Humans are not one among millions of species on earth. We are, from our planet’s point of view, an out-of-control pestilence like a swarm of locusts. From earth’s point of view, our population needs to be culled to one-tenth or less for the good of the majority of species. I endorse that point of view, regardless of what it implies for my family’s future – regardless of the untold sufferings that must follow when such a culling happens.
Let us estimate our growing collective burden on earth. Our numbers grew from an estimated 200 million in the year 1 AD to 275 million in 1000 AD. This crossed one billion by 1850. This grew to 4 billion by 1975, which grew to 6.6 billion in 2006. By the year 2050, We are likely to cross the nine billion mark.
This means that a population of 75 million – the increase in the entire first millennium after Christ – is added to the global population every year currently!
Worse still, what each individual consumes is also sharply on the rise. The amount of earth’s resources that each individual currently consumes in one year would have been enough to sustain him/her over an entire lifetime a century ago! So, thanks to our continuing technological advancements, the ‘footprint’ of each human being on this planet is thousands of times larger and heavier than originally ‘intended’.
The price is paid by other species. The natural level of extinction is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria and fungi... and not just vertebrates). As against this, going by the rate at which the area of tropical forests are being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, we are currently losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone. Another similar number of species are being driven to extinction in other habitats, such as the seas.
Is the life of homo sapiens worth the lives of so many species? Are we so much superior to the rest of creation?
No, I sincerely believe we are not worth it.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Global Warming: Pressing the Panic Button
I want to share an insight with you. Pardon me for for my abruptness and oversimplifications if any, because of my effort to keep it very simple and brief.
For millions of years, nature has been taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere -- taking carbon out of circulation -- and stashing it away, not only as trees, but also as enormous coal and crude-oil reserves under the earth. But since the discovery of the steam engine and the industrial revolution, mankind has been taking these carbon and hydrocarbon reserves and burning them. Every passing year, we thus undo the work of a few thousand years of nature. Humankind is now a rampant force of nature.
Our GDP and per-capita consumption is rapidly rising at close to 10%, and so the carbon footprint of each individual human-being on earth is doubling every 20 years or so. [Very brief explanation: Each extra shirt we buy and stash in our cupboards or each apple that we eat that has been flown in from Australia or China, or even lorried in from Himachal Pradesh, represents an unnecessary load of carbon in the air that we have contributed.]
As our population grows at a galloping pace -- rising as much in 10 years as it did in the entire millennium between 1 AD and 1000 AD -- the collective carbon footprint of humankind doubles every 10 years or so. In other words, the 'weight' or 'impact' of humankind on earth is doubling every decade.
The upshot of having more carbon-dioxide in the air than ever before in the last 650,000 years is: All that carbon dioxide is storing solar heat in the atmosphere. This increased heat energy will transform, and is already transforming into more kinetic energy as (i) more rapid evaporation and precipatation (ii) more frequent, widespread and powerful hurricanes (iii) a higher water-level in the oceans as the polar ice-caps melt, stronger waves and tidal movements, which will over the next decade require every human settlement and activity on the coastline including fishing villages, metros and ports to be relocated further inland.
I don't know if remedies are available. Personally, I think we are already in deep shit and blissfully unaware of it, like a guy who is falling to his death from a skyscraper, but is heard saying as he whooshes past the 10th-floor window, "So far so good! Everything feels great!"
Still, because of our human nature, we like to believe that it is never too late to mend.
Our economies, which depend primarily on combustion, need to be urgently unhooked from combustibles and hooked onto alternative sources even if they are uneconomical at first. Energy from combustibles seems economical only because it does not take into account the environmental cost; in other words, such energy is environmentally 'subsidized'. However, such subsidies are no longer sustainable, and there is an enormous 'natural deficit' that has built up that needs to be balanced.
So we need to learn to consume solar energy, wind energy, tidal and hydro-electric or human-generated energy, even if it seems terribly uneconomical at first. Simultaneously, we need to learn to live with drastically lowered energy consumption.
Immediate measure 1: We need to impress on decision-makers (and not just general public) at various levels the urgency of our situation. We must make presentations before people in the government and administration at all levels, as often as possible.
Immediate measure 2: We need to show that we ourselves believe in our message. It is not very convincing for us to continue to go around in our big air-conditioned cars and sit in air-conditioned offices, air-conditioned homes and air-conditioned chambers of commerce. We need to show our willingness to step down into less-stylish cars, or maybe even scooters, public transport etc. We need to send out a clear message by (1) scaling down our own usage of electricity by opening our windows and using ceiling-fans etc, (2) walking and bicycling as much as possible instead of taking motorised transport and (3) depending on non-energy consuming forms of recreation such as going for long walks or playing cards together.
Immediate measure 3: To make a dent on the public consciousness, send out a clear message, and set off a mass movement, those of us who are aware of this problem and deeply concerned about it need to do something emblematic. How about something like dressing very simply and riding a bicycle to work (and everywhere else) one day of every week – something that is directly opposed to our increasingly ostentatious lifestyle?
Footnote: I do realize that these ideas are not exactly "civilized", and they make me sound like I urgently need a shrink. But maybe taking such drastic measures will show that we clearly understand the gravity of our situation. Our collective existence depends on this sort of response.
Statement of Our Grave Situation
For millions of years, nature has been taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere -- taking carbon out of circulation -- and stashing it away, not only as trees, but also as enormous coal and crude-oil reserves under the earth. But since the discovery of the steam engine and the industrial revolution, mankind has been taking these carbon and hydrocarbon reserves and burning them. Every passing year, we thus undo the work of a few thousand years of nature. Humankind is now a rampant force of nature.
Our GDP and per-capita consumption is rapidly rising at close to 10%, and so the carbon footprint of each individual human-being on earth is doubling every 20 years or so. [Very brief explanation: Each extra shirt we buy and stash in our cupboards or each apple that we eat that has been flown in from Australia or China, or even lorried in from Himachal Pradesh, represents an unnecessary load of carbon in the air that we have contributed.]
As our population grows at a galloping pace -- rising as much in 10 years as it did in the entire millennium between 1 AD and 1000 AD -- the collective carbon footprint of humankind doubles every 10 years or so. In other words, the 'weight' or 'impact' of humankind on earth is doubling every decade.
The upshot of having more carbon-dioxide in the air than ever before in the last 650,000 years is: All that carbon dioxide is storing solar heat in the atmosphere. This increased heat energy will transform, and is already transforming into more kinetic energy as (i) more rapid evaporation and precipatation (ii) more frequent, widespread and powerful hurricanes (iii) a higher water-level in the oceans as the polar ice-caps melt, stronger waves and tidal movements, which will over the next decade require every human settlement and activity on the coastline including fishing villages, metros and ports to be relocated further inland.
I don't know if remedies are available. Personally, I think we are already in deep shit and blissfully unaware of it, like a guy who is falling to his death from a skyscraper, but is heard saying as he whooshes past the 10th-floor window, "So far so good! Everything feels great!"
Still, because of our human nature, we like to believe that it is never too late to mend.
Statement of One Possible Remedy
Our economies, which depend primarily on combustion, need to be urgently unhooked from combustibles and hooked onto alternative sources even if they are uneconomical at first. Energy from combustibles seems economical only because it does not take into account the environmental cost; in other words, such energy is environmentally 'subsidized'. However, such subsidies are no longer sustainable, and there is an enormous 'natural deficit' that has built up that needs to be balanced.
So we need to learn to consume solar energy, wind energy, tidal and hydro-electric or human-generated energy, even if it seems terribly uneconomical at first. Simultaneously, we need to learn to live with drastically lowered energy consumption.
Immediate measure 1: We need to impress on decision-makers (and not just general public) at various levels the urgency of our situation. We must make presentations before people in the government and administration at all levels, as often as possible.
Immediate measure 2: We need to show that we ourselves believe in our message. It is not very convincing for us to continue to go around in our big air-conditioned cars and sit in air-conditioned offices, air-conditioned homes and air-conditioned chambers of commerce. We need to show our willingness to step down into less-stylish cars, or maybe even scooters, public transport etc. We need to send out a clear message by (1) scaling down our own usage of electricity by opening our windows and using ceiling-fans etc, (2) walking and bicycling as much as possible instead of taking motorised transport and (3) depending on non-energy consuming forms of recreation such as going for long walks or playing cards together.
Immediate measure 3: To make a dent on the public consciousness, send out a clear message, and set off a mass movement, those of us who are aware of this problem and deeply concerned about it need to do something emblematic. How about something like dressing very simply and riding a bicycle to work (and everywhere else) one day of every week – something that is directly opposed to our increasingly ostentatious lifestyle?
Footnote: I do realize that these ideas are not exactly "civilized", and they make me sound like I urgently need a shrink. But maybe taking such drastic measures will show that we clearly understand the gravity of our situation. Our collective existence depends on this sort of response.
I am a Big Bully on Wheels
If you folks are civilized when you are behind the steering wheel, then maybe you are a great deal more evolved than I. When I am driving down a road, and come across a bunch of pedestrians trying to cross the road, I don't slow down unless the signal is red. I flash my headlights menacingly, honk my horn and speed up. Translated into words, this action means, "Watch out! I'm bigger and clad in a metal armour! So step out of my way... or else!"
When a pedestrian stands in front of my accelerating vehicle, this isn't a friendly warning but a direct threat of physical harm. From where he stands, my car isn't a vehicle of transportation; for him, it is a weapon of death, like a loaded cannon ready to fire.
No, we don't look at this as a social injustice because we are all so USED TO IT, dammit! Just as, in the days of feudalistic zamindari and untouchability, neither the overlords nor the downtrodden felt that they were part of an unjust system! They felt it was the only correct way for a society to function!
Just this morning, I flashed my headlights and prevented a bunch of schoolgirls from crossing the highway in front of my car. My thinking was: Let them cross behind me if they can because I'm in a tearing hurry.
All citizens are not equal
You remember that famous quote from George Orwell's novella, Animal Farm, where the pigs declare, "All animals are equal, but some of us are more equal than others"?
Like the pigs, we motorists -- especially those of us in cars -- are 'more equal' than others. We have special rights. We have a special right-of-way that the bitch-goddess of economic superiority has bestowed upon us.
Our comfort and speed takes precedence over the comfort and safety of pedestrians, because we are capable of buying expensive vehicles, fuel and vehicle insurance, and paying road tax.
It is no secret that wheels are a status symbol, a social pecking-order based on wealth. In ascending order -- bicycle, scooter, motorbike, small car (Maruti 800), larger car (Fiat Palio, Maruti Esteem), larger foreign car (Honda Civic), SUVs. A Toyota Land Cruiser or Mitsubishi Pajero sits near the top of the heap.
I'm ok with status-symbols; it's a natural human tendency. But...
Have you noticed that the word 'pedestrian' is tainted with contempt? Also it's hindi equivalent, Raaste pe chalta aadmi ?
When did the basic human-being become an object of contempt? We aren't born with wheels, you know! We are all basically pedestrians, but why is it so easy to forget this when we are behind a steering wheel?
Visualize the sheer inequity of this situation: I am one guy securely seat-belted in a well-cushioned airconditioned bubble of metal and glass, and capable of travelling at 90 km per hour. As always, I am in a tearing hurry to go somewhere. Therefore, my right-or-way takes precedence over that of six kids carrying a load of books in the noontime sun, balancing precariously near a road divider amidst a confusion of speeding vehicles, noise and smoke, looking for a chance to safely cross the highway and get to school before the starting bell.
Some questions
What gave me the right-or-way over these kids? What gave me the right to assign my time and comfort greater priority than their time, comfort and above all, SAFETY?
Was it the fact that I could do them physical harm --a sense of raw power -- that gave me the right-of-way? Must the weak yield to the strong in our society?
Was it my vehicle's greater size and bulk -- a ton of sleek metal and glass hurtling down the road like a charging rhino? Must humans yield to machines in our society?
Was it my greater speed and momentum -- the fact that I was going much faster, and would have to sacrifice my speed in order to let them pass? Must human 'inefficiency' yield to mechanical 'efficiency' in our society?
Was it the fact that I was obviously a person with more visible money-power, and therefore my time and comfort was more important than theirs? Must mere humans bow before money-power in our society?
Was it the fact that the road was a motorists' territory -- and therefore a pedestrian must somehow cope and sneak past as best as he can, at his own risk? Must we all gradually give up our rights as 'mere humans' and pedestrians in our own neighbourhoods, as roads become increasingly more common, wider and busier?
To my children, an apology
My children cannot safely walk to school. They cannot ride a bicycle to school. I would not even advise them to walk to and from the nearest suburban railway station, although it is at an easy walking distance which I myself often walk.
They cannot do all these things because the rights of people-on-wheels are rampaging the basic rights of people-on-foot.
Unless my children become people-on-wheels, they are underprivileged citizens in my city. They are not equal citizens. Their basic right to walk is not respected by my government or even by motorists like myself.
For robbing my children of their birthright to walk any distance in safety, I hang my head in shame.
And with tears of anger and regret, I swear to restore to my children their birthright. So Help me God!
When a pedestrian stands in front of my accelerating vehicle, this isn't a friendly warning but a direct threat of physical harm. From where he stands, my car isn't a vehicle of transportation; for him, it is a weapon of death, like a loaded cannon ready to fire.
No, we don't look at this as a social injustice because we are all so USED TO IT, dammit! Just as, in the days of feudalistic zamindari and untouchability, neither the overlords nor the downtrodden felt that they were part of an unjust system! They felt it was the only correct way for a society to function!
Just this morning, I flashed my headlights and prevented a bunch of schoolgirls from crossing the highway in front of my car. My thinking was: Let them cross behind me if they can because I'm in a tearing hurry.
All citizens are not equal
You remember that famous quote from George Orwell's novella, Animal Farm, where the pigs declare, "All animals are equal, but some of us are more equal than others"?
Like the pigs, we motorists -- especially those of us in cars -- are 'more equal' than others. We have special rights. We have a special right-of-way that the bitch-goddess of economic superiority has bestowed upon us.
Our comfort and speed takes precedence over the comfort and safety of pedestrians, because we are capable of buying expensive vehicles, fuel and vehicle insurance, and paying road tax.
It is no secret that wheels are a status symbol, a social pecking-order based on wealth. In ascending order -- bicycle, scooter, motorbike, small car (Maruti 800), larger car (Fiat Palio, Maruti Esteem), larger foreign car (Honda Civic), SUVs. A Toyota Land Cruiser or Mitsubishi Pajero sits near the top of the heap.
I'm ok with status-symbols; it's a natural human tendency. But...
Have you noticed that the word 'pedestrian' is tainted with contempt? Also it's hindi equivalent, Raaste pe chalta aadmi ?
When did the basic human-being become an object of contempt? We aren't born with wheels, you know! We are all basically pedestrians, but why is it so easy to forget this when we are behind a steering wheel?
Visualize the sheer inequity of this situation: I am one guy securely seat-belted in a well-cushioned airconditioned bubble of metal and glass, and capable of travelling at 90 km per hour. As always, I am in a tearing hurry to go somewhere. Therefore, my right-or-way takes precedence over that of six kids carrying a load of books in the noontime sun, balancing precariously near a road divider amidst a confusion of speeding vehicles, noise and smoke, looking for a chance to safely cross the highway and get to school before the starting bell.
Some questions
What gave me the right-or-way over these kids? What gave me the right to assign my time and comfort greater priority than their time, comfort and above all, SAFETY?
Was it the fact that I could do them physical harm --a sense of raw power -- that gave me the right-of-way? Must the weak yield to the strong in our society?
Was it my vehicle's greater size and bulk -- a ton of sleek metal and glass hurtling down the road like a charging rhino? Must humans yield to machines in our society?
Was it my greater speed and momentum -- the fact that I was going much faster, and would have to sacrifice my speed in order to let them pass? Must human 'inefficiency' yield to mechanical 'efficiency' in our society?
Was it the fact that I was obviously a person with more visible money-power, and therefore my time and comfort was more important than theirs? Must mere humans bow before money-power in our society?
Was it the fact that the road was a motorists' territory -- and therefore a pedestrian must somehow cope and sneak past as best as he can, at his own risk? Must we all gradually give up our rights as 'mere humans' and pedestrians in our own neighbourhoods, as roads become increasingly more common, wider and busier?
To my children, an apology
My children cannot safely walk to school. They cannot ride a bicycle to school. I would not even advise them to walk to and from the nearest suburban railway station, although it is at an easy walking distance which I myself often walk.
