Climate Change affects everyone. What is needed is the will.

So that is why the attitudes of people in a developed country like America lag behind those of countries like China and India. In Europe of course, there is a high awareness of Global warming. In the United States, people depend on cars much more than anywhere else in the world. Cars that run on fossil fuels. And this might be the driving force behind the American public’s apathy towards Climate Change.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• The Environment? It’s not just us! – September 23, 2009
• Giving away Green technologies – way to go! – November 14, 2009
• Manually Removing Carbon Dioxide from the air – July 10, 2009
• Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope – January 8, 2010
• US Businesses Challenge Global Warming in Court! – August 28, 2009

Some of the latest efforts in finding out how to reduce Climate Change focus on how to manually take Carbon Dioxide out of the air instead of how to avoid releasing it. While there’s no reason not to try and do both, there’s good reason for this approach. We release CO2 from millions of little sources all over (like from cars) and it’s impractical to control emissions for each little source – unlike controlling it at a thermal plant which is one big source. Such efforts are called Geoengineering because we try and manipulate the constituents of the earth itself.

The latest in this field is the development of synthetic trees to remove Carbon Dioxide from the air. These ultra efficient and cheap devices take carbon out of the air and turn it into another form where it can’t trap heat unlike gaseous CO2. Each unit costs the same as one car and takes out CO2 equivalent to 20 cars. Meaning that a 5% tax on each car would serve to build enough “trees” to completely negate their CO2 emissions. Sounds good?

Removing Carbon from the Atmosphere - What the "tree may look like"

The biggest problem in my opinion is what to do with the “modified (in this case liquid) carbon dioxide” that is collected. We need a safe way to dispose of it. Before we used fuel, all this carbon was locked into fossil fuels deep inside the earth. We need to find a similarly efficient way of getting rid of it. Putting it in the oceans would turn the water acidic, kill off marine life and make the water even less efficient at doing it’s job of absorbing CO2.

It’s a bit like putting the Genie back in the bottle. Once the carbon is out of the ground via drilling for oil, how on earth do we get rid of it once it’s satisfied our energy needs? That’s the big question.

Like

Unlike

Similar Posts:

• The Environment? It’s not just us! – September 23, 2009
• Patents standing in the way of Combating Climate Change – September 16, 2009
• Inserting HTML tags using Firefox Ubiquity – October 5, 2009
• Americans don’t believe in Global Warming! – July 13, 2009
• Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope – January 8, 2010