Globalization and Climate Change
Dr. Ravinder Rena
Eritrea Institute of Technology
September 7, 2007
Climate change no longer seems to be an abstract and remote concept. In the last few years, its manifestations have been many and varied, so much so that they are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Unseasonal rains, debilitating droughts, excessive floods, devastating cyclones and storms — all these are warning signals being sent out to humankind. For example, the August 2007 floods in South Asia (India, Bangladesh and Nepal) caused hundreds of deaths and made more than 20 million people homeless.
Climatologists and scientists, for their part, have been studying manifestations of climate change, such as receding arctic ice caps and disappearing wildlife habitats, which are not readily apparent to the rest of us. They are coming up with convincing proof that our climate is indeed changing in ways that differ from its usual cyclical behavior.
When a somewhat similar threat — also caused by human activity — surfaced nearly three decades ago, the global community reacted with alacrity to cobble together a cohesive and coordinated response. Three scientists working independently linked the "hole in the ozone layer" to CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) from refrigeration, air-conditioning, sprays, and foams. The scientists could show that the relationship between the ozone layer hole and the resultant ultraviolet radiation could lead to an exponential increase in skin cancer. Alarm bells rang around the world, loudly enough to persuade countries to think and act collectively. As many as 150 nations came together to sign and ratify the Montreal Protocol, which effectively limited the amount of CFCs released into the atmosphere. So effective was this effort that already there are signs that the ozone is mending. By 2004 the ozone hole over the Antarctic had already shrunk by 20 percent. Scientists remain hopeful that the ozone layer will return to its original form in 50 years, thanks to timely intervention by humanity.
Yet, the response of the world community to global warming has been disappointing, at least so far. The Kyoto Protocol is, at best, a feeble mechanism to combat climate change. All it asks of the developed world is a modest reduction in six key greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. While it is a well-meaning gesture by the 40-odd developed countries, it is nevertheless too modest to make any significant impact on global warming. According to scientists, even if the current Kyoto targets are met, global temperatures will rise at least by a few degrees, with the attendant devastating consequences for vulnerable communities living along the coasts.
This is not only because big polluters such as the United States and Australia, who have resolutely remained outside the Kyoto mechanism, are continuing to add substantially to the global carbon burden. Large and rapidly developing countries such as Brazil, China and India are also adding their own considerable trail of carbon to what Australian climatologist Tim Flannery calls "the aerial ocean," accelerating global warming.
In truth, energy pervades virtually ever aspect of our lives. Humankind has become overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuel consumption, not just for development but for its very survival. Towns and cities, which now house 46 percent of the global population, require commercial energy not only to run their factories, cars, trains, buses, planes and ships, but also to pump water up to their high-rise offices and homes. Multi-trillion dollar global businesses have been built around fossil fuels and industries that consume them. Millions of jobs depend on commercial energy, its production and consumption in various sectors of the global economy. In rural areas, too, energy is critical to irrigate fields and light up rural homes, and also to their food security. Energy is indeed the driver of the global economy.
Impact of Globalization on Climate
The scale and size of the problem are only partially to blame. The juggernaut of globalization has trampled upon whatever little hope we might have had of making a quick transition to a less energy-intensive world. Globalization and its attendant reliance on mobility — of goods and persons — has now become ineluctably entrenched and has created an interdependent world. We would need a near universal consensus to turn the tide.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to go back to a Gandhian philosophy of local self-sufficiency. Satellite television that bombards viewers around the world with images of how the "other half" lives — and flaunts their wealth — has raised aspirations that are difficult to contain. We now live in a world that will have to sink or swim together. For the billions of people who live in the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, gaining access to a modicum of commercial energy is indeed the key to survival with human dignity. Yet they are faced with the hapless dilemma of environment versus development. It is facile, and perhaps irresponsible, to argue that developing countries should be allowed to pollute until they reach a certain level of development. Instead, ways need to be found to ensure that developing countries move to a clean growth paradigm.
This is where globalization has set up roadblocks. Mitigating climate change and achieving stabilization of greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations — the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.N.F.C.C.C.) — will require deep reductions in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. This is possible only if developing countries have unrestricted access to clean energy technologies.
While, on the one hand, the forces of globalization have dismantled trade barriers between nations, they have also erected new barriers in the form of intellectual property rights and patents, which effectively block developing countries' access to clean energy technologies. It is a well-established fact that emissions, over a period of years, from today's developed world is the main culprit behind rising global temperatures. Yet the richer nations do not consider it their duty to make clean technologies available to developing nations.
At present, developed countries do possess considerable clean energy resources that are commercially viable. For instance, Germany is the world leader in solar technologies. A handful of multinationals — Areva, Westinghouse and GE — hold the key to contemporary nuclear reactor technologies. A Canadian company has commercialized a turbine that generates electricity from ocean currents — one of the largest untapped renewable energy resource in the world, with an estimated potential of 450,000 megawatts.
There are many such examples of other renewable energy resources. Of all clean energy technologies, those that burn coal in a clean manner are the ones most relevant to developing countries such as India, China and many in Africa endowed with relatively abundant quantities of this fuel, which, unfortunately, has the highest carbon content among fossil fuels. Coal-fueled electricity generation accounts for half of all carbon emissions in the world. In India, for instance, it accounts for over two thirds of all its electricity generation capacity. In conventional coal-fueled plants, the fuel is burnt inefficiently, so much so that less than a third of its energy content gets converted into electricity. By increasing the efficiency of coal use and simultaneously sequestering carbon from coal, India and China can transition to a clean growth trajectory.
There are a number of commercially-tested technologies that can help burn coal more efficiently and sequester carbon safely. These are available from certainly multinationals, but they are neither accessible nor affordable to developing countries struggling to resolve the tension between development and environment.
The time has come for members of the developing countries to lobby for access to clean technologies. Although India is pushing for clean coal and nuclear energy labeled "green" at the recent G8 summit in Germany, it needs to continue lobbying in partnership with other developing countries.
worldpress.org |
