Building a Carbon grave

In spite of constant global efforts towards the reduction of carbon dioxide, the latest report have shown the biggest spike in carbon dioxide levels in 15 years. According to the rise in level last year, scientists had even warned that we may not be able to limit the global rise in temperature to 1.9 degree Celsius by 2050.

This rise of temperature in global climate is being termed by scientists as dangerous. This will spark some extreme climatic activities with rise in level of seawater. It will also adversely affect our food production, which may not be at sustainable level. The most critical point in the report is that concentration of carbon dioxide is almost up to 395ppm (parts per million), which means that for every thousand particles of air there are 395 particles of carbon. This is 41% increase as compared to the concentration level before industrial revolution when at that time it was 280ppm.

The situation seems getting out of control in-spite of combined efforts by countries to cut down the carbon emissions. Normally, when it comes to rise of carbon emission, needle deflect towards developing nations which in order to get develop churn out more fuel. The reason behind this is simple. U.S. the superpower of the world, with its constant efforts to cut the carbon emissions successfully reduced its carbon output to 13% since 2007 and eyeing further 17% decrease till 2020. This can be termed as the biggest decline in industrial countries.

These motivating figures though may not be possible for economies, which are trying to achieve a high status. There situation is tricky as they cannot compromise with development which is directly related to utilization of fuel. Countries like China, South Korea and India also argue that compared to developed economies like US and Europe, their carbon emission per person is less. What can be the reason behind this argument?

Indirectly it explains that big economies have exploited the natural resources and did widespread industrialisation to become rich. Now after fulfilling their ambitions they want to set an example of carbon emission reduction and want others to follow.

Former World Bank chief economist Lord Nicholas Stern says that, "Growing economies like China and India must understand their responsibilities. It is not so simple, now, complex arithmetic is involved. The change in structure of the world’s economy has been dramatic which these countries will have to face. This is no finger pointing or any kind of accusation. I am simply calculating the estimates of emission which rose to a dangerous level."

Factually, Stern is right. He is projecting the extra responsibilities which developing nations need to bear, as it does not mean that for development one has to increase carbon emissions. Modern technologies and new methods can be adopted to solve the problem, which not only will help in reducing the emissions but will also keep the pace of development up.

Stern says that, "In any case, it cannot be the excuse that you cannot lift people out of poverty as there is always a way of doing that. Even if developed economies stop emitting carbon dioxide, the emissions from rapidly industrializing economies are so high that ultimately it will make us stand on the same level."

The arithmetic however is not so complex but definitely heart burning for poorer economies. To stop global temperature rise from more than 2 degree Celsius, till 2030 there must be a cut off in emissions from 50bn tonnes to 35bn tones per year. Considering that only developed countries will reduce their emissions than they are most likely to emit 11 to 14bn tones while developing economies will continue to churn out 37 to 38bn tones of carbon gases per year.

Is it about only Carbon emission cut which can effectively treat the rise in temperature or there are other ways too, which can be proven effective?

The answer is yes. To solve any bigger problem, efforts from every individuals count. It is not only about rise in carbon dioxide levels and reduction of the same. Industries are definitely the main culprit of this sort of critical situation but with little efforts beyond the carbon dioxide, difference can be made.

There are three other major pollutants, which are equally responsible for global warming, Black Carbon, methane and HFCs (hydro fluorocarbons). They account in 40 percent of rise in global warming. However, these are short lived than compared to carbon dioxide and depletes rather fast into the atmosphere.

Through modern technologies these all can be obliterated like HFCs are being replaced by environment friendly coolants. Similarly, black carbon emissions can be significantly reduced by using particulate filters and utilizing low-sulfur diesel. These actions will prevent about 100 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, which is very significant in terms of numbers.

You can also take part in the cause by paying some attention in what you use in your daily life. Being energy efficient should be the top most priority by utilizing energy efficient appliances. Then use of fuel-efficient vehicle should also be in your habit. Perhaps the biggest help you can do is to motivate others towards the cause.

Have we invited the inevitable?

The facts are horrific and in spite of 100% efforts, we may not achieve the target as we already dug the grave for us.

Nick Loris, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation says that, "Developing countries like China and India are not supportive at all in efforts to regulate emissions. Because of their unresponsiveness, our efforts are going in vain and becoming more expensive. This will definitely not lead us to achieve our goal of curbing emissions and limiting rise in global temperature."

The facts are that not many nations are developed which means not many are aware of the fact that how critical and horrific situation is unfolding in our near future. Ask from a not so wealthy person in China or India; they would be knowing nothing about it. They are simply involved in somehow making their lives lively. They might be responsible for fewer carbons in the atmosphere but the numbers of such people are large and the problem is that – no such programs are being undertaken by the government to make them aware of the situation.

Even if we are able to cut carbon emissions rather significantly, we may not be able to stop the rise in temperature. As we are aware of the fact that the target of curbing emissions will not be touched due to political ambitions, therefore in the mid of the century we may find ourselves in a drastic situation. Just imagine the rise of 2 to 4 degree Celsius in global temperature, natural calamity will strike us hard, rise of sea levels will bring havoc and release of methane and carbon dioxide from melting arctic permafrost will make our lives unsustainable.

Already these emissions are accountable for about two to four million deaths per year, crop loss of billions of dollars and wastage of billions of dollars in health related issues. How humanity will cope from that no one knows. What is the use of being developed in a way, which ultimately leads towards destruction? Of course there are optimistic people who say that humanity has survived in the toughest conditions and similarly it will survive any sort of situation.

But, why we would again want to start from zero?

(For more such article Click Here)