Sunday, February 07, 2010

Climate Lectures Don’t Make Lessons

from www.downtoearth.org.in, the online edition of Down To Earth magazine, a leading science & environment fortnightly published by Society for Environmental Communications (Centre for Science & Environment, CSE India) by Sunita Narain

==========================
===
There was a jamboree in my town recently, a gathering of the powerful and famous, to discuss the climate change agreement the world must carve out in Copenhagen by end 2009. But what happened was rather discomforting: We Indians were publicly lectured, castigated and rapped on our knuckles for being bad boys and girls by one and all. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon told us developing countries must make more efforts to address climate change and get on - board with industrialized world for solutions. “They have to do more”, he said, because the climate crisis was a common and shared responsibility and “countries should not argue on who has contributed more or less to tackle global warming.” So, in one stroke, the key issue of differentiated responsibilities and the key fact the industrialized world was not cutting its emissions were swept aside. Instead, we were told, sternly, President Barack Obama had assured the secretary general he would do his best. What this meant in real terms - US carbon dioxide emissions have increased by over 20 per cent in the last 15 years - was another matter, of course. We pupils should not question.

Finnish President Tarja Ha - lonen also chipped in: “India must do more”. UNEP head Achim Steiner went further and asked for a voluntary cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. US Senator John Kerry, on long-distance link, repeated the old Bush line that climate renegade USA would take action only if China and India took binding commitments. All in all, we were firmly shown our place, properly admonished.

The Indian side was stunningly silent. Our foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, who inaugurated this bash - India do, was sidelined as he repeated the now much - abused position: “We did not create the problem and we are not required to solve it”. His call that climate change should not add to a greater burden, by imposing conditionalities on countries like India, was scoffed at. Instead, leaders of the western world got a great opportunity to inform the Indian public of the inadequacy of the government’s position.

In this round of the climate change public relations game, the Indian government lost badly. Worse, it has lost an opportunity to tell the industrialized world how it wants the entire world to deal with this global catastrophe, already beginning to hurt us. We are victims of climate change and the world must not be allowed to forget this.

What should India have made clear?

One, the industrialized world get its act together to cut its emissions, and not just talk big. Our foreign minister should have shown the door to the European leaders, who glibly said they would cut their GHG emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, if other countries joined. He should have asked each industrialized nation to explain - to convince us - how they would actually cut their emissions domestically, given a pathetic track - record. The hosts of the next conference of parties, the Danes, should have been told, without mincing words, their emissions are increasing and that is not good for the world.

All these nations should have been rapped for inaction. They should have been hauled up for saying they would ‘help’ reduce emissions in the developing world, taking the cheaper route of buying into ways to ‘offset’ theirs. Because it is in all our interests, we should have pushed the industrialized world to reinvent and transform its energy system, drastically, starting now.

Two, we should have said, at the conference and so to the world media, India was serious about climate change, aware of cutting emissions and already doing a lot, at her own considerable cost and pain.

For instance, the government should have boasted it had agreed - and perhaps it is the only one - to fund public transport buses, not private cars, as part of its financial stimulus plan, a move that will transform mobility patterns and reduce emissions in the years to come. It should have explained that the Union ministry of urban development, managing this programme, had already announced that purchase of buses would require cities to undertake internal reform, including compulsory waiver of taxes on public transport and increased taxes on private cars. Here was a car-restraint strategy even the richest have not attempted. We should have challenged the world to learn and emulate.

We are also learning the great leapfrog - jumping the fossil fuel trajectory by cutting before we add to the emissions pool. For instance, large numbers of Indians, particularly poor and energy - insecure, have already jumped to using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), side-stepping the inefficient bulb. Many states are undertaking this programme - to push for efficiency - at their own cost; these appliances are more expensive than what we currently use. In other words, we are not waiting to first get rich and then move towards a low - carbon trajectory, as the western world has done.

This is not to say we are doing enough or cannot do more. Fact remains our constraint is the making of the rich world. We need funds to be able to move faster, to make investments today, not tomorrow. We can, would like to, build solar powered facilities that would substitute the coal - powered stations of the future. But we know this energy source is still expensive. We know this because, even as the rich world lectures big on good behaviour, it has done little to change its energy systems towards renewables.