They cannot do all these things because the rights of people-on-wheels are rampaging the basic rights of people-on-foot.
Unless my children become people-on-wheels, they are underprivileged citizens in my city. They are not equal citizens. Their basic right to walk is not respected by my government or even by motorists like myself.
For robbing my children of their birthright to walk any distance in safety, I hang my head in shame.
And with tears of anger and regret, I swear to restore to my children their birthright. So Help me God!
A Worst-case Scenario for India and Some Thoughts on How to Reduce its Impact
While participating in a debate on growthmadness.org, I was struck by the fact that many among us are actually hoping to find a way out of our current predicament WITHOUT CHAOS and major social-economic-political disruptions... or what pokerfaced economists call Discontinuities.
I think that's unlikely. We are jolly well going to have some 'discontinuities' on this planet, regardless of whether we act positively or just drift happily along seeking economic growth.
The likelihood of populations coming crashing in a series of major calamities is high and getting higher. And please note: this is irrespective of any Global Warming events like ocean levels rising, more powerful hurricanes etc. etc.
Because our economies are growing in a pretty centralized way that is POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE. The globalized economy is like a tower built by kids balancing blocks and books one on top of another; at some point, it all becomes shaky.
Our own civilization is built around central infrastructures that invisibly enable massive human populations (and their massive consumptions) to be maintained, especially in urban areas: power-supply, water-supply, residential and office buildings, highways, railways, food-supply, industries, banking system, stock markets... The degree of reliance on these infrastructures grows exponentially year from year, especially in a place like Mumbai, India, where I live.
For instance, all around me, I see high-rise apartments built to accommodate the burgeoning consumer-class. A lot of these folks are making their money thanks to outsourcing from the US. Without lifts and piped water-supply, high-rises would become uninhabitable.
Now let me project a worst-case scenario for Indian metropolises that could very easily turn into reality.
[Responding to the early comments, let me add a caveat here: Remember, what I've projected here is a WORST-case scenario, not a BAD-case scenario. Reality, as it plays out, doesn't usually follow the worst-case scenario projections... it stops at being merely bad. Usually, NOT ALL THE DOMINOS FALL DOWN... a few remain half-fallen, preventing the rest from toppling.]
THE SCENARIO
The projected US recession in 2008 is deeper than expected. A huge ball of bad debts concealed in the US banking system starts to unravel, causing a tightening of debts and an economic slowdown. In a desperate attempt to create more jobs in the US Economy, the Congress passes laws that ban outsourcing to India.
And this move is emulated by EU Nations who aren't doing too well either.
As the outsourced work dries up, BPOs downsize their workforce and many shut down after struggling along for some months. Millions of apartment-dwellers in Mumbai are rendered jobless. These are currently big spenders running up credit-card debts and supporting the Indian economy with their extravagant purchases.
As these millions of unemployed folks struggle to subsist in the changed scenario, they set off a domino effect that plays out over a two-year period:
Domino 1: They default on credit-card repayments, car loans, housing loans and stop paying their electricity bills. The banking sector takes a hit at first as bad debts mount, and then begins a spate of repossessed houses and cars. Power supply companies, which are now in the private sector, cut off their supply, rendering their apartments unlivable.
Domino 2: As these guys flood the job market, salaries in other sectors of the economy drop precipitously, making more people unable to support their existing bank loans that were taken under the belief that the economy was rock-solid. More repossessions, real estate prices drop, consumer goods companies (durables as well as fast-moving stuff like biscuits and ketchups) start suffering losses. Sales of new automobile drop off as secondhand cars flood the market at distress prices. Mobile phone usage starts dropping off as unpaid bills mount.
Domino 3: Stock markets start tripping and falling, multi-billionaires with their fortunes riding on these high-return instruments realize that these are high-risk too. They start pulling out, close on the heels of foreign investors (including US Provident Funds), and the markets collapse in ruins on the heads of millions of middle-class investors spread all over the country -- in cities big and small.
Domino 4: A number of banks collapse due to large amounts of unrecoverable debts. Very large numbers of middleclass and poor depositors are hit, reduced to rags. The assumptions on which banking rates of returns are calculated are all up in the air. Confidence in banking vanishes. Confidence in markets turns bitter. Confidence in government and administration crumbles. The Finance Minister stops trying to reassure the public and maintains a descreet silence.
Domino 5: Hitherto rich people living and working in high-rises turn paupers, and power-supply to many buildings is cut off and electricity bills go unpaid. No lifts, no water-supply... a large part of the city of Mumbai ceases to be inhabitable. These apartments have no market value, and so they are deserted by their owners. The real estate market crumbles.
Domino 6: Law & Order problems abound -- theft, robberies, murders, suicides, forgery, defaults on debts. Movement of essential goods along road and rail corridors becomes a high-risk business. A state of emergency is declared and the world's largest democracy becomes a police-state.
Domino 7: As medical and surgical supplies drop off and health issues are aggraved by stress, water-shortages, poor hygiene etc, mortality rates surge. Air quality deteriorates as wooden doors, windows and furniture is burnt as cooking fuel. The medical infrastructure becomes overloaded and then collapses. Hospitals become places where sick people go to die rather than to recover.
Domino 8: As death rates spiral upwards, safe disposal of the dead becomes a major economic and administrative issue. Rotting bodies lie uncremated, unburied in deserted high-rise apartments. Friendly neighbourhood stray dogs respond to the abundance of sheltering darkness and human flesh by turning feral, hunting in packs. They revert to being like the wolves and wild dogs that they have descended from. Children and the infirm are now no longer safe.
Domino 9: Deprived of food supplies, city folks -- those who are fit and capable of manual work -- migrate towards rural areas and start invading rural populations. Pitched battles for territory ensue. Communal and caste feuds, never really forgotten, rear their ugly heads. Bloodbaths follow.
Domino 10: National boundaries are now difficult to defend as the overloaded administration crumbles. Many in the administration and in security forces have not received salaries for months; they have few loyalties left. State and Central government offices, municipal offices, panchayat offices, army barracks... all lie deserted. There is no government; it is every man for himself.
In December 2009, a free-for-all state of anarchy prevails over a once-proud economy that boasted of 9.5% GDP growth.
India Shining, R.I.P.
THE END
Variations of this scenario would apply to many nations in the world that are on the economic fast-track. In such instances, how long would it take for national populations to crash to, say, one-sixth of their current strengths? A decade? Or even less maybe?
Hate to say this, but I think each passing year of economic growth increases the odds of a catastrophe of such magnitude. The tower of blocks will definitely fall within the next couple of decades.
The challenge before us is really to anticipate it, awaken the administration to such risks and build safety-valves into the system while bringing down the size of this tower of insecurities.
And this, let me stress, holds true irrespective of whether climate change is happening or not. Even in a world devoid of global warming, the current paradigm of economic growth is a dead-end street.
So let us stop debating about global warming, alternative sources of energy etc. and start bearing down on the brakes of the economy, folks. Slow down economic growth, let the foam and fizz of bullish expectations settle down to a realistic level...
And then let us, with due urgency, try to enter into a phase of consolidating the economy -- redistributing the gains of growth in more socially and ecologically equitable ways. This will help us avoid the brunt of 'discontinuities' when they occur.
A few ideas on how to slow down economic growth
1) Individual consumers need to consciously consume less of whatever it is that they consume. The government or NGOs should incentivate families to benchmark their current levels of consumption on various fronts, then reduce them.
2) Advertising aimed at making people buy more should be tapered off. Only adverts giving information should be allowed.
3) Roadside advertising hoardings should be reduced by 50%, and they should not be illuminated, as they use up precious energy for a relatively non-productive purpose.
4) Stop adding power generation capacities, whether thermal or otherwise. Freeze them at existing capacities and merely replace thermal capacities with wind-energy and solar generation capacities.
5) Stop registering new private vehicles. NGOs or government should incentivate people to give up private transport (for instance by giving them free passes on public transport with 10-year validity.)
6) Each year, taper off the numbers of private transport wheels by 10% or more, and enhance the capacity of public transport by 20%. This will result in a net improvement in the quality of transportation and reduced congestion each year.
7) Enforce a one-child policy with both carrot and stick. This means that within the span of 60-70 years, population would go down by about 50%.
8) Build infrastructure for localised means of recreation such as playgrounds and stadiums, both indoor and outdoor. Encourage greater participation in physical and mental sporting activities by organizing competitions etc.
8) Civic and governmental efforts to improve quality of life are crucial to wean off people from the rat-race.
PS: This is not saying that we shall have no more problems, and shall live happily ever after. Every situation inevitably has its own set of problems... and we shall have to be alert and aware to deal with them as they arise.
I think that's unlikely. We are jolly well going to have some 'discontinuities' on this planet, regardless of whether we act positively or just drift happily along seeking economic growth.
The likelihood of populations coming crashing in a series of major calamities is high and getting higher. And please note: this is irrespective of any Global Warming events like ocean levels rising, more powerful hurricanes etc. etc.
Because our economies are growing in a pretty centralized way that is POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE. The globalized economy is like a tower built by kids balancing blocks and books one on top of another; at some point, it all becomes shaky.
Our own civilization is built around central infrastructures that invisibly enable massive human populations (and their massive consumptions) to be maintained, especially in urban areas: power-supply, water-supply, residential and office buildings, highways, railways, food-supply, industries, banking system, stock markets... The degree of reliance on these infrastructures grows exponentially year from year, especially in a place like Mumbai, India, where I live.
For instance, all around me, I see high-rise apartments built to accommodate the burgeoning consumer-class. A lot of these folks are making their money thanks to outsourcing from the US. Without lifts and piped water-supply, high-rises would become uninhabitable.
Now let me project a worst-case scenario for Indian metropolises that could very easily turn into reality.
[Responding to the early comments, let me add a caveat here: Remember, what I've projected here is a WORST-case scenario, not a BAD-case scenario. Reality, as it plays out, doesn't usually follow the worst-case scenario projections... it stops at being merely bad. Usually, NOT ALL THE DOMINOS FALL DOWN... a few remain half-fallen, preventing the rest from toppling.]
THE SCENARIO
The projected US recession in 2008 is deeper than expected. A huge ball of bad debts concealed in the US banking system starts to unravel, causing a tightening of debts and an economic slowdown. In a desperate attempt to create more jobs in the US Economy, the Congress passes laws that ban outsourcing to India.
And this move is emulated by EU Nations who aren't doing too well either.
As the outsourced work dries up, BPOs downsize their workforce and many shut down after struggling along for some months. Millions of apartment-dwellers in Mumbai are rendered jobless. These are currently big spenders running up credit-card debts and supporting the Indian economy with their extravagant purchases.
As these millions of unemployed folks struggle to subsist in the changed scenario, they set off a domino effect that plays out over a two-year period:
Domino 1: They default on credit-card repayments, car loans, housing loans and stop paying their electricity bills. The banking sector takes a hit at first as bad debts mount, and then begins a spate of repossessed houses and cars. Power supply companies, which are now in the private sector, cut off their supply, rendering their apartments unlivable.
Domino 2: As these guys flood the job market, salaries in other sectors of the economy drop precipitously, making more people unable to support their existing bank loans that were taken under the belief that the economy was rock-solid. More repossessions, real estate prices drop, consumer goods companies (durables as well as fast-moving stuff like biscuits and ketchups) start suffering losses. Sales of new automobile drop off as secondhand cars flood the market at distress prices. Mobile phone usage starts dropping off as unpaid bills mount.
Domino 3: Stock markets start tripping and falling, multi-billionaires with their fortunes riding on these high-return instruments realize that these are high-risk too. They start pulling out, close on the heels of foreign investors (including US Provident Funds), and the markets collapse in ruins on the heads of millions of middle-class investors spread all over the country -- in cities big and small.
Domino 4: A number of banks collapse due to large amounts of unrecoverable debts. Very large numbers of middleclass and poor depositors are hit, reduced to rags. The assumptions on which banking rates of returns are calculated are all up in the air. Confidence in banking vanishes. Confidence in markets turns bitter. Confidence in government and administration crumbles. The Finance Minister stops trying to reassure the public and maintains a descreet silence.
Domino 5: Hitherto rich people living and working in high-rises turn paupers, and power-supply to many buildings is cut off and electricity bills go unpaid. No lifts, no water-supply... a large part of the city of Mumbai ceases to be inhabitable. These apartments have no market value, and so they are deserted by their owners. The real estate market crumbles.
Domino 6: Law & Order problems abound -- theft, robberies, murders, suicides, forgery, defaults on debts. Movement of essential goods along road and rail corridors becomes a high-risk business. A state of emergency is declared and the world's largest democracy becomes a police-state.
Domino 7: As medical and surgical supplies drop off and health issues are aggraved by stress, water-shortages, poor hygiene etc, mortality rates surge. Air quality deteriorates as wooden doors, windows and furniture is burnt as cooking fuel. The medical infrastructure becomes overloaded and then collapses. Hospitals become places where sick people go to die rather than to recover.
Domino 8: As death rates spiral upwards, safe disposal of the dead becomes a major economic and administrative issue. Rotting bodies lie uncremated, unburied in deserted high-rise apartments. Friendly neighbourhood stray dogs respond to the abundance of sheltering darkness and human flesh by turning feral, hunting in packs. They revert to being like the wolves and wild dogs that they have descended from. Children and the infirm are now no longer safe.
Domino 9: Deprived of food supplies, city folks -- those who are fit and capable of manual work -- migrate towards rural areas and start invading rural populations. Pitched battles for territory ensue. Communal and caste feuds, never really forgotten, rear their ugly heads. Bloodbaths follow.
Domino 10: National boundaries are now difficult to defend as the overloaded administration crumbles. Many in the administration and in security forces have not received salaries for months; they have few loyalties left. State and Central government offices, municipal offices, panchayat offices, army barracks... all lie deserted. There is no government; it is every man for himself.
In December 2009, a free-for-all state of anarchy prevails over a once-proud economy that boasted of 9.5% GDP growth.
India Shining, R.I.P.
THE END
Variations of this scenario would apply to many nations in the world that are on the economic fast-track. In such instances, how long would it take for national populations to crash to, say, one-sixth of their current strengths? A decade? Or even less maybe?
Hate to say this, but I think each passing year of economic growth increases the odds of a catastrophe of such magnitude. The tower of blocks will definitely fall within the next couple of decades.
The challenge before us is really to anticipate it, awaken the administration to such risks and build safety-valves into the system while bringing down the size of this tower of insecurities.
And this, let me stress, holds true irrespective of whether climate change is happening or not. Even in a world devoid of global warming, the current paradigm of economic growth is a dead-end street.
So let us stop debating about global warming, alternative sources of energy etc. and start bearing down on the brakes of the economy, folks. Slow down economic growth, let the foam and fizz of bullish expectations settle down to a realistic level...
And then let us, with due urgency, try to enter into a phase of consolidating the economy -- redistributing the gains of growth in more socially and ecologically equitable ways. This will help us avoid the brunt of 'discontinuities' when they occur.
A few ideas on how to slow down economic growth
1) Individual consumers need to consciously consume less of whatever it is that they consume. The government or NGOs should incentivate families to benchmark their current levels of consumption on various fronts, then reduce them.
2) Advertising aimed at making people buy more should be tapered off. Only adverts giving information should be allowed.
3) Roadside advertising hoardings should be reduced by 50%, and they should not be illuminated, as they use up precious energy for a relatively non-productive purpose.
4) Stop adding power generation capacities, whether thermal or otherwise. Freeze them at existing capacities and merely replace thermal capacities with wind-energy and solar generation capacities.
5) Stop registering new private vehicles. NGOs or government should incentivate people to give up private transport (for instance by giving them free passes on public transport with 10-year validity.)
6) Each year, taper off the numbers of private transport wheels by 10% or more, and enhance the capacity of public transport by 20%. This will result in a net improvement in the quality of transportation and reduced congestion each year.
7) Enforce a one-child policy with both carrot and stick. This means that within the span of 60-70 years, population would go down by about 50%.
8) Build infrastructure for localised means of recreation such as playgrounds and stadiums, both indoor and outdoor. Encourage greater participation in physical and mental sporting activities by organizing competitions etc.
8) Civic and governmental efforts to improve quality of life are crucial to wean off people from the rat-race.
PS: This is not saying that we shall have no more problems, and shall live happily ever after. Every situation inevitably has its own set of problems... and we shall have to be alert and aware to deal with them as they arise.
To Stop Global Warming, Stop Credit Cards & Consumer Loans
Today, we have an affluent economy, with only a small fraction of our economies' output devoted to basic needs. Environmentalists say that we are reaching the limits of growth due to ecological constraints. Here in our cities, we have not only reached the limits of human needs but overshot them many times over. What we currently have in our metros is largely overconsumption or unnecessarily luxurious consumption which has many adverse consequences on us, on our economies and on our planet.
Economic growth is no longer improving our well-being. The extra time and energy that we must spend on healthcare, children's education, commuting and just keeping pace of changes are on the rise. The quality of our surroundings -- our neighbourhood, roads, civic infrastructure etc. are deteriorating even as more and more goods flood the supermarkets.
We have reached a point of counterproductive growth; additional growth now brings diminishing benefits while causing increased social and environmental costs.
As we urban Indians have become more prosperous, we have moved from consuming necessities to consuming conveniences to consuming luxuries. We are now driving to work one-per-car and spending many hours per week in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
This has severe environmental consequences. India's phenomenal economic growth of 9.5% per annum comes at the cost of farmers being deprived of electricity, of countless creatures of all shapes and sizes being deprived of their natural habitats and their food, of countless rivers and groundwater resources being both overexploited and polluted. Due to the continuous expansion of factories for manufacturing everything from cement to SUVs to cream-biscuits expand to meet the burgeoning demand, we overdraw on planetary resources and disrupt the fine web of life by cutting its strands.
But how can we stop? How to stop so many billion people from doing all the things they do in daily life?
In my mind, I keep searching for key points that are causing our present situation. I keep trying to identify places where the cancerous tumour, so to speak, can be clearly isolated from human flesh. Because these are the places where we can start cutting away surgically, methodically, without hurting too many people.
1) Consumer credit -- loans extended by banks for purchase of new vehicles and consumer appliances -- is one of the major arteries of this cancerous tumour. Easy loans affect our purchasing decisions. How?
Two calls from an aggressive marketer of car loans is all I need to make me feel that I NEED to step up from my family car to an SUV. I start believing that it is high time I bought a bigger car. "You can afford it, Sir," says the loan agent, sleazily massaging my ego into a full-blown erection.
I think about my employee who drives the same brand of car that I drive, thanks to the same loan agent's persuasion. Then I think about my neighbour's shining new Scorpio and think about how insignificant my own vehicle (read phallic symbol) looks standing next to it.
Some advice from my friendly chartered accountant reinforces this feeling: New SUV = more tax-deductible depreciation. Also, interest on loan installments is tax-deductible.
I reason: if I trade in my present vehicle, it brings down the price of the new one a lakh or so. Then I only need to afford the reduced EMIs (Equated Monthly Instalments) on the load. Can't I afford an EMI of Rs 12,000? Of course I can; what kind of man am I if I can't afford to pay a small installment like that?!
Besides, business is looking up; that new client who I have been pursuing for six months is almost in the bag. So what if he hasn't actually signed on the dotted line? His word is as good as gold.
That decides it: I just WANT a brand-new fuel-guzzler, and I want it NOW! Never mind the price, I can afford the EMI. Of course I can... Case closed!
2) Credit cards: Visa Power -- you've got it! If you have a credit card or two, you know what it means to be a really wealthy person, because you are able to securely carry large amounts equivalent to many months' earnings in your wallet.
And when you do that, you are potentially able to do all those wonderful, beautiful, generous things that you see in TV commercials -- things that can make your wife's heart go flutter-flutter, and that will make her give you that million-dollar smile. How about buying her that diamond solitaire? Or taking her out to dinner at the Taj Princess? Or booking the Presidential suite for your wedding anniversary? Or, better still, surprising her with a couple of air-tickets to Paris... Wow, that would be such a PRICELESS moment... just like they show in Visa commercials!
Credit-card bills? What's that? Oh, just a minor detail, that's all. Stuff that happens in the background, inconspicuously, as part of routine life. Life goes on, bills get paid... they always do. So let's not waste time talking about bills. Those airline tickets are one phone-call or one mouse-click away.
The point that I'm making here is: Consumer credit and credit-cards are the hot air causing the great big Economic Growth balloon to go up... and up... and up at the current rate of 9.5% per annum. Thanks to this banking 'reform', all of us are learning to increasingly live in perpetual debt, just like the Americans whom we all adore so much that they can do no wrong, not even in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks to easy consumer credit, we are all borrowing from the future. We aren't only borrowing economically, we are borrowing ecologically. As the previous article points out, "Globally, we are demanding 1.3 planets to support our lifestyles this year, and yet we only have one planet earth. Each year, we as a global community place demands on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries that goes beyond their capacity to generate resources and absorb wastes. We are using more far more than the planet can regenerate in a year."
Conclusion: At an individual level, we should stop buying things with credit, and stop using our credit cards. It is worth cutting up our credit cards. Let us stop borrowing for the future.
And as a community of concerned citizens, let us lobby for a clampdown on consumer credit. Let us write to the government, to Reserve Bank and to individual banks and bankers.
Let each person in the banking industry be targetted with this message: Cap and roll back. Let us ask for a freeze of consumer credit at current levels this year, and a 50% reduction in the amounts of credit given each year. This would give the economy about three years to adjust to the changing scenario. (Three years is 36 months -- far more time than the economy and its stakeholders get for adjustment when the stock-markets crash or a bank collapse which happens within a few weeks time.)
Do you think there is truth in this argument? If so, please help by spreading the word.
_________________________________________________
Satyam Eva Jayate: Let the Truth Prevail.
Economic growth is no longer improving our well-being. The extra time and energy that we must spend on healthcare, children's education, commuting and just keeping pace of changes are on the rise. The quality of our surroundings -- our neighbourhood, roads, civic infrastructure etc. are deteriorating even as more and more goods flood the supermarkets.
We have reached a point of counterproductive growth; additional growth now brings diminishing benefits while causing increased social and environmental costs.
As we urban Indians have become more prosperous, we have moved from consuming necessities to consuming conveniences to consuming luxuries. We are now driving to work one-per-car and spending many hours per week in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
This has severe environmental consequences. India's phenomenal economic growth of 9.5% per annum comes at the cost of farmers being deprived of electricity, of countless creatures of all shapes and sizes being deprived of their natural habitats and their food, of countless rivers and groundwater resources being both overexploited and polluted. Due to the continuous expansion of factories for manufacturing everything from cement to SUVs to cream-biscuits expand to meet the burgeoning demand, we overdraw on planetary resources and disrupt the fine web of life by cutting its strands.
But how can we stop? How to stop so many billion people from doing all the things they do in daily life?
In my mind, I keep searching for key points that are causing our present situation. I keep trying to identify places where the cancerous tumour, so to speak, can be clearly isolated from human flesh. Because these are the places where we can start cutting away surgically, methodically, without hurting too many people.
1) Consumer credit -- loans extended by banks for purchase of new vehicles and consumer appliances -- is one of the major arteries of this cancerous tumour. Easy loans affect our purchasing decisions. How?
Two calls from an aggressive marketer of car loans is all I need to make me feel that I NEED to step up from my family car to an SUV. I start believing that it is high time I bought a bigger car. "You can afford it, Sir," says the loan agent, sleazily massaging my ego into a full-blown erection.
I think about my employee who drives the same brand of car that I drive, thanks to the same loan agent's persuasion. Then I think about my neighbour's shining new Scorpio and think about how insignificant my own vehicle (read phallic symbol) looks standing next to it.
Some advice from my friendly chartered accountant reinforces this feeling: New SUV = more tax-deductible depreciation. Also, interest on loan installments is tax-deductible.
I reason: if I trade in my present vehicle, it brings down the price of the new one a lakh or so. Then I only need to afford the reduced EMIs (Equated Monthly Instalments) on the load. Can't I afford an EMI of Rs 12,000? Of course I can; what kind of man am I if I can't afford to pay a small installment like that?!
Besides, business is looking up; that new client who I have been pursuing for six months is almost in the bag. So what if he hasn't actually signed on the dotted line? His word is as good as gold.
That decides it: I just WANT a brand-new fuel-guzzler, and I want it NOW! Never mind the price, I can afford the EMI. Of course I can... Case closed!
2) Credit cards: Visa Power -- you've got it! If you have a credit card or two, you know what it means to be a really wealthy person, because you are able to securely carry large amounts equivalent to many months' earnings in your wallet.
And when you do that, you are potentially able to do all those wonderful, beautiful, generous things that you see in TV commercials -- things that can make your wife's heart go flutter-flutter, and that will make her give you that million-dollar smile. How about buying her that diamond solitaire? Or taking her out to dinner at the Taj Princess? Or booking the Presidential suite for your wedding anniversary? Or, better still, surprising her with a couple of air-tickets to Paris... Wow, that would be such a PRICELESS moment... just like they show in Visa commercials!
Credit-card bills? What's that? Oh, just a minor detail, that's all. Stuff that happens in the background, inconspicuously, as part of routine life. Life goes on, bills get paid... they always do. So let's not waste time talking about bills. Those airline tickets are one phone-call or one mouse-click away.
The point that I'm making here is: Consumer credit and credit-cards are the hot air causing the great big Economic Growth balloon to go up... and up... and up at the current rate of 9.5% per annum. Thanks to this banking 'reform', all of us are learning to increasingly live in perpetual debt, just like the Americans whom we all adore so much that they can do no wrong, not even in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks to easy consumer credit, we are all borrowing from the future. We aren't only borrowing economically, we are borrowing ecologically. As the previous article points out, "Globally, we are demanding 1.3 planets to support our lifestyles this year, and yet we only have one planet earth. Each year, we as a global community place demands on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries that goes beyond their capacity to generate resources and absorb wastes. We are using more far more than the planet can regenerate in a year."
Conclusion: At an individual level, we should stop buying things with credit, and stop using our credit cards. It is worth cutting up our credit cards. Let us stop borrowing for the future.
And as a community of concerned citizens, let us lobby for a clampdown on consumer credit. Let us write to the government, to Reserve Bank and to individual banks and bankers.
Let each person in the banking industry be targetted with this message: Cap and roll back. Let us ask for a freeze of consumer credit at current levels this year, and a 50% reduction in the amounts of credit given each year. This would give the economy about three years to adjust to the changing scenario. (Three years is 36 months -- far more time than the economy and its stakeholders get for adjustment when the stock-markets crash or a bank collapse which happens within a few weeks time.)
Do you think there is truth in this argument? If so, please help by spreading the word.
_________________________________________________
Satyam Eva Jayate: Let the Truth Prevail.
Consumers? Or Citizens?
My prayer today is:
Let us stop thinking of ourselves and of one another as CONSUMERS. Let us remember that we are CITIZENS.
Consumers care about their various desires and their right to fulfil those desires. Being a consumer is about thinking of rights and opportunities to exploit for pleasure or for gain. It is about deep-seated but usually hidden assumptions such as: More is better.
Big is beautiful.
New is good.
Having fun at all times is the most important mission in life.
My family and I should enjoy more than others, have a bigger share than others.
Consumers are preoccupied with guarding, preserving and enhancing what is theirs. They don't assume responsibility for what lies beyond their doorstep.
Being Citizens is about taking responsibility for the overall direction of things. It is about wanting what is best for the whole community. Citizens want only equity, fairness and long-term sustainability.
For themselves and their families, they are satisfied with getting the fair share after everyone else has had their share. They may accept less than their fair share, but certainly do not want more.
Citizens care deeply about what happens outside their doors. They speak up and take charge.
Please God, help each one of us to beWorld Citizens, not Global Consumers.
Let us stop thinking of ourselves and of one another as CONSUMERS. Let us remember that we are CITIZENS.
Consumers care about their various desires and their right to fulfil those desires. Being a consumer is about thinking of rights and opportunities to exploit for pleasure or for gain. It is about deep-seated but usually hidden assumptions such as: More is better.
Big is beautiful.
New is good.
Having fun at all times is the most important mission in life.
My family and I should enjoy more than others, have a bigger share than others.
Consumers are preoccupied with guarding, preserving and enhancing what is theirs. They don't assume responsibility for what lies beyond their doorstep.
Being Citizens is about taking responsibility for the overall direction of things. It is about wanting what is best for the whole community. Citizens want only equity, fairness and long-term sustainability.
For themselves and their families, they are satisfied with getting the fair share after everyone else has had their share. They may accept less than their fair share, but certainly do not want more.
Citizens care deeply about what happens outside their doors. They speak up and take charge.
Please God, help each one of us to beWorld Citizens, not Global Consumers.
My Journey of Faith
Since the mid-80s, I was of the opinion that the activities of humankind were transforming the world in an unsustainable way. I had researched about this view and found it validated in a lot of writings. I wrote newspaper articles about it in 1988. I discussed a number of alternative courses of social action with my Dad for dealing with it... but I ended up doing nothing other than imposing a sort of penance, subsisting largely on uncooked foods for many months in 1999, and adopting a monk-like dress-code in 2002.
Seeing Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, in July 2007 was for me a vindicating experience. Here was someone with great credibility saying everything that I had been wanting to say all along, and saying it with style and effectiveness. It triggered me with a sense of urgency.
The film, screened at our chamber of commerce, was like a gas lighter's spark to a gas stove; already combustible, I needed that spark to ignite me into action.
The first task that I undertook, with the support of my chamber's anti-global-warming committee, was a mundane one: show the film to a lot of people in my city. And so I began to show the film around on my laptop, editing it down with fast-forwarding to about 55 minutes, delivering a short talk, fielding questions, clairfying, discussing alternative courses of action.
Here is a list of these meetings:
1) Screening at CCI's C K Naidu hall, Churchgate, on 26th July for 120 persons from the financial services sector , in coordination with Tata Mutual Fund, which then independently showed the film five times before audiences in Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta.
2) Screening for 300 children of New Era School, August Kranti Maidan, on 26th July, Standards 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.
3) On August 5, Sunday, 80 persons (25 families) at Railway Officers Club at Byculla watched this film before lunch.
4) On 5th September, 40 railway engineers at the Parel workshop saw the film and discussed Climate Change and viable responses.
5) On 10th September, 90 high-school students of Ram Ratna Vidya Mandir, a boarding school at Bhayender, watched this film and discussed lines of action with me over lunch.
6) 19th September at St Xaviers Boys Academy, New Marine Lines. 300 students watched intensely and 20 of them participated in an intense discussion held afterwards in the vice-principal's office.
7) 28th September at USV Limited, Govandi. 75 pharmaceutical lab technicians and their bosses, including their vice-chairman, watched the screening.
8) 18th October at Bombay Management Association. A high-quality audience of 40 persons raptly watched the screening. Two of those present there -- Prof. Bhavna Motwani and Mr Tejus Coulagi -- went on to become intensely involved with this cause. Soon afterwards, we formed an informal group called Children of the Earth. This group has organized two screenings at colleges subsequently, and has held three internal meetings. We are now attracting more members.
9) 14th November at Rotary Club of Navi Mumbai Hillside. An audience of 30 yielded a couple of very promising contacts. The vice principal of a very large college in Navi Mumbai is organizing a full day conference of teachers, besides other 2-hour seminars for students.
10) 26th November at Saraf College, Malad West. Prof Motwani and I addressed 300 girl BCom students for an hour, with a 20-minute screening of An Inconvenient Truth. It was my first experience of a mofussil audience. I became aware that Al Gore's film alone could not reach out to all audiences; I needed to weave oratory and humour into the mix.
11) On 8th December, I was present at a seaside amphitheatre at Khardanda where an awareness programme had been organized by some concerned citizens along with Greenpeace. Without meaning to steal the show, I turned out to be one of the main speakers there, and also facilitated the screening of Greenpeace films.
12) 11th December at Somaiya College, Vidyavihar. Prof Motwani & I addressed 100 students of BSc, along with their teachers, Principal and Vice Principal.
13) On 18th December, for about 90 minutes, I addressed 80 boys and girls of Std 9 at Colaba Municipal school, without screening the movie. It was an demanding job, engaging the mind of this audience without going into scientific abstractions of global warming.
Other activities:
1) Two weeks back, while travelling by train, I entered into a conversation with a peddler of books, who turned out to have a flair for scripting and directing street plays. Our discussions threw up a lot of ideological common-ground. Yesterday afternoon, I addressed a small gathering of slum youths near his chawl in Vile Parle. Many of these youths will act in a street play that we are scripting, and shall enact before slum audiences organized jointly with Rotary etc. For the first time in many months, I am experiencing a need to raise funds to keep this street play going.
2) In the last two months, I have emailed hundreds of members of Parliament, Central Ministers, students of IGIDR, Sardar Patel Institute, Management Institutes, IITs, bankers and economists, administrators, activists etc. I am carrying out a concerted campaign on the internet, through blogs, emails, comments to others' blogs, message boards etc.
3) I have designed Tshirts with slogans and attractive visuals, and am working at circulating them, enabling people to 'Walk the Talk and Wear the Talk'.
4) I have handed out a large number of DVDs and CDs with data on global warming, and xeroxed pamphlets of different kinds.
5) I have attended several meetings organized on Global Warming, at the British Council and other fora. I continue to network with activists and intellectuals, while also working with a more ordinary strata of citizens. All of this activity continues to happen on a day-to-day basis, several hours a day.
Upcoming Events:
1) I shall address a Rotary Club in Kala Ghoda, South Mumbai on 10th January, and another in Borivli on 11th January 2008.
2) Prof. Motwani and I will orient around 30 teachers on Global Warming on 21 st January at a state-sponsored seminar in Navi Mumbai. We shall speak on Corporate Social Responsibility and Citizens' Responsibility in the context of Global Warming.
3) Meetings are being fixed up for slum audiences and mofussil gatherings in coordination with Rotary and others. For such audiences, we have to structure our message differently. The street plays being produced are part of this effort.
Please don't take this as a boastful statement about how much I've done. What I'm trying to say here is: I'm dead serious, and this is a fascinating journey. Is there anybody else on the iland who would like to join me in spreading awareness or organizing some form of action on this problem? Please let us join hands and earnestly work on this problem.
Fighting global warming (or indeed taking on any such problem of similar magnitude) needs several leaps of faith, and then it needs to become a journey. I'm hoping that a few thinking people here on the iland will make these leaps of faith and run shoulder-to-shoulder with me.
Seeing Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, in July 2007 was for me a vindicating experience. Here was someone with great credibility saying everything that I had been wanting to say all along, and saying it with style and effectiveness. It triggered me with a sense of urgency.
The film, screened at our chamber of commerce, was like a gas lighter's spark to a gas stove; already combustible, I needed that spark to ignite me into action.
The first task that I undertook, with the support of my chamber's anti-global-warming committee, was a mundane one: show the film to a lot of people in my city. And so I began to show the film around on my laptop, editing it down with fast-forwarding to about 55 minutes, delivering a short talk, fielding questions, clairfying, discussing alternative courses of action.
Here is a list of these meetings:
1) Screening at CCI's C K Naidu hall, Churchgate, on 26th July for 120 persons from the financial services sector , in coordination with Tata Mutual Fund, which then independently showed the film five times before audiences in Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta.
2) Screening for 300 children of New Era School, August Kranti Maidan, on 26th July, Standards 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.
3) On August 5, Sunday, 80 persons (25 families) at Railway Officers Club at Byculla watched this film before lunch.
4) On 5th September, 40 railway engineers at the Parel workshop saw the film and discussed Climate Change and viable responses.
5) On 10th September, 90 high-school students of Ram Ratna Vidya Mandir, a boarding school at Bhayender, watched this film and discussed lines of action with me over lunch.
6) 19th September at St Xaviers Boys Academy, New Marine Lines. 300 students watched intensely and 20 of them participated in an intense discussion held afterwards in the vice-principal's office.
7) 28th September at USV Limited, Govandi. 75 pharmaceutical lab technicians and their bosses, including their vice-chairman, watched the screening.
8) 18th October at Bombay Management Association. A high-quality audience of 40 persons raptly watched the screening. Two of those present there -- Prof. Bhavna Motwani and Mr Tejus Coulagi -- went on to become intensely involved with this cause. Soon afterwards, we formed an informal group called Children of the Earth. This group has organized two screenings at colleges subsequently, and has held three internal meetings. We are now attracting more members.
9) 14th November at Rotary Club of Navi Mumbai Hillside. An audience of 30 yielded a couple of very promising contacts. The vice principal of a very large college in Navi Mumbai is organizing a full day conference of teachers, besides other 2-hour seminars for students.
10) 26th November at Saraf College, Malad West. Prof Motwani and I addressed 300 girl BCom students for an hour, with a 20-minute screening of An Inconvenient Truth. It was my first experience of a mofussil audience. I became aware that Al Gore's film alone could not reach out to all audiences; I needed to weave oratory and humour into the mix.
11) On 8th December, I was present at a seaside amphitheatre at Khardanda where an awareness programme had been organized by some concerned citizens along with Greenpeace. Without meaning to steal the show, I turned out to be one of the main speakers there, and also facilitated the screening of Greenpeace films.
12) 11th December at Somaiya College, Vidyavihar. Prof Motwani & I addressed 100 students of BSc, along with their teachers, Principal and Vice Principal.
13) On 18th December, for about 90 minutes, I addressed 80 boys and girls of Std 9 at Colaba Municipal school, without screening the movie. It was an demanding job, engaging the mind of this audience without going into scientific abstractions of global warming.
Other activities:
1) Two weeks back, while travelling by train, I entered into a conversation with a peddler of books, who turned out to have a flair for scripting and directing street plays. Our discussions threw up a lot of ideological common-ground. Yesterday afternoon, I addressed a small gathering of slum youths near his chawl in Vile Parle. Many of these youths will act in a street play that we are scripting, and shall enact before slum audiences organized jointly with Rotary etc. For the first time in many months, I am experiencing a need to raise funds to keep this street play going.
2) In the last two months, I have emailed hundreds of members of Parliament, Central Ministers, students of IGIDR, Sardar Patel Institute, Management Institutes, IITs, bankers and economists, administrators, activists etc. I am carrying out a concerted campaign on the internet, through blogs, emails, comments to others' blogs, message boards etc.
3) I have designed Tshirts with slogans and attractive visuals, and am working at circulating them, enabling people to 'Walk the Talk and Wear the Talk'.
4) I have handed out a large number of DVDs and CDs with data on global warming, and xeroxed pamphlets of different kinds.
5) I have attended several meetings organized on Global Warming, at the British Council and other fora. I continue to network with activists and intellectuals, while also working with a more ordinary strata of citizens. All of this activity continues to happen on a day-to-day basis, several hours a day.
Upcoming Events:
1) I shall address a Rotary Club in Kala Ghoda, South Mumbai on 10th January, and another in Borivli on 11th January 2008.
2) Prof. Motwani and I will orient around 30 teachers on Global Warming on 21 st January at a state-sponsored seminar in Navi Mumbai. We shall speak on Corporate Social Responsibility and Citizens' Responsibility in the context of Global Warming.
3) Meetings are being fixed up for slum audiences and mofussil gatherings in coordination with Rotary and others. For such audiences, we have to structure our message differently. The street plays being produced are part of this effort.
Please don't take this as a boastful statement about how much I've done. What I'm trying to say here is: I'm dead serious, and this is a fascinating journey. Is there anybody else on the iland who would like to join me in spreading awareness or organizing some form of action on this problem? Please let us join hands and earnestly work on this problem.
Fighting global warming (or indeed taking on any such problem of similar magnitude) needs several leaps of faith, and then it needs to become a journey. I'm hoping that a few thinking people here on the iland will make these leaps of faith and run shoulder-to-shoulder with me.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Excerpted from IPCC's Report on Transport & Infrastructure
[HAVE JUST COPY-PASTED THIS STUFF FOR REFINEMENT AS A BLOG.]
5.3.1.5 Road transport: mode shifts Personal motor vehicles consume much more energy and
emit far more GHGs per passenger-km than other surface passenger modes. And the number of cars (and light trucks) continues to increase virtually everywhere in the world. Growth
in GHG emissions can be reduced by restraining the growth in personal vehicle ownership. Such a strategy can, however, only be successful if high levels of mobility and accessibility can be
provided by alternative means.
In general, collective modes of transport use less energy and generate less GHGs than private cars. Walking and biking emit even less. There is important worldwide mitigation potential if
public and non-motorised transport trip share loss is reversed.
The challenge is to improve public transport systems in order to preserve or augment the market share of low-emitting modes. If public transport gets more passengers, it is possible to increase the frequency of departures, which in turn may attract new passengers (Akerman and Hojer, 2006).
The USA is somewhat of an anomaly, though. In the USA, passenger travel by cars generates about the same GHG emissions as bus and air travel on a passenger-km basis (ORNL transportation Energy Databook; ORNL, 2006). That is mostly because buses have low load factors in the USA. Thus, in the USA, a bus-based strategy or policy will not necessarily
lower GHG emissions. Shifting passengers to bus is not simply a matter of filling empty seats. To attract more passengers, it is necessary to enhance transit service. That means more
buses operating more frequently – which means more GHG emissions. It is even worse than that, because transit service is already offered where ridership26 demand is greatest. Adding
more service means targeting less dense corridors or adding more service on an existing route. There are good reasons to promote transit use in the USA, but energy use and GHGs are
not among them.
Virtually everywhere else in the world, though, transit is used more intensively and therefore has a GHG advantage relative to cars. Table 5.4 shows the broad average GHG emissions
from different vehicles and transport modes in a developing country context. GHG emissions per passenger-km are lowest for transit vehicles and two-wheelers. It also highlights the fact
that combining alternative fuels with public transport modes can reduce emissions even further.
It is diffi cult to generalize, though, because of substantial
differences across nations and regions. The types of buses,
occupancy factors, and even topography and weather can
affect emissions. For example, buses in India and China tend
to be more fuel-effi cient than those in the industrialized world,
primarily because they have considerably smaller engines and
lack air conditioning (Sperling and Salon, 2002).
Public transport
In addition to reducing transport emissions, public transport
is considered favourably from a socially sustainable point of
view because it gives higher mobility to people who do not
have access to car. It is also attractive from an economically
sustainable perspective since public transport provides more
capacity at less marginal cost. It is less expensive to provide
additional capacity by expanding bus service than building new
roads or bridges. The expansion of public transport in the form
of large capacity buses, light rail transit and metro or suburban
rail can be feasible mitigation options for the transport sector.
The development of new rail services can be an effective
measure for diverting car users to carbon-effi cient mode
while providing existing public transport users with upgraded
service. However, a major hurdle is higher capital and possibly
operating cost of the project. Rail is attractive and effective
at generating high ridership in very dense cities. During the
1990s, less capital-intensive public transport projects such as
light rail transit (LRT) were planned and constructed in Europe,
North America and Japan. The LRT systems were successful in
some regions, including a number of French cities where land
use and transport planning is often well integrated (Hylen and
Pharoah, 2002), but less so in other cities especially in the USA
(Richmond, 2001; Mackett and Edwards, 1998), where more
attention has been paid to this recently.
Around the world, the concept of bus rapid transit (BRT)
is gaining much attention as a substitute for LRT and as an
enhancement of conventional bus service. BRT is not new.
Plans and studies for various BRT type alternatives have been
prepared since the 1930s and a major BRT system was installed
in Curitiba, Brazil in the 1970s (Levinson et al., 2002). But
only since about 2000 has the successful Brazilian experience
gained serious attention from cities elsewhere.
BRT is ‘a mass transit system using exclusive right of way
lanes that mimic the rapidity and performance of metro systems,
but utilizes bus technology rather than rail vehicle technology’
(Wright, 2004). BRT systems can be seen as enhanced bus service
and an intermediate mode between conventional bus service
and heavy rail systems. BRT includes features such as exclusive
right of way lanes, rapid boarding and alighting, free transfers
between routes and preboard fare collection and fare verifi cation,
as well as enclosed stations that are safe and comfortable, clear
route maps, signage and real-time information displays, modal
integration at stations and terminals, clean vehicle technologies
and excellence in marketing and customer service. To be most
effective, BRT systems (like other transport initiatives) should
be part of a comprehensive strategy that includes increasing
vehicle and fuel taxes, strict land-use controls, limits and higher
fees on parking, and integrating transit systems into a broader
package of mobility for all types of travellers (IEA, 2002b).
Most BRT systems today are being delivered in the range of
1–15 million US$/km, depending upon the capacity requirements
and complexity of the project. By contrast, elevated rail systems
and underground metro systems can cost from 50 million US$
to over 200 million US$/km (Wright, 2004). BRT systems now
operate in several cities throughout North America, Europe,
Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and Asia. The largest
and most successful systems to date are in Latin America in
Bogotá, Curitiba and Mexico City (Karekezi et al., 2003).
Analysing the Bogotá Clean Development Mechanism
project gives an insight into the cost and potential of
implementing BRT in large cities. The CDM project shows the
potential of moving about 20% of the city population per day
on the BRT that mainly constitutes putting up dedicated bus
lanes (130 km), articulated buses (1200) and 500 other large
buses operating on feeder routes. The project is supported by an
integrated fare system, centralized coordinated fl eet control and
improved bus management27. Using the investment costs, an
assumed operation and maintenance of 20–50%28 of investment
costs per year, fuel costs of 40 to 60 US$ per barrel in 2030 and
a discount rate of 4%, a BRT lifespan of 30 years, the cost of
implementing BRT in the city of Bogotá was estimated to range
from 7.6 US$/tCO2 to 15.84 US$/tCO2 depending on the price
of fuel and operation and maintenance (Table 5.5). Comparing
with results of Winkelman (2006), BRT cost estimates ranged
from 14-66 US$/tCO2 depending on the BRT package involved
(Table 5.6). The potential for CO2 reduction for the city of
Bogotá was determined to average 247,000 tCO2 per annum or
7.4 million tCO2 over a 30 year lifespan of the project.
Non-motorized transport (NMT)
The prospect for the reduction in CO2 emissions by
switching from cars to non-motorized transport (NMT) such as
walking and cycling is dependent on local conditions. In the
Netherlands, where 47% of trips are made by NMT, the NMT
plays a substantial role up to distances of 7.5 km and walking
up to 2.5 km (Rietveld, 2001). As more than 30% of trips made
in cars in Europe cover distances of less than 3 km and 50% are
less than 5 km (EC, 1999), NMT can possibly reduce car use
in terms of trips and, to a lesser extent, in terms of kilometres.
While the trend has been away from NMT, there is considerable
potential to revive interest in NMT. In the Netherlands, with
strong policies and cultural commitment, the modal share of
bicycle and walking for accessing trains from home is about 35
to 40% and 25% respectively (Rietveld, 2001).
Walking and cycling are highly sensitive to the local built
environment (ECMT, 2004a; Lee and Mouden, 2006). In
Denmark, where the modal share of cycling is 18%, urban
planners seek to enhance walking and cycling by shortening
journey distances and providing better cycling infrastructure
(Dill and Carr 2003, Page, 2005). In the UK where over 60%
of people live within a 15 minute bicycle ride of a station,
NMT could be increased by offering convenient, secure bicycle
parking at stations and improved bicycle carriage on trains
(ECMT, 2004a).
Safety is an important concern. NMT users have a much
higher risk per trip of being involved in an accident than those
using cars, especially in developing countries where most
NMT users cannot afford to own a car (Mohan and Tiwari,
1999). Safety can be improved through traffi c engineering and
campaigns to educate drivers. An important co-benefi t of NMT,
gaining increasing attention in many countries, is public health
(National Academies studies in the USA; Pucher, 2004).
In Bogotá, in 1998, 70% of the private car trips were under
3 km. This percentage is lower today thanks to the bike and
pedestrian facilities. The design of streets was so hostile to
bicycle travel that by 1998 bicycle trips accounted for less than
1% of total trips. After some 250 km of new bicycle facilities were
constructed by 2001 ridership had increased to 4% of total trips.
In most of Africa and in much of southern Asia, bicyclists and
other non-motorised and animal traction vehicles are generally
tolerated on the roadways by authorities. Non-motorised goods
transport is often important for intermodal goods transport. A
special form of rickshaw is used in Bangladesh, the bicycle
van, which has basically the same design as a rickshaw (Hook,
2003).
Mitigation potential of modal shifts for passenger
transport
Rapid motorization in the developing world is beginning to
have a large effect on global GHG emissions. But motorization
can evolve in quite different ways at very different rates. The
amount of GHG emissions can be considerably reduced by
offering strong public transport, integrating transit with effi cient
land use, enhancing walking and cycling, encouraging minicars
and electric two-wheelers and providing incentives for effi cient
vehicles and low-GHG fuels. Few studies have analyzed the
potential effect of multiple strategies in developing nations,
partly because of a severe lack of reliable data and the very
large differences in vehicle mix and travel patterns among
varying areas.
Wright and Fulton (2005) estimated that a 5% increase in
BRT mode share against a 1% mode share decrease of private
automobiles, taxis and walking, plus a 2% share decrease of
mini-buses can reduce CO2 emissions by 4% at an estimated
cost of 66 US$/tCO2 in typical Latin American cities. A 5%
or 4% increase in walking or cycling mode share in the same
scenario analysis can also reduce CO2 emissions by 7% or
4% at an estimated cost of 17 or 15 US$/tCO2, respectively
(Table5.6). Although the assumptions of a single infrastructure
unit cost and its constant impact on modal share in the analysis
might be too simple, even shifting relatively small percentages
of mode share to public transport or NMT can be worthwhile,
because of a 1% reduction in mode share of private automobiles
represents over 1 MtCO2 through the 20-year project period.
Figure 5.13 shows the GHG transport emission results,
normalized to year 2000 emissions, of four scenario analyses
of developing nations and cities (Sperling and Salon, 2002).
For three of the four cases, the ‘high’ scenarios are ‘businessas-
usual’ scenarios assuming extrapolation of observable
and emerging trends with an essentially passive government
presence in transport policy. The exception is Shanghai, which
is growing and changing so rapidly that ‘business-as-usual’ has
little meaning. In this case the high scenario assumes both rapid
motorization and rapid population increases, with the execution
of planned investments in highway infrastructure while at the
same time efforts to shift to public transport falter (Zhou and
Sperling, 2001).
5.3.1.6 Improving driving practices (eco-driving)
Fuel consumption of vehicles can be reduced through
changes in driving practices. Fuel-effi cient driving practices,
with conventional combustion vehicles, include smoother
deceleration and acceleration, keeping engine revolutions low,
shutting off the engine when idling, reducing maximum speeds
and maintaining proper tyre pressure (IEA, 2001). Results from
studies conducted in Europe and the USA suggested possible
improvement of 5–20% in fuel economy from eco-driving
training. The mitigation costs of CO2 by eco-driving training
were mostly estimated to be negative (ECMT/IEA, 2005).
Eco-driving training can be attained with formal training
programmes or on-board technology aids. It applies to drivers
of all types of vehicles, from minicars to heavy-duty trucks.
The major challenge is how to motivate drivers to participate in
the programme, and how to make drivers maintain an effi cient
driving style long after participating (IEA, 2001). In the
Netherlands, eco-driving training is provided as part of driving
school curricula (ECMT/IEA, 2005).
5.3.2 Rail
Railway transport is widely used in many countries. In
Europe and Japan, electricity is a major energy source for rail,
while diesel is a major source in North America. Coal is also still
used in some developing countries. Rail’s main roles are high
speed passenger transport between large (remote) cities, high
density commuter transport in the city and freight transport over
long distances. Railway transport competes with other transport
modes, such as air, ship, trucks and private vehicles. Major
5.4: MITIGATION POTENTIAL
As discussed earlier, under ‘business-as-usual’ conditions
with assumed adequate supplies of petroleum, GHG emissions
from transport are expected to grow steadily during the next few
decades, yielding about an 80% increase from 2002–2030 or
2.1% per year. This growth will not be evenly distributed; IEA
projections of annual CO2 growth rates for 2002–2030 range
from 1.3% for the OECD nations to 3.6% for the developing
countries. The potential for reducing this growth will vary
widely across countries and regions, as will the appropriate
policies and measures that can accomplish such reduction.
Analyses of the potential for reducing GHG emissions in the
transport sector are largely limited to national or sub-national
studies or to examinations of technologies at the vehicle level,
for example well-to-wheel analyses of alternative fuels and drive
trains for light-duty vehicles. The TAR presented the results of
several studies for the years 2010 and 2020 (Table 3.16 of the
TAR), with virtually all limited to single countries or to the
EU or OECD. Many of these studies indicated that substantial
reductions in transport GHG emissions could be achieved at
negative or minimal costs, although these results generally used
optimistic assumptions about future technology costs and/or
did not consider trade-offs between vehicle effi ciency and other
(valued) vehicle characteristics. Studies undertaken since the
TAR have tended to reach conclusions generally in agreement
with these earlier studies, though recent studies have focused
more on transitions to hydrogen used in fuel cell vehicles.
This section will discuss some available studies and
provide estimates of GHG emissions reduction potential and
costs/tonne of carbon emissions reduced for a limited set of
mitigation measures. These estimates do not properly refl ect
the wide range of measures available, many of which would
likely be undertaken primarily to achieve goals other than GHG
reduction (or saving energy), for example to provide mobility
to the poor, reduce air pollution and traffi c reduce congestion.
The estimates do not include:
• Measures to reduce shipping emissions;
• Changes in urban structure that would reduce travel demand
and enhance the use of mass transit, walking and bicycling;
• Transport demand management measures, including parking
‘cash out’, road pricing, inner city entry charges, etc.
5.4.1 Available worldwide studies
Two recent studies – the International Energy Agency’s
World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2004a) and the World Business
Council on Sustainable Development’s Mobility 2030 (WBCSD,
2004a) – examined worldwide mitigation potential but were
limited in scope. The IEA study focused on a few relatively
modest measures and the WBCSD examined the impact of
specifi ed technology penetrations on the road vehicle sector
(the study sponsors are primarily oil companies and automobile
manufacturers) without regard to either cost or the policies
needed to achieve such results. In addition, IEA has developed
a simple worldwide scenario for light-duty vehicles that also
explores radical reductions in GHG emissions.
World Energy Outlook postulates an ‘Alternative scenario’ to
their Reference scenario projection described earlier, in which
vehicle fuel effi ciency is improved, there are increased sales of
alternative-fuel vehicles and the fuels themselves and demand
side measures reduce transport demand and encourage a switch
to alternative and less energy intensive transport modes.
In deciding to institute a new fuel economy standard,
governments should consider the following:
• Basing stringency decisions on existing standards elsewhere
requires careful consideration of differences between the
home market and compared markets in fuel quality and
availability; fuel economy testing methods; types and
sizes of vehicles sold; road conditions that may affect
the robustness of key technologies; and conditions that
may affect the availability of technologies, for example,
availability of sophisticated repair facilities.
• There are a number of different approaches to selecting
stringency levels for new standards. Japan selected its
weight class standards by examining ‘top runners’ –
exemplary vehicles in each weight class that could serve as
viable targets for future fl eet wide improvements. Another
approach is to examine the costs and fuel saving effects
of packages of available technologies on several typical
vehicles, applying the results to the new vehicle fl eet (NRC,
2002). Other analyses have derived cost curves (percent
increase in fuel economy compared with technology cost)
for available technology and applied these to corporate or
national fl eets (Plotkin et al., 2002). These approaches are
not technology-forcing, since they focus on technologies
that have already entered the fl eet in mass-market form.
More ambitious standards could demand the introduction
of emerging technologies. Selection of the appropriate level
of stringency depends, of course, on national goals and
concerns. Further, the selection of enforcement deadlines
should account for limitations on the speed with which
vehicle manufacturers can redesign multiple models and
introduce the new models on a schedule that avoids severe
economic disruption.
• The structure of the standard is as important as its level of
stringency. Basing target fuel economy on vehicle weight
(Japan, China) or engine size (Taiwan, South Korea) will
tend to even out the degree of diffi culty the standards impose
on competing automakers, but will reduce the potential fuel
economy gains that can be expected (because weight-based
standards eliminate weight reduction and engine-size-based
standards eliminate engine downsizing as viable means of
achieving the standards). Basing the standard on vehicle
wheelbase times track width may provide safety benefi ts by
providing a positive incentive to maintain or increase these
attributes. Using a uniform standard for all vehicles or for
large classes of vehicles (as in the US) is simple and easy to
explain, but creates quite different challenges on different
manufacturers depending on the market segments they
focus on.
• Allowing trading of fuel economy ‘credits’ among different
vehicles or vehicle categories in an automaker’s fl eet, or
even among competing automakers, will reduce the overall
cost of standards without reducing the total societal benefi ts,
but may incur political costs from accusations of allowing
companies or individuals to ‘buy their way out’ of effi ciency
requirements.
• Alternatives (or additions) to standards are worth
investigating. For example, ‘feebates’, which award cash
rebates to new vehicles whose fuel economy is above a
designated level (often the fl eet average) and charge a fee
to vehicles with lower fuel economy, may be an effective
market-based measure to increase fl eet fuel economy. An
important advantage of feebates is that they provide a
‘continuous’ incentive to improve fuel economy, because
an automaker can always gain a market advantage by
introducing vehicles that are more effi cient than the current
average.
5.5.1.5 Transport Demand Management
Transport Demand Management (TDM) is a formal
designation for programmes in many countries that improve
performance of roads by reducing traffi c volumes (Litman,
2003). There are many potential TDM strategies in these
programmes with a variety of impacts. Some improve transport
diversity (the travel options available to users). Others provide
incentives for users to reduce driving, changing the frequency,
mode, destination, route or timing of their travel. Some reduce
the need for physical travel through mobility substitutes or
more effi cient land use. Some involve policy reforms to correct
current distortions in transport planning practices. TDM is
particularly appropriate in developing country cities, because
of its low costs, multiple benefi ts and potential to redirect the
motorization process. In many cases, effective TDM during
early stages of development can avoid problems that would
result if communities become too automobile dependent. This
can help support a developing country’s economic, social and
environmental objectives (Gwilliam et al., 2004).
The set of strategies to be implemented will vary depending
on each country’s demographic, geographic and political
conditions. TDM strategies can have cumulative and synergetic
impacts, so it is important to evaluate a set of TDM programmes
as a package, rather than as an individual programme. Effective
strategies usually include a combination of positive incentives
to use alternative modes (‘carrots’ or ‘sweeteners’) and negative
incentives to discourage driving (‘sticks’ or ‘levellers’).
Some major strategies such as
pricing and land-use planning are addressed above. Below is a
selective review of additional TDM strategies with signifi cant
potential to reduce vehicle travel and GHGs.
Employer travel reduction strategies gained prominence
from a late 1980s regulation in southern California that required
employers with 100 or more employees to adopt incentives and
rules to reduce the number of car trips by employees commuting
to work (Giuliano et al., 1993). The State of Washington in the
USA kept a state law requiring travel plans in its most urban
areas for employers with 100 or more staff. The law reduced
the percentage of employees in the targeted organizations who
drove to work from 72–68% and affected about 12% of all trips
made in the area. In the Netherlands, the reduction in single
occupant commute trips from a travel plan averaged 5–15%.
In the UK, in very broad terms, the average effectiveness of
UK travel plans might be 6% in trips by drive alone to work
and 0.74% in the total vehicle-km travelled to work by car. The
overall effectiveness was critically dependent on both individual
effectiveness and levels of plan take-up (Rye, 2002).
Parking supply for employees is so expensive that employers
naturally have an incentive to reduce parking demand. The
literature found the price elasticity of parking demand for
commuting at –0.31 to –0.58 (Deuker et al., 1998) and –0.3
(Veca and Kuzmyak, 2005) based on a non-zero initial parking
price. The State of California enacted legislation that required
employers with 50 or more persons who provided parking
subsidies to offer employees the option to choose cash in
lieu of a leased parking space, in a so-called parking cash-out
programme. In eight case studies of employers who complied
with the cash-out programme, the solo driver share fell from
76% before cashing out to 63% after cashing out, leading to
the reduction in vehicle-km for commuting by 12%. If all the
commuters who park free in easily cashed-out parking spaces
were offered the cash option in the USA, it would reduce
vehicle-km travelled per year by 6.3 billion (Shoup, 1997).
Reducing car travel or CO2 emissions by substituting
telecommuting for actual commuting has often been cited in
the literature, but the empirical results are limited. In the USA,
a micro-scale study estimated that 1.5% of the total workforce
telecommuted on any day, eliminating at most 1% of total
household vehicle-km travelled (Mokhtarian, 1998), while
a macro-scale study suggested that telecommuting reduced
annual vehicle-km by 0–2% (Choo et al., 2005).
Reduction of CO2 emissions by hard measures, such as car
restraint, often faces public opposition even when the proposed
measures prove effective. Soft measures, such as a provision of
information and use of communication strategies and educational
techniques (OECD, 2004a) can be used for supporting the
promotion of hard measures. Soft measures can also be directly
helpful in encouraging a change in personal behaviour leading
to an effi cient driving style and reduction in the use of the car
(Jones, 2004). Well organized soft measures were found to be
effective for reducing car travel while maintaining a low cost.
Following travel awareness campaigns in the UK, the concept
of Individualized marketing, a programme based on a targeted,
personalized, customized marketing approach, was developed
and applied in several cities for reducing the use of the car. The
programme reduced car trips by 14% in an Australian city, 12%
in a German city and 13% in a Swedish city. The Travel Blending
technique was a similar programme based on four special kits
for giving travel-feedback to the participants. This programme
reduced vehicle-km travelled by 11% in an Australian city.
The monitoring study after the programme implementation in
Australian cities also showed that the reduction in car travel
was maintained (Brog et al., 2004; Taylor and Ampt, 2003).
Japanese cases of travel-feedback programmes supported the
effectiveness of soft measures for reducing car travel. The
summary of the travel-feedback programmes in residential
areas, workplaces and schools indicated that car use was reduced
by 12% and CO2 emissions by 19%. It also implied that the
travel-feedback programmes with a behavioural plan requiring
a participant to make a plan for a change showed better results
than programmes without one (Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005).
5.3.1.5 Road transport: mode shifts Personal motor vehicles consume much more energy and
emit far more GHGs per passenger-km than other surface passenger modes. And the number of cars (and light trucks) continues to increase virtually everywhere in the world. Growth
in GHG emissions can be reduced by restraining the growth in personal vehicle ownership. Such a strategy can, however, only be successful if high levels of mobility and accessibility can be
provided by alternative means.
In general, collective modes of transport use less energy and generate less GHGs than private cars. Walking and biking emit even less. There is important worldwide mitigation potential if
public and non-motorised transport trip share loss is reversed.
The challenge is to improve public transport systems in order to preserve or augment the market share of low-emitting modes. If public transport gets more passengers, it is possible to increase the frequency of departures, which in turn may attract new passengers (Akerman and Hojer, 2006).
The USA is somewhat of an anomaly, though. In the USA, passenger travel by cars generates about the same GHG emissions as bus and air travel on a passenger-km basis (ORNL transportation Energy Databook; ORNL, 2006). That is mostly because buses have low load factors in the USA. Thus, in the USA, a bus-based strategy or policy will not necessarily
lower GHG emissions. Shifting passengers to bus is not simply a matter of filling empty seats. To attract more passengers, it is necessary to enhance transit service. That means more
buses operating more frequently – which means more GHG emissions. It is even worse than that, because transit service is already offered where ridership26 demand is greatest. Adding
more service means targeting less dense corridors or adding more service on an existing route. There are good reasons to promote transit use in the USA, but energy use and GHGs are
not among them.
Virtually everywhere else in the world, though, transit is used more intensively and therefore has a GHG advantage relative to cars. Table 5.4 shows the broad average GHG emissions
from different vehicles and transport modes in a developing country context. GHG emissions per passenger-km are lowest for transit vehicles and two-wheelers. It also highlights the fact
that combining alternative fuels with public transport modes can reduce emissions even further.
It is diffi cult to generalize, though, because of substantial
differences across nations and regions. The types of buses,
occupancy factors, and even topography and weather can
affect emissions. For example, buses in India and China tend
to be more fuel-effi cient than those in the industrialized world,
primarily because they have considerably smaller engines and
lack air conditioning (Sperling and Salon, 2002).
Public transport
In addition to reducing transport emissions, public transport
is considered favourably from a socially sustainable point of
view because it gives higher mobility to people who do not
have access to car. It is also attractive from an economically
sustainable perspective since public transport provides more
capacity at less marginal cost. It is less expensive to provide
additional capacity by expanding bus service than building new
roads or bridges. The expansion of public transport in the form
of large capacity buses, light rail transit and metro or suburban
rail can be feasible mitigation options for the transport sector.
The development of new rail services can be an effective
measure for diverting car users to carbon-effi cient mode
while providing existing public transport users with upgraded
service. However, a major hurdle is higher capital and possibly
operating cost of the project. Rail is attractive and effective
at generating high ridership in very dense cities. During the
1990s, less capital-intensive public transport projects such as
light rail transit (LRT) were planned and constructed in Europe,
North America and Japan. The LRT systems were successful in
some regions, including a number of French cities where land
use and transport planning is often well integrated (Hylen and
Pharoah, 2002), but less so in other cities especially in the USA
(Richmond, 2001; Mackett and Edwards, 1998), where more
attention has been paid to this recently.
Around the world, the concept of bus rapid transit (BRT)
is gaining much attention as a substitute for LRT and as an
enhancement of conventional bus service. BRT is not new.
Plans and studies for various BRT type alternatives have been
prepared since the 1930s and a major BRT system was installed
in Curitiba, Brazil in the 1970s (Levinson et al., 2002). But
only since about 2000 has the successful Brazilian experience
gained serious attention from cities elsewhere.
BRT is ‘a mass transit system using exclusive right of way
lanes that mimic the rapidity and performance of metro systems,
but utilizes bus technology rather than rail vehicle technology’
(Wright, 2004). BRT systems can be seen as enhanced bus service
and an intermediate mode between conventional bus service
and heavy rail systems. BRT includes features such as exclusive
right of way lanes, rapid boarding and alighting, free transfers
between routes and preboard fare collection and fare verifi cation,
as well as enclosed stations that are safe and comfortable, clear
route maps, signage and real-time information displays, modal
integration at stations and terminals, clean vehicle technologies
and excellence in marketing and customer service. To be most
effective, BRT systems (like other transport initiatives) should
be part of a comprehensive strategy that includes increasing
vehicle and fuel taxes, strict land-use controls, limits and higher
fees on parking, and integrating transit systems into a broader
package of mobility for all types of travellers (IEA, 2002b).
Most BRT systems today are being delivered in the range of
1–15 million US$/km, depending upon the capacity requirements
and complexity of the project. By contrast, elevated rail systems
and underground metro systems can cost from 50 million US$
to over 200 million US$/km (Wright, 2004). BRT systems now
operate in several cities throughout North America, Europe,
Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and Asia. The largest
and most successful systems to date are in Latin America in
Bogotá, Curitiba and Mexico City (Karekezi et al., 2003).
Analysing the Bogotá Clean Development Mechanism
project gives an insight into the cost and potential of
implementing BRT in large cities. The CDM project shows the
potential of moving about 20% of the city population per day
on the BRT that mainly constitutes putting up dedicated bus
lanes (130 km), articulated buses (1200) and 500 other large
buses operating on feeder routes. The project is supported by an
integrated fare system, centralized coordinated fl eet control and
improved bus management27. Using the investment costs, an
assumed operation and maintenance of 20–50%28 of investment
costs per year, fuel costs of 40 to 60 US$ per barrel in 2030 and
a discount rate of 4%, a BRT lifespan of 30 years, the cost of
implementing BRT in the city of Bogotá was estimated to range
from 7.6 US$/tCO2 to 15.84 US$/tCO2 depending on the price
of fuel and operation and maintenance (Table 5.5). Comparing
with results of Winkelman (2006), BRT cost estimates ranged
from 14-66 US$/tCO2 depending on the BRT package involved
(Table 5.6). The potential for CO2 reduction for the city of
Bogotá was determined to average 247,000 tCO2 per annum or
7.4 million tCO2 over a 30 year lifespan of the project.
Non-motorized transport (NMT)
The prospect for the reduction in CO2 emissions by
switching from cars to non-motorized transport (NMT) such as
walking and cycling is dependent on local conditions. In the
Netherlands, where 47% of trips are made by NMT, the NMT
plays a substantial role up to distances of 7.5 km and walking
up to 2.5 km (Rietveld, 2001). As more than 30% of trips made
in cars in Europe cover distances of less than 3 km and 50% are
less than 5 km (EC, 1999), NMT can possibly reduce car use
in terms of trips and, to a lesser extent, in terms of kilometres.
While the trend has been away from NMT, there is considerable
potential to revive interest in NMT. In the Netherlands, with
strong policies and cultural commitment, the modal share of
bicycle and walking for accessing trains from home is about 35
to 40% and 25% respectively (Rietveld, 2001).
Walking and cycling are highly sensitive to the local built
environment (ECMT, 2004a; Lee and Mouden, 2006). In
Denmark, where the modal share of cycling is 18%, urban
planners seek to enhance walking and cycling by shortening
journey distances and providing better cycling infrastructure
(Dill and Carr 2003, Page, 2005). In the UK where over 60%
of people live within a 15 minute bicycle ride of a station,
NMT could be increased by offering convenient, secure bicycle
parking at stations and improved bicycle carriage on trains
(ECMT, 2004a).
Safety is an important concern. NMT users have a much
higher risk per trip of being involved in an accident than those
using cars, especially in developing countries where most
NMT users cannot afford to own a car (Mohan and Tiwari,
1999). Safety can be improved through traffi c engineering and
campaigns to educate drivers. An important co-benefi t of NMT,
gaining increasing attention in many countries, is public health
(National Academies studies in the USA; Pucher, 2004).
In Bogotá, in 1998, 70% of the private car trips were under
3 km. This percentage is lower today thanks to the bike and
pedestrian facilities. The design of streets was so hostile to
bicycle travel that by 1998 bicycle trips accounted for less than
1% of total trips. After some 250 km of new bicycle facilities were
constructed by 2001 ridership had increased to 4% of total trips.
In most of Africa and in much of southern Asia, bicyclists and
other non-motorised and animal traction vehicles are generally
tolerated on the roadways by authorities. Non-motorised goods
transport is often important for intermodal goods transport. A
special form of rickshaw is used in Bangladesh, the bicycle
van, which has basically the same design as a rickshaw (Hook,
2003).
Mitigation potential of modal shifts for passenger
transport
Rapid motorization in the developing world is beginning to
have a large effect on global GHG emissions. But motorization
can evolve in quite different ways at very different rates. The
amount of GHG emissions can be considerably reduced by
offering strong public transport, integrating transit with effi cient
land use, enhancing walking and cycling, encouraging minicars
and electric two-wheelers and providing incentives for effi cient
vehicles and low-GHG fuels. Few studies have analyzed the
potential effect of multiple strategies in developing nations,
partly because of a severe lack of reliable data and the very
large differences in vehicle mix and travel patterns among
varying areas.
Wright and Fulton (2005) estimated that a 5% increase in
BRT mode share against a 1% mode share decrease of private
automobiles, taxis and walking, plus a 2% share decrease of
mini-buses can reduce CO2 emissions by 4% at an estimated
cost of 66 US$/tCO2 in typical Latin American cities. A 5%
or 4% increase in walking or cycling mode share in the same
scenario analysis can also reduce CO2 emissions by 7% or
4% at an estimated cost of 17 or 15 US$/tCO2, respectively
(Table5.6). Although the assumptions of a single infrastructure
unit cost and its constant impact on modal share in the analysis
might be too simple, even shifting relatively small percentages
of mode share to public transport or NMT can be worthwhile,
because of a 1% reduction in mode share of private automobiles
represents over 1 MtCO2 through the 20-year project period.
Figure 5.13 shows the GHG transport emission results,
normalized to year 2000 emissions, of four scenario analyses
of developing nations and cities (Sperling and Salon, 2002).
For three of the four cases, the ‘high’ scenarios are ‘businessas-
usual’ scenarios assuming extrapolation of observable
and emerging trends with an essentially passive government
presence in transport policy. The exception is Shanghai, which
is growing and changing so rapidly that ‘business-as-usual’ has
little meaning. In this case the high scenario assumes both rapid
motorization and rapid population increases, with the execution
of planned investments in highway infrastructure while at the
same time efforts to shift to public transport falter (Zhou and
Sperling, 2001).
5.3.1.6 Improving driving practices (eco-driving)
Fuel consumption of vehicles can be reduced through
changes in driving practices. Fuel-effi cient driving practices,
with conventional combustion vehicles, include smoother
deceleration and acceleration, keeping engine revolutions low,
shutting off the engine when idling, reducing maximum speeds
and maintaining proper tyre pressure (IEA, 2001). Results from
studies conducted in Europe and the USA suggested possible
improvement of 5–20% in fuel economy from eco-driving
training. The mitigation costs of CO2 by eco-driving training
were mostly estimated to be negative (ECMT/IEA, 2005).
Eco-driving training can be attained with formal training
programmes or on-board technology aids. It applies to drivers
of all types of vehicles, from minicars to heavy-duty trucks.
The major challenge is how to motivate drivers to participate in
the programme, and how to make drivers maintain an effi cient
driving style long after participating (IEA, 2001). In the
Netherlands, eco-driving training is provided as part of driving
school curricula (ECMT/IEA, 2005).
5.3.2 Rail
Railway transport is widely used in many countries. In
Europe and Japan, electricity is a major energy source for rail,
while diesel is a major source in North America. Coal is also still
used in some developing countries. Rail’s main roles are high
speed passenger transport between large (remote) cities, high
density commuter transport in the city and freight transport over
long distances. Railway transport competes with other transport
modes, such as air, ship, trucks and private vehicles. Major
5.4: MITIGATION POTENTIAL
As discussed earlier, under ‘business-as-usual’ conditions
with assumed adequate supplies of petroleum, GHG emissions
from transport are expected to grow steadily during the next few
decades, yielding about an 80% increase from 2002–2030 or
2.1% per year. This growth will not be evenly distributed; IEA
projections of annual CO2 growth rates for 2002–2030 range
from 1.3% for the OECD nations to 3.6% for the developing
countries. The potential for reducing this growth will vary
widely across countries and regions, as will the appropriate
policies and measures that can accomplish such reduction.
Analyses of the potential for reducing GHG emissions in the
transport sector are largely limited to national or sub-national
studies or to examinations of technologies at the vehicle level,
for example well-to-wheel analyses of alternative fuels and drive
trains for light-duty vehicles. The TAR presented the results of
several studies for the years 2010 and 2020 (Table 3.16 of the
TAR), with virtually all limited to single countries or to the
EU or OECD. Many of these studies indicated that substantial
reductions in transport GHG emissions could be achieved at
negative or minimal costs, although these results generally used
optimistic assumptions about future technology costs and/or
did not consider trade-offs between vehicle effi ciency and other
(valued) vehicle characteristics. Studies undertaken since the
TAR have tended to reach conclusions generally in agreement
with these earlier studies, though recent studies have focused
more on transitions to hydrogen used in fuel cell vehicles.
This section will discuss some available studies and
provide estimates of GHG emissions reduction potential and
costs/tonne of carbon emissions reduced for a limited set of
mitigation measures. These estimates do not properly refl ect
the wide range of measures available, many of which would
likely be undertaken primarily to achieve goals other than GHG
reduction (or saving energy), for example to provide mobility
to the poor, reduce air pollution and traffi c reduce congestion.
The estimates do not include:
• Measures to reduce shipping emissions;
• Changes in urban structure that would reduce travel demand
and enhance the use of mass transit, walking and bicycling;
• Transport demand management measures, including parking
‘cash out’, road pricing, inner city entry charges, etc.
5.4.1 Available worldwide studies
Two recent studies – the International Energy Agency’s
World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2004a) and the World Business
Council on Sustainable Development’s Mobility 2030 (WBCSD,
2004a) – examined worldwide mitigation potential but were
limited in scope. The IEA study focused on a few relatively
modest measures and the WBCSD examined the impact of
specifi ed technology penetrations on the road vehicle sector
(the study sponsors are primarily oil companies and automobile
manufacturers) without regard to either cost or the policies
needed to achieve such results. In addition, IEA has developed
a simple worldwide scenario for light-duty vehicles that also
explores radical reductions in GHG emissions.
World Energy Outlook postulates an ‘Alternative scenario’ to
their Reference scenario projection described earlier, in which
vehicle fuel effi ciency is improved, there are increased sales of
alternative-fuel vehicles and the fuels themselves and demand
side measures reduce transport demand and encourage a switch
to alternative and less energy intensive transport modes.
In deciding to institute a new fuel economy standard,
governments should consider the following:
• Basing stringency decisions on existing standards elsewhere
requires careful consideration of differences between the
home market and compared markets in fuel quality and
availability; fuel economy testing methods; types and
sizes of vehicles sold; road conditions that may affect
the robustness of key technologies; and conditions that
may affect the availability of technologies, for example,
availability of sophisticated repair facilities.
• There are a number of different approaches to selecting
stringency levels for new standards. Japan selected its
weight class standards by examining ‘top runners’ –
exemplary vehicles in each weight class that could serve as
viable targets for future fl eet wide improvements. Another
approach is to examine the costs and fuel saving effects
of packages of available technologies on several typical
vehicles, applying the results to the new vehicle fl eet (NRC,
2002). Other analyses have derived cost curves (percent
increase in fuel economy compared with technology cost)
for available technology and applied these to corporate or
national fl eets (Plotkin et al., 2002). These approaches are
not technology-forcing, since they focus on technologies
that have already entered the fl eet in mass-market form.
More ambitious standards could demand the introduction
of emerging technologies. Selection of the appropriate level
of stringency depends, of course, on national goals and
concerns. Further, the selection of enforcement deadlines
should account for limitations on the speed with which
vehicle manufacturers can redesign multiple models and
introduce the new models on a schedule that avoids severe
economic disruption.
• The structure of the standard is as important as its level of
stringency. Basing target fuel economy on vehicle weight
(Japan, China) or engine size (Taiwan, South Korea) will
tend to even out the degree of diffi culty the standards impose
on competing automakers, but will reduce the potential fuel
economy gains that can be expected (because weight-based
standards eliminate weight reduction and engine-size-based
standards eliminate engine downsizing as viable means of
achieving the standards). Basing the standard on vehicle
wheelbase times track width may provide safety benefi ts by
providing a positive incentive to maintain or increase these
attributes. Using a uniform standard for all vehicles or for
large classes of vehicles (as in the US) is simple and easy to
explain, but creates quite different challenges on different
manufacturers depending on the market segments they
focus on.
• Allowing trading of fuel economy ‘credits’ among different
vehicles or vehicle categories in an automaker’s fl eet, or
even among competing automakers, will reduce the overall
cost of standards without reducing the total societal benefi ts,
but may incur political costs from accusations of allowing
companies or individuals to ‘buy their way out’ of effi ciency
requirements.
• Alternatives (or additions) to standards are worth
investigating. For example, ‘feebates’, which award cash
rebates to new vehicles whose fuel economy is above a
designated level (often the fl eet average) and charge a fee
to vehicles with lower fuel economy, may be an effective
market-based measure to increase fl eet fuel economy. An
important advantage of feebates is that they provide a
‘continuous’ incentive to improve fuel economy, because
an automaker can always gain a market advantage by
introducing vehicles that are more effi cient than the current
average.
5.5.1.5 Transport Demand Management
Transport Demand Management (TDM) is a formal
designation for programmes in many countries that improve
performance of roads by reducing traffi c volumes (Litman,
2003). There are many potential TDM strategies in these
programmes with a variety of impacts. Some improve transport
diversity (the travel options available to users). Others provide
incentives for users to reduce driving, changing the frequency,
mode, destination, route or timing of their travel. Some reduce
the need for physical travel through mobility substitutes or
more effi cient land use. Some involve policy reforms to correct
current distortions in transport planning practices. TDM is
particularly appropriate in developing country cities, because
of its low costs, multiple benefi ts and potential to redirect the
motorization process. In many cases, effective TDM during
early stages of development can avoid problems that would
result if communities become too automobile dependent. This
can help support a developing country’s economic, social and
environmental objectives (Gwilliam et al., 2004).
The set of strategies to be implemented will vary depending
on each country’s demographic, geographic and political
conditions. TDM strategies can have cumulative and synergetic
impacts, so it is important to evaluate a set of TDM programmes
as a package, rather than as an individual programme. Effective
strategies usually include a combination of positive incentives
to use alternative modes (‘carrots’ or ‘sweeteners’) and negative
incentives to discourage driving (‘sticks’ or ‘levellers’).
Some major strategies such as
pricing and land-use planning are addressed above. Below is a
selective review of additional TDM strategies with signifi cant
potential to reduce vehicle travel and GHGs.
Employer travel reduction strategies gained prominence
from a late 1980s regulation in southern California that required
employers with 100 or more employees to adopt incentives and
rules to reduce the number of car trips by employees commuting
to work (Giuliano et al., 1993). The State of Washington in the
USA kept a state law requiring travel plans in its most urban
areas for employers with 100 or more staff. The law reduced
the percentage of employees in the targeted organizations who
drove to work from 72–68% and affected about 12% of all trips
made in the area. In the Netherlands, the reduction in single
occupant commute trips from a travel plan averaged 5–15%.
In the UK, in very broad terms, the average effectiveness of
UK travel plans might be 6% in trips by drive alone to work
and 0.74% in the total vehicle-km travelled to work by car. The
overall effectiveness was critically dependent on both individual
effectiveness and levels of plan take-up (Rye, 2002).
Parking supply for employees is so expensive that employers
naturally have an incentive to reduce parking demand. The
literature found the price elasticity of parking demand for
commuting at –0.31 to –0.58 (Deuker et al., 1998) and –0.3
(Veca and Kuzmyak, 2005) based on a non-zero initial parking
price. The State of California enacted legislation that required
employers with 50 or more persons who provided parking
subsidies to offer employees the option to choose cash in
lieu of a leased parking space, in a so-called parking cash-out
programme. In eight case studies of employers who complied
with the cash-out programme, the solo driver share fell from
76% before cashing out to 63% after cashing out, leading to
the reduction in vehicle-km for commuting by 12%. If all the
commuters who park free in easily cashed-out parking spaces
were offered the cash option in the USA, it would reduce
vehicle-km travelled per year by 6.3 billion (Shoup, 1997).
Reducing car travel or CO2 emissions by substituting
telecommuting for actual commuting has often been cited in
the literature, but the empirical results are limited. In the USA,
a micro-scale study estimated that 1.5% of the total workforce
telecommuted on any day, eliminating at most 1% of total
household vehicle-km travelled (Mokhtarian, 1998), while
a macro-scale study suggested that telecommuting reduced
annual vehicle-km by 0–2% (Choo et al., 2005).
Reduction of CO2 emissions by hard measures, such as car
restraint, often faces public opposition even when the proposed
measures prove effective. Soft measures, such as a provision of
information and use of communication strategies and educational
techniques (OECD, 2004a) can be used for supporting the
promotion of hard measures. Soft measures can also be directly
helpful in encouraging a change in personal behaviour leading
to an effi cient driving style and reduction in the use of the car
(Jones, 2004). Well organized soft measures were found to be
effective for reducing car travel while maintaining a low cost.
Following travel awareness campaigns in the UK, the concept
of Individualized marketing, a programme based on a targeted,
personalized, customized marketing approach, was developed
and applied in several cities for reducing the use of the car. The
programme reduced car trips by 14% in an Australian city, 12%
in a German city and 13% in a Swedish city. The Travel Blending
technique was a similar programme based on four special kits
for giving travel-feedback to the participants. This programme
reduced vehicle-km travelled by 11% in an Australian city.
The monitoring study after the programme implementation in
Australian cities also showed that the reduction in car travel
was maintained (Brog et al., 2004; Taylor and Ampt, 2003).
Japanese cases of travel-feedback programmes supported the
effectiveness of soft measures for reducing car travel. The
summary of the travel-feedback programmes in residential
areas, workplaces and schools indicated that car use was reduced
by 12% and CO2 emissions by 19%. It also implied that the
travel-feedback programmes with a behavioural plan requiring
a participant to make a plan for a change showed better results
than programmes without one (Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005).
Critique of IPCC's Report on Climate Change
[This is a direct copy-paste from
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf06/10tf06d.html#00
In the next couple of days, I intend to edit this into a post that is more easily understandable.]
AN ECOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING PARTY OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Quatermass: What would we do if we found the Earth was doomed by climate change?
Scientist: Nothing but go on squabbling.
(Quote from the film; 'Quatermass and the Pit' 1957).
ONE: THE IPCC REPORT - A WORLD HISTORICAL TURNING POINT?
i) The Establishment of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The ipcc was set up by the united nations environment programme and the world meteorological organization in november 1988 to explore the threats posed by the greenhouse effect. The panel was divided into three working groups; the first researched the science of the greenhouse effect; the second explored the impact of climate change on society; and the third examined the need for political measures to minimize the economic costs of the damage which might be caused by the greenhouse effect. Each group produced a report which was debated at the second world climate conference held in november 1990.
ii) The Earth's Current Carbon Status.
The ipcc scientific working group, the ultimate scientific authority on the greenhouse effect,[1] published the final draft of its first report in may 1990. The report pointed out that the rise in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon over the last couple of centuries, but especially since the second world war, had been dramatic. There is approximately 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was before the industrial revolution[2] but, if all greenhouse gases are taken into consideration, there is the equivalent of 50% more CO2.[3] The ipcc believes this could lead to a correspondingly dramatic increase in global temperatures, “Under the Business-as-Usual scenario emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the next century.”[4]
iii) The IPCC's Draconian Recommendation for Cuts in CO2 Emissions.
The ipcc scientific working party issued a grim warning that the predicted rise in global temperatures could lead to ecological calamities and therefore recommended an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of 60-80% in order to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric Carbon at the 1990 level, “The long lived (greenhouse) gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilize their concentration at today’s levels.”[5]
This recommendation was far more extreme than anything previously suggested even by supposedly radical environmental groups such as greenpeace, let alone sober, and supposedly scientific, groups such as friends of the Earth. If the world’s leading climatologists had demanded a cut in Carbon emissions of 40% then the global community may have been able to achieve this target through the implementation of dramatic, but nevertheless reformist, measures on the biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect. However, the ipcc’s demand for a cut of 60% implied that the global community would have to implement radical policies which would affect virtually all human activities generating Carbon emissions. It meant, ceteris paribus, that 60% of all cars would have to be taken off the world’s roads; 60% of the world’s power stations would have to be closed down; and 60% of the world’s factories spewing out Carbon emissions would also have to be dismantled, etc., etc.. But recommending that 80% cuts might also be needed was to raise the spectre of a need for a revolutionary transformation of the relationship between humans and the only Planet in the universe on which they can live.
iv) A Scientific Revolution?.
The ipcc scientists’ recommendation seems like a momentous announcement. Never before in the history of science have so many of the world’s leading scientists issued a joint statement demanding that the global community take action to avert a global ecological disaster. It was the severest advice scientists have ever delivered to world political leaders. However, whether it will be regarded in the years to come as a symbol of the fight against the destruction of the Planet is open to question. It is already highly questionable that it will become a world historical turning point.
The political failures of the second world climate conference and, a few years later, the rio Earth summit, were not due solely to ignorant, corrupt politicians; greedy, evil capitalists; nor servile, careerist environmentalists - although of course having these shits decide on the fate of the Earth wasn’t too helpful. One of the major reasons for the failures was scientific - a petty demarcation dispute within the scientific establishment which led to some of the most important features of global warming being left out of the calculations about the scale of the threat posed by climate change.
The ipcc recommendation rested on three, fundamentally flawed, assumptions. These flaws will be highlighted in the next three sections and their solutions outlined in the three sections thereafter.
TWO: THE FLAWS IN THE IPCC’S RECOMMENDATION FOR CUTS IN CARBON EMISSIONS.
i) The Concentration on Carbon Emissions.
The ipcc scientists focussed solely on Carbon emissions even though the level of atmospheric Carbon is determined not merely by the amount of Carbon dumped into the atmosphere but by the Planet’s ability to absorb Carbon through Photosynthesis.
ii) Climate Changes Are Inevitable.
Even if the required cuts in Carbon emissions were achieved immediately, ipcc scientists claimed there would still be a rise in global temperatures because of the huge quantities of Carbon dumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, “Even if we were able to stablize emissions of each of the greenhouse gases at present day levels from now on, the temperature is predicted to rise by about 0.2C per decade for the first few decades.”[6] Half the Carbon released during the industrial age is still in the atmosphere and this will produce climatic changes in the decades to come which could have calamitous effects on the Planet’s life-support systems.[7] It will be a century and a half before the Carbon dumped into the atmosphere since the second world war is removed and thus no longer contributing to the greenhouse effect, “Even if all human-made emissions of carbon dioxide were halted in the year 1990, about half the increase in CO2 concentration caused by human activities would still be evident by the year 2100.”[8]
iii) The 1990 Concentration of Atmospheric Carbon Too High.
Finally, even assuming that the concentration of greenhouse gases could be stabilized at the 1990 level, it is simply not known whether human civilization could survive over the long term with this level of atmospheric Carbon.
THREE: RECTIFYING THE MISTAKES.
i) The IPCC Scientific Working Group's Fixation on Carbon Emissions.
One of the peculiarities of the scientific working group’s analysis was that whilst it recommended cuts in Carbon emissions it made no parallel recommendations for an increase in the Planet’s Forest cover[9] even though a number of commentators have postulated that the Earth is one continent short of the Forests needed to maintain climatic stability, “Dysen and Marland have calculated that .. to absorb the 20,000 million tons of CO2 currently emitted every year into the atmosphere, an area of 7 million square kilometres (roughly the size of Australia) would have to be planted.”[10] There seems to have been a convergence of political and scientific interests which led to this bizarre, and dangerous, neglect of the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity.
Government representatives involved in the ipcc political working parties did not want ipcc scientists to make recommendations for extending/preserving the Earth’s Forest cover because of the huge economic costs. As far as the over-industrialized nations were concerned, Reforesting large tracts of their own land to soak up atmospheric Carbon would not only be expensive but a gross misuse of scarce resources which could be used much more profitably for the construction of new car factories, new office blocks, new roads, etc.. On the other side of the Planet, the disintegrating/industrializing nations didn’t want their Forests commandeered as sinks for the Carbon pollution created by rich countries. There seems, then, to have been a tacit agreement between rich and the poor governments to avoid any agreement over the issue of Forest cover.
The ipcc scientists’, however, had their own reasons for focussing on Carbon emissions. These had little to do with the politics of the global political community but everything to do with the politics of the global scientific community. In the scientific world each discipline acts, very unscientifically, like an intellectual closed shop rigorously defending its area of specialized knowledge and discouraging scientists from straying beyond the confines of their own discipline.[11] The scientists involved in the ipcc scientific working party were meteorologists and climatologists - they were not biologists, life scientists, nor ecologists. As a result they concentrated upon their field of expertise, the atmosphere, and ignored the role played by Plants and Wildlife in determining the atmosphere’s chemical composition. During the final discussions for the ipcc’s second report, published in may 1992 in preparation for the rio Earth summit, one commentator complained about this state of affairs, “At this year’s (ipcc) meeting in China, when the 1992 report was finalized, not a single ecologist took the microphone to put their case among the atmospheric scientists who dominated the meeting.”[12] It seems the ipcc scientists were far from disturbed by the political failure to agree policies for Reforestation.
The consequence of the ipcc scientists’ intellectual closed shoppism was a half baked ecological analysis whose focus on Carbon emissions has led to a global repetition of this nonsense.[13] Far worse is that it has allowed governments around the world to continue ransacking their Forests in the absurd belief that as long as they reduce their Carbon emissions they can continue to deforest their country, and thus the Planet, with climatic impunity. But, even if the required reductions in Carbon emissions are eventually achieved, the level of atmospheric Carbon could go on rising if the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity continues to be decimated. One commentator blames scientists for allowing governments to go on ransacking Forests and for failing to come to an agreement about the need to increase the Earth’s Forest cover .. “the halting progress of the continuing discussions on forests in the Prepatory Committee of the UNCED. The critical observation .. was that in no case has there been political progress in addressing environmental issues internationally without consensus from the scientific community as to the definition of the problem and an equally clear definition of potential solutions.”[14]
ii) Climate Change Not Inevitable.
Perhaps the ipcc scientists’ most disturbing error was their view that climate change is inevitable because of the current levels of atmospheric Carbon. This error stems directly from their failure to take into account the role of Forests in regulating the climate.
For the sake of simplicity, it can be argued that deforestation boosts global warming in three ways;
firstly, by releasing Carbon emissions which boost the greenhouse effect;
secondly, by reducing the Planet’s ability to absorb atmospheric Carbon and,
thirdly, by changing the Planet’s albedo so that the Earth absorbs more sunlight, “The evaporation of water from forests is part of Gaia's cooling system.”[15]
Conversely, Reforestation could be used to combat global warming in two ways; firstly, by absorbing atmospheric Carbon (thereby decreasing the greenhouse effect) and, secondly, by generating clouds which reflect sunlight back into space (thereby decreasing the heat effect). The point which needs to be emphasized is that whilst the former reduces the greenhouse effect only slowly over the decades and centuries, the latter reduces global warming within years by increasing the Planet's albedo. Reforestation thus has a critical, short term, role in reducing global temperatures. Although it cannot combat global warming in the short term via a reduction in Carbon emissions, it can do so via a reduction in the heat effect, “Changes in the terrestrial biota will also effect the overall albedo of the planet. Lashof believes this to be 'probably the most significant feedback produced by the terrestrial biota'.”[16] There is, therefore, no inevitability about a latent rise in global warming since it could be prevented by Reforestation. Even though the build-up of Carbon emissions will exert a considerable upward pressure on global temperatures this does not mean there will inevitably be a rise in temperatures because Reforestation could create a refrigeration effect which, if extensive enough, could more than offset such pressures.
It is imperative to reduce Carbon emissions and prevent further boosts to the greenhouse effect. However, this does not mean that cutting Carbon emissions is the most important policy for combatting global warming. The most urgent priority is Reforestation.
The consequence of the IPCC climatologists’ closed shop mentality was that it led them, and thereby many politicians and green organizations, to dismiss the priority of Reforestation.[17] The irony is that although the IPCC scientists measured the effect of sea-ice albedo on the climate, they did not measure the role of biomass albedo, “biogeochemical feedbacks such as .. vegetation albedo are generally neglected.”[18] If they had done so it is doubtful whether they would have made such a dangerous mistake.
iii) The Need to Return to Pre-industrial Levels of Atmospheric Carbon.
Politically, the ipcc scientists played safe by recommending that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon should be stabilized at the 1990 level. Given that the current level of greenhouse gases is 50% higher than in pre-industrial times and could have serious climatic consequences, the ipcc scientists should have been courageous enough to risk the ire of the global community by insisting that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon should be reduced to pre-industrial levels to avoid any potential environmental disaster - even if this meant even more draconian action than that entailed by the demand for 60-80% reductions in CO2 emissions.
James lovelock, however, doubts whether even a return to pre-industrial levels will be sufficient to prevent a climatic disaster, “In the last few tens of millions of years the solar output has reached a level where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the CO2 pumping system to operate. To keep cool when the solar output is as high as now requires efficient pumping by the system so that a carbon dioxide level below 200 parts per million (ppm) is sustained.”[19]
Lovelock’s target for the concentration of atmospheric Carbon needs to be put into context. There are currently about 700,000,000,000 tonnes of Carbon in the atmosphere - approximately 350 ppm. Carbon is being dumped into the atmosphere at the rate of about 5-6 billion tonnes a year and, as a consequence, “It is estimated that by the year 2040 it (the concentration of Carbon) will have increased to 560 ppm.”[20] Prior to the industrial revolution there were approximately 270 ppm of atmospheric Carbon. Further back in history, “At the height of the ice age, 18,000 years ago... the content in the atmosphere of CO2 was 210 parts per million.”[21]
In other words, for the sake of the Planet’s health, lovelock recommends a concentration of atmospheric Carbon which is lower than that found at the height of the last ice age. He believes the Earth’s natural state is an ice age, warm periods seem to be geophysiological abnormalities, “The present interglacial warm period could be regarded as a fever for Gaia and that left to herself she would be relaxing into her normal, comfortable for her, ice age.”[22] Given the rapid accumulation of atmospheric Carbon over the last couple of centuries and the rate at which Carbon is currently being dumped into the atmosphere, it should be obvious that attempting to decrease current levels of Carbon to that which existed not merely before the industrial revolution but during the height of the last ice age would require nothing less than a total revolution in humans’ attitude toward the Earth. But, if it is imperative to make a dramatic reversal of current trends in which humans are turning large portions of the Planet into a lifeless deserts, is it necessary to go all the way to the other extreme and actively regulate the climate to encourage the return of ice sheets to the north american and euroasian continents?
FOUR: THE IPCC’S INTELLECTUAL APARTHEID.
i) The Inadequacies of the IPCC's General Circulation Model.
I: The Inadequacies of Computing Power.
The ipcc scientists’ recommendation for draconian cuts in Carbon emissions was derived from forecasts about the Planet’s long term climate produced by computer models, known as general circulation models, (gcms).[23] They simulate the Earth’s past, present and future, climates. At the moment, however, even the most powerful supercomputers and the most sophisticated computer software can measure the Planet’s climate only by aggregating climatic conditions across huge areas of the Earth’s atmosphere, covering tens of thousands of cubic miles - which means they can’t even resolve the climate of the brutish isles. In addition, at present gcms can handle only a limited number of climatic variables. Not surprisingly, a number of factors influencing the Planet’s climate had to be left out of the ipcc's computer model - many of which could boost global warming, “Unfortunately, even though this is crucial for climate change prediction, only a few models linking all the main components of the climate system in a comprehensive way have been developed.”[24]
II: The Failure to Incorporate Phyotomass.
The first major deficiency of the ipcc’s computer model was, as has been pointed out above, the failure to incorporate the role played by terrestrial Phytomass. “Today's (climate) models do not account fully for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by land plants, but may overstate the oceans' ability to absorb it.”;[25] “The role of forests in affecting climate has been grossly underestimated by climatologists, largely as a result of too heavy a focus on the role of the oceans. The distortion persists in the recent report of the scientific sessions of the second World Climate Conference held in Geneva (WMO, 1990). The role of forests is acknowledged as potentially contributing to solution of the problem by storing additional carbon through reforestation, but the need to stop deforestation is not emphasized.”;[26] “The weaknesses of current climate models in respect of clouds and oceans arise even before other pieces of the Earth system, like icecaps, vegetation and volcanoes, are incorporated properly.”[27] One of the leading ipcc scientists pointed out that none of the world’s seven major computer models incorporated the biosphere, “Very little has been said in this chapter about the biosphere. The large three-dimensional gcm described in this chapter contain a lot of dynamics and physics but no interactive chemistry or biology.”[28]
The role played by Phytoplankton was also ignored, “The damage done to certain species of plankton by increased ultra-violet radiation .. was highlighted recently by the ozone trends panel of the UNEP but ignored by the IPCC.”[29] “One group of plankton, the Coccolithophorids, are apparently a major source of DMS and their bloom processes would most likely respond, although in uncertain ways, to changes in ocean-atmosphere exchanges resulting from climate change.”[30]
III: The Failure to Take into Account Biotic Feedback Processes.
Much more importantly than the ipcc’s biotic blinkeredness was that no account was taken of biotic feedback processes whereby increases in anthropogenic global warming cause changes to the Earth’s Phytomass which stimulates further increases in global temperatures, “Current gcms contain the key geophysical climate feedbacks, such as changes in water vapour, clouds and sea ice albedo, but biogeochemical feedbacks such as changes in methane emissions, ocean CO2 uptake and vegetation albedo are generally neglected.”;[31] “Several atmospheric feedback processes are well defined in GCM but those relating to ocean productivity are not yet sufficiently well understood to be included.”[32]
The ipcc’s second report failed to remedy this inadequacy, “Biological feedback processes were left out of the IPCC’s climate models.”[33] Two examples of the scale of such omissions can be given. Firstly, the Arctic Tundra contains vast quantities of methane, “About 27% of the world's carbon store is locked up in the peat bogs of the tundra and the boreal forests.”[34] Although the Arctic Tundra is melting and releasing methane, “The IPCC report says this effect has probably been underestimated.”[35]. Since then it has been learnt that the Arctic Tundra is now a net source of methane, “Meanwhile, in February (1993) we learned that the demonstrably-warming Arctic tundra has transformed from a CO2 sink into a significant source of CO2. Biogeochemical feedbacks like this, however, are omitted from most climate models. The dreadful rates of warming the IPCC forecasts may in fact be underestimates.”[36] Secondly, and more worrying, is the failure to take into account the release of trillions of tons of methane currently locked up in polar waters, “Potentially the most important biogeochemical feedback is the release of methane from near-shore ocean sediments.”[37] The escape of such huge quantities of methane could generate a runaway greenhouse effect.
If, as a result of such feedback mechanisms, a quantum leap in the climate took place the likelihood of a global ecological breakdown would increase dramatically. The longer it takes to implement effective policies to combat global warming, the greater the accumulation of atmospheric Carbon, the greater the chance of a quantum change in the Planet’s climate, the greater the difficulties of reversing such a change.
IV: The Vulnerability of Ecosystems.
Another factor not considered by ipcc scientists is a danger highlighted by james lovelock - that an ecological system is likely to collapse if it surpasses a threshold level of damage, “To a planetary physician, by far the most dangerous malady afflicting the Earth is that of exfoliation - destruction of its living skin. In human medicine the loss of skin from whatever cause is a serious threat to life: the loss of more than 70% of the skin by burning is usually fatal. To denude the Earth of its forests and other natural ecosystems and of its soils is like burning the skin of a human. And we shall soon have destroyed or replaced with inefficient farmlands 70% of the earth's natural land surface cover.”[38] If this is the case then the safety margin before an ecological collapse may be much smaller than the ipcc assumed.
V: Research Failures.
It should also be noted that a number of atmospheric pollutants could not be included because their contribution to the greenhouse effect had not been quantified, e.g. “Ground level (tropospheric) ozone (from vehicles) makes a significant contribution to global warming, but is very difficult to quantify. For this reason the IPCC did not include it in its estimates of the contribution that various greenhouse gases make to global climate change.”[39]
ii) Conclusions.
The ipcc’s gcm is not merely inadequate and fundamentally flawed, it is also dangerous because by concentrating solely upon the greenhouse effect they have ignored the contribution which deforestation makes to gobal warming and this has allowed countries all over the world to continue ransacking their Forests. Even worse is that it underestimates the threat posed by global warming. The ipcc have admitted that, “although many of the feedback processes are poorly understood, it seems likely that, overall, they will act to increase, rather than decrease, greenhouse gas concentrations in a warmer world.”[40] The inadequacies of the ipcc’s model meant, “Uncertainty led to 7 of the potentially most alarming factors being left out of the UN's final report.”[41] This led one commentator to criticize the ipcc for failing to warn political leaders about the possibility of a runaway global warming, “The scientists of the IPCC have undersold the worst possibilities outlined in their analysis of global warming.”[42]
The ipcc scientists’ failure to explore biotic factors critical to global warming is partly technological due to inadequate computers and computer software, but mainly a result of the scientific establishment’s creation of intellectual demarcation zones and the disputes between Earth scientists and life scientists; climatologists and biologists; as well as battles between those inside the scientific establishment and those outside, primarily Gaians, who do not subject themselves to the same constraints as the ipcc scientists. Whilst ipcc scientists like john houghton admit that they do not take the biosphere into account when assessing global warming, james lovelock has shown that the climate is regulated by the biosphere. Although it is argued that, “There have been no long term studies of the responses of most of the world’s ecostsyems to elevated CO2 or climate change.”[43] the fact is that huge masses of information about the state of the Earth’s Vegetation cover have been collected from satellites over the last decade or so, “When Tucker and Townsend mapped the vegetation index, season by season, they were able to distinguish broad areas of rainforest, grassland and so on, by the density of vegetation and its seasonal behaviour.”[44]The vegetation index .. “turned out to be a prime measure of the influence of plants in the Earth system.”[45] Only one team of scientists have created a computer model to use this information to determine what is happening to the Earth’s Vegetation. Piers Sellars and his colleagues in Maryland designed a computer model of the climate to interpret the satellite’s data. By 1986 they were feeding the model with vast quantities of information and helping to evaluate a huge segment of the Earth’s Carbon spiral, “Their Simple Biosphere Model takes in conventional weather data and computes changes in leaf temperatures, the rain, and dew wetting the leaves, and the wetness of various layers of soil.”[46] It might have been thought that it should be the highest priority for the ipcc, and the other major climate modellers, to incorporate this simple biosphere model and the vast quantities of information it contains.
Whilst the scientific establishment’s closed shop could have been condoned when the dangers posed by climate change were still in serious dispute, this is no longer the case. It is frightening that climatologists’ self-imposed “intellectual apartheid” has caused scientific misjudgements which have not only ignored the role of the biosphere on the Earth’s climate, but have overlooked the vital priority of Reforestation in combatting climate change, and considerably underestimated the threat posed by global warming.
It seems the ipcc scientists have not so much initiated a full-blown scientific revolution as allowed their own petty rivalries to override a comprehensive analysis of the ecological calamities looming on the horizon. What is certain, however, is that politically they have utterly failed to expose, and then challenge, the frightening ecocidal behaviour of the over-industrialized nations.
In a number of ways the ipcc scientists did take a number of risks in their first report. They could easily have become an object of derision for basing their extreme recommendations for reductions in atmospheric Carbon on such inadequate knowledge of the Earth’s ecological processes. However, by going out of the way to indicate the inadequacies of the evidence, and by admitting the areas of uncertainty, the ipcc not merely followed correct scientific procedures but put pressure on politicians to fund the necessary research for a comprehensive understanding of global warming.
iii) The IPCC’s 1992 Rio Update.
In May 1992 the ipcc scientific working group published an updated scientific report in time for the rio Earth summit. This included new scientific evidence about the greenhouse effect which had emerged in the intervening period. Whilst this led to minor modifications in the understanding of the greenhouse effect it did not require the ipcc scientists to change their views about the threat posed by global warming, and they reiterated their earlier recommendation, “Findings of scientific research since 1990 .. do not justify alteration of the major conclusions of the first IPCC scientific assessment.”[47]
I: The Failure to Incorporate Phyotomass.
In the second edition, the ipcc acknowledged its failure to take Phytomass into account, “Since IPCC (1990) particular attention has focussed on understanding the processes controlling the release and uptake of CO2 from both the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans, and on the quantification of the fluxes. The terrestrial biospheric processes which are suggested as contributing to the (Carbon) sinks are sequestration due to forest regeneration, and fertilization arising from the effects of both CO2 and nitrogen (N) but none of these can be adequately quantified.”[48]
The ipcc has set up a new research programme to develop a common methodology to assist each country around the world in drawing up national ecological inventories. The national inventories of net emissions of greenhouse gases will measure not only Carbon sources but sinks, “In order to support national and international responses to climate change, it is necessary to estimate emissions and sinks at the national level in an agreed and consistent way. The IPCC has established a work programme to:
i) develop an approved detailed methodology for calculating national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks
ii) assist all participating countries to implement this methodology and provide results by the end of 1993.
An IPCC workshop on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, held in Geneva from 5 to 6 December 1991, proposed guidance on needed improvements in the draft methodology and priorities for the work programme.”[49]
II: The Failure to Incorporate Biological Feedbacks.
“Biological feedbacks have not yet been taken into account in simulations of climate change.”[50]
III: The New Evidence Concerning Global Warming.
Firstly, as many commentators had suspected, it was confirmed that ozone depletion was counteracting the effects of global warming, “Depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere in the middle and high latitudes results in a decrease in radiative forcing which is believed to be comparable in magnitude to the radiative forcing contribution of CFCs (globally averaged) over the last decade or so.”[51]
The role of aerosols was elaborated, “In most cases aerosols tend to cool climate. In general, they have a much shorter lifetime than greenhouse gases so their concentrations respond much more quickly to changes in emissions.”[52]This led to a modification of the ipcc’s conclusions, “If sulphur emissions continue to increase, this warming rate is likely to be reduced, significantly in the northern hemisphere, by an amount dependent on the future magnitude and regional distribution of the emissions.”[53]
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf06/10tf06d.html#00
In the next couple of days, I intend to edit this into a post that is more easily understandable.]
AN ECOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING PARTY OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Quatermass: What would we do if we found the Earth was doomed by climate change?
Scientist: Nothing but go on squabbling.
(Quote from the film; 'Quatermass and the Pit' 1957).
ONE: THE IPCC REPORT - A WORLD HISTORICAL TURNING POINT?
i) The Establishment of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The ipcc was set up by the united nations environment programme and the world meteorological organization in november 1988 to explore the threats posed by the greenhouse effect. The panel was divided into three working groups; the first researched the science of the greenhouse effect; the second explored the impact of climate change on society; and the third examined the need for political measures to minimize the economic costs of the damage which might be caused by the greenhouse effect. Each group produced a report which was debated at the second world climate conference held in november 1990.
ii) The Earth's Current Carbon Status.
The ipcc scientific working group, the ultimate scientific authority on the greenhouse effect,[1] published the final draft of its first report in may 1990. The report pointed out that the rise in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon over the last couple of centuries, but especially since the second world war, had been dramatic. There is approximately 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was before the industrial revolution[2] but, if all greenhouse gases are taken into consideration, there is the equivalent of 50% more CO2.[3] The ipcc believes this could lead to a correspondingly dramatic increase in global temperatures, “Under the Business-as-Usual scenario emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the next century.”[4]
iii) The IPCC's Draconian Recommendation for Cuts in CO2 Emissions.
The ipcc scientific working party issued a grim warning that the predicted rise in global temperatures could lead to ecological calamities and therefore recommended an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of 60-80% in order to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric Carbon at the 1990 level, “The long lived (greenhouse) gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilize their concentration at today’s levels.”[5]
This recommendation was far more extreme than anything previously suggested even by supposedly radical environmental groups such as greenpeace, let alone sober, and supposedly scientific, groups such as friends of the Earth. If the world’s leading climatologists had demanded a cut in Carbon emissions of 40% then the global community may have been able to achieve this target through the implementation of dramatic, but nevertheless reformist, measures on the biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect. However, the ipcc’s demand for a cut of 60% implied that the global community would have to implement radical policies which would affect virtually all human activities generating Carbon emissions. It meant, ceteris paribus, that 60% of all cars would have to be taken off the world’s roads; 60% of the world’s power stations would have to be closed down; and 60% of the world’s factories spewing out Carbon emissions would also have to be dismantled, etc., etc.. But recommending that 80% cuts might also be needed was to raise the spectre of a need for a revolutionary transformation of the relationship between humans and the only Planet in the universe on which they can live.
iv) A Scientific Revolution?.
The ipcc scientists’ recommendation seems like a momentous announcement. Never before in the history of science have so many of the world’s leading scientists issued a joint statement demanding that the global community take action to avert a global ecological disaster. It was the severest advice scientists have ever delivered to world political leaders. However, whether it will be regarded in the years to come as a symbol of the fight against the destruction of the Planet is open to question. It is already highly questionable that it will become a world historical turning point.
The political failures of the second world climate conference and, a few years later, the rio Earth summit, were not due solely to ignorant, corrupt politicians; greedy, evil capitalists; nor servile, careerist environmentalists - although of course having these shits decide on the fate of the Earth wasn’t too helpful. One of the major reasons for the failures was scientific - a petty demarcation dispute within the scientific establishment which led to some of the most important features of global warming being left out of the calculations about the scale of the threat posed by climate change.
The ipcc recommendation rested on three, fundamentally flawed, assumptions. These flaws will be highlighted in the next three sections and their solutions outlined in the three sections thereafter.
TWO: THE FLAWS IN THE IPCC’S RECOMMENDATION FOR CUTS IN CARBON EMISSIONS.
i) The Concentration on Carbon Emissions.
The ipcc scientists focussed solely on Carbon emissions even though the level of atmospheric Carbon is determined not merely by the amount of Carbon dumped into the atmosphere but by the Planet’s ability to absorb Carbon through Photosynthesis.
ii) Climate Changes Are Inevitable.
Even if the required cuts in Carbon emissions were achieved immediately, ipcc scientists claimed there would still be a rise in global temperatures because of the huge quantities of Carbon dumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, “Even if we were able to stablize emissions of each of the greenhouse gases at present day levels from now on, the temperature is predicted to rise by about 0.2C per decade for the first few decades.”[6] Half the Carbon released during the industrial age is still in the atmosphere and this will produce climatic changes in the decades to come which could have calamitous effects on the Planet’s life-support systems.[7] It will be a century and a half before the Carbon dumped into the atmosphere since the second world war is removed and thus no longer contributing to the greenhouse effect, “Even if all human-made emissions of carbon dioxide were halted in the year 1990, about half the increase in CO2 concentration caused by human activities would still be evident by the year 2100.”[8]
iii) The 1990 Concentration of Atmospheric Carbon Too High.
Finally, even assuming that the concentration of greenhouse gases could be stabilized at the 1990 level, it is simply not known whether human civilization could survive over the long term with this level of atmospheric Carbon.
THREE: RECTIFYING THE MISTAKES.
i) The IPCC Scientific Working Group's Fixation on Carbon Emissions.
One of the peculiarities of the scientific working group’s analysis was that whilst it recommended cuts in Carbon emissions it made no parallel recommendations for an increase in the Planet’s Forest cover[9] even though a number of commentators have postulated that the Earth is one continent short of the Forests needed to maintain climatic stability, “Dysen and Marland have calculated that .. to absorb the 20,000 million tons of CO2 currently emitted every year into the atmosphere, an area of 7 million square kilometres (roughly the size of Australia) would have