ejustice July 2009
by Hemantha Withanage
Some people still think that climate change is a “doomsday scenario”. Dr. Bellamy’s [a famous environmentalist] letter published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. Bellamy later decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.
Climate change is now proven by the scientist in many occasions. Many are still confused with weather, micro climatic changes and real climate change.
According to the Article 1 of the United Nations’ Framework on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. “ (IPCC Working Group I (AR4, 2007)[6], Summary for Policymakers, Footnote 1)
Whatever the definition, World is debating over the climate change since Rio Conference held in 1991. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by all countries excluding the United States. They have held Fourteen Conferences of parties (COP) and hundreds of other conferences since then to produce a workable and agreeable solution to mitigate and adapt to the climate change.
According to the original figures the Annex 1 countries whch signed the Kyoto Protocol have agreed to reduce 5.2% of the GHG emissions from 1990 levels. Annexure 1 countries refer to those developed countries which release 80 percent of the Green House Gases (GHGs). However, no country has achieved this level and now Annexure 1 countries need to reduce their GHG emission by 80 percent by 2020 in order to maintain the tolerable level.
If we are to maintain 2 degrees centigrade increase of the atmosphere temperature we should maintain the CO2 level in air as 350 ppm.
The proposed solutions include mitigation (reduction of GHG) adaptation (adapting to the irreversible consequences of climate change) technology transfer, capacity building and climate financing.
Mitigation is the most debatable part of the climate negotiations. Many developed countries do not want to compromise their lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions which is mainly due to the use of fossil fuel i.e Coal and Gas.
On the other hand there are no adequate finances for adaptation. Many poor countries [poor people] emit very little CO2 due to their activities. From the climate justice angle every person can release 2 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere without much damage. However, rich nations release more than 10 tonnes of CO2 per capita annually.
The world-wide emissions of CO2 for the year 2006 were about 4.5 tonnes per capita. What would happen if we froze the world-wide per capita emissions of carbon dioxide to the current level? Could global warming then be mitigated? For this purpose, we simulate a constant emission of 4.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year per capita.
Technology transfer is required to mitigate and adapt to the climate change consequences. Developed countries only consider north to south transfer. However, the local experience reveals that north has to learn more from the south technologies if they want to face the climate disasters.
There is no doubt that the carbon-fuelled growth of developed countries has disproportionately contributed to the acceleration of climate change. The Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali in December 2007, recognized that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and that there is a crucial need to accelerate innovation in the development, deployment, adoption, diffusion and transfer of environmentally sound technologies among all Parties, and particularly from developed to developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.
The climate debate put United Nations agencies on test as they have failed to come to an agreement after 15 negotiations. Copenhagen Climate conference will be a milestone to decide how the world is going to decide their future.
Sri Lanka has proposed few ideas to the climate debate. Among them the request to repay ecological debt is one proposal. [Since early 90’s environmentalists advocate that the resources rich countries in the south are the creditors and those who are involved in ecological damage in southern countries during the colonization should pay the ecological debt]. However, Sri Lanka has not seriously thought about climate consequences rather than Carbon Fund Ltd., and the four Clean Development Mechanism projects which have sold few carbon credits to the Netherlands.
Ministry’s work on the climate change is hidden from public so far. There is no argument that Sri Lanka emits very little CO2 but it will double soon with the upcoming 2000 MW coal power plants in Norochcholai and Sampur.
The Climate impacts are scientific but we need to understand the social impacts well. As we have observed to date, there have been no significant studies conducted to understanding the issues, especially in countries like Sri Lanka, that fall under the IPCC category of ‘vulnerable small island states’. Sri Lanka authorities have done very little research. There is no doubt that we all have a right to know the ongoing debate on politics of environmental science and reframing and rethinking the environmental issues in Sri Lanka.
Some people still think that climate change is a “doomsday scenario”. Dr. Bellamy’s [a famous environmentalist] letter published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. Bellamy later decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.
Climate change is now proven by the scientist in many occasions. Many are still confused with weather, micro climatic changes and real climate change.
According to the Article 1 of the United Nations’ Framework on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. “ (IPCC Working Group I (AR4, 2007)[6], Summary for Policymakers, Footnote 1)
Whatever the definition, World is debating over the climate change since Rio Conference held in 1991. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by all countries excluding the United States. They have held Fourteen Conferences of parties (COP) and hundreds of other conferences since then to produce a workable and agreeable solution to mitigate and adapt to the climate change.
According to the original figures the Annex 1 countries whch signed the Kyoto Protocol have agreed to reduce 5.2% of the GHG emissions from 1990 levels. Annexure 1 countries refer to those developed countries which release 80 percent of the Green House Gases (GHGs). However, no country has achieved this level and now Annexure 1 countries need to reduce their GHG emission by 80 percent by 2020 in order to maintain the tolerable level.
If we are to maintain 2 degrees centigrade increase of the atmosphere temperature we should maintain the CO2 level in air as 350 ppm.
The proposed solutions include mitigation (reduction of GHG) adaptation (adapting to the irreversible consequences of climate change) technology transfer, capacity building and climate financing.
Mitigation is the most debatable part of the climate negotiations. Many developed countries do not want to compromise their lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions which is mainly due to the use of fossil fuel i.e Coal and Gas.
On the other hand there are no adequate finances for adaptation. Many poor countries [poor people] emit very little CO2 due to their activities. From the climate justice angle every person can release 2 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere without much damage. However, rich nations release more than 10 tonnes of CO2 per capita annually.
The world-wide emissions of CO2 for the year 2006 were about 4.5 tonnes per capita. What would happen if we froze the world-wide per capita emissions of carbon dioxide to the current level? Could global warming then be mitigated? For this purpose, we simulate a constant emission of 4.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year per capita.
Technology transfer is required to mitigate and adapt to the climate change consequences. Developed countries only consider north to south transfer. However, the local experience reveals that north has to learn more from the south technologies if they want to face the climate disasters.
There is no doubt that the carbon-fuelled growth of developed countries has disproportionately contributed to the acceleration of climate change. The Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali in December 2007, recognized that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and that there is a crucial need to accelerate innovation in the development, deployment, adoption, diffusion and transfer of environmentally sound technologies among all Parties, and particularly from developed to developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.
The climate debate put United Nations agencies on test as they have failed to come to an agreement after 15 negotiations. Copenhagen Climate conference will be a milestone to decide how the world is going to decide their future.
Sri Lanka has proposed few ideas to the climate debate. Among them the request to repay ecological debt is one proposal. [Since early 90’s environmentalists advocate that the resources rich countries in the south are the creditors and those who are involved in ecological damage in southern countries during the colonization should pay the ecological debt]. However, Sri Lanka has not seriously thought about climate consequences rather than Carbon Fund Ltd., and the four Clean Development Mechanism projects which have sold few carbon credits to the Netherlands.
Ministry’s work on the climate change is hidden from public so far. There is no argument that Sri Lanka emits very little CO2 but it will double soon with the upcoming 2000 MW coal power plants in Norochcholai and Sampur.
The Climate impacts are scientific but we need to understand the social impacts well. As we have observed to date, there have been no significant studies conducted to understanding the issues, especially in countries like Sri Lanka, that fall under the IPCC category of ‘vulnerable small island states’. Sri Lanka authorities have done very little research. There is no doubt that we all have a right to know the ongoing debate on politics of environmental science and reframing and rethinking the environmental issues in Sri Lanka.
No comments:
Post a Comment