It is time the Indian government made this clear: we are not the climate renegades. We can change. We are ready to believe. Till date, all we have got are lectures, but no lessons. That is not good enough. Not for us. Not for the world.

Darfur Pays For Its Water

from www.downtoearth.org.in, the online edition of Down To Earth magazine, a leading science & environment fortnightly published by Society for Environmental Communications (Centre for Science & Environment, CSE India)



Intro:

In 2006, Slovenian president Janez Drnov?ek sent filmmaker and political activist Tomo Kriznaras a peace envoy to war-torn Darfur. US pressure cut the mission short . But Kriznar stayed on, uncovering an environmental aspect to the crisis. He talked to Pradip Saha about this lesser known aspect of the war. Edited excerpts:

What is the water angle in the Darfur crisis?

The conflict over water between Darfurian African farmers and Arab nomadic pastoralists began as a consequence of climatic changes, and was then exploited by big companies to control the Sudanese oil. We usually see Darfur as a desert covered by refugee camps waiting for aid. But you can see in my film Darfur: War for Water that Darfur has huge mountains of Jebel Mara (3,100 metres high). Jebel Mara is an extinct volcanic crater filled with water, rivers, waterfalls, green fields and forests.This is where Furs live. Darfur is an Arabic word meaning “home of the Furs”. The Furs sit on the biggest water reserve between the Nile and the Niger: the Jebel Mara has underground lakes of potable water, which can take away the thirst of the entire Sahel. But the water is also cause of the biggest trouble. Other Sudanese tribes escaping the advance of the Sahara are driving the Furs into becoming refugees.

Have you observed the changes?

I travelled throughout Darfur in 1979. When I returned in 2006, I saw a lot of changes. In 1979 there were oases and idyllic villages. I saw Darfurians living happily with their animals. Today there are just empty houses and streets. Many of the houses are destroyed. Lower Darfur is definitely affected by drought. This is not knowledge gleaned from books or from American propaganda. I can prove it with photographs from my two visits.

I have seen how the Sudanese government has manipulated indigenous people. There was a 21-year-long war in Sudan beginning in the early 1980s. Five million people were killed. The war then spread to the Nuba mountains in Darfur. The Arab people were already moving towards Darfur because the Sahara was expanding, the push intensified because oil pipelines were built by the Chinese in the 1980s. The government used the rift between Arab nomads and African agriculturists. They gave the Arab nomads money and guns to drive the African agriculturists away. The Chinese and Americans messed up the situation. China is supporting the Sudanese government and Americans are supporting one of the factions of the Darfurians: the Sudan Liberation Army. They are giving them guns through Libya. The Americans had a contract with the Libyan supremo Muammar-al-Gaddafi which led to guns being transported to Darfurians.

The efforts of activists have put some check on the violence. But there are about two million people in refugee camps in Darfur and Chad.

What is the solution?

The solution is to stop the Northern Africans from moving to Darfur. The solution is to have machines to drill out water in areas where the desert is expanding. One drilling machine costs US $150,000. The other solution is to highlight the plight of the Furs internationally through the media and other communication agencies.

What is the Sudanese people’s perception of the crisis?

The people do know that the lifestyle of Western countries is behind climate change. They know there are links between emissions in industrial economies and declining rainfall in the Sahara. So there is hatred against Europeans because we are close to Sudan. Not so much against China and America, the two superpowers actually involved in the war. They are too far away.

As the desert is expanding, where are the Darfurians going and where will they go in future?

Europe. They are moving to Italy through Libya. The Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi now has this deal with Gaddafi which allows Libyan soldiers to hunt refugees and keep them in concentration camps where the rich can pay their way out. Those who have no money are punished, their women are abused and children are taken as slaves. Berlusconi got money from the European Union to create these camps with Gaddafi. This is how Europe solved the problem of Fur refugees.

Roughly, how many people have moved?

I am not sure if anybody has the correct numbers. But three-four million of Darfur’s population of six million have been affected. About a million people have been killed and more than two million people are in refugee camps in Chad and Sudan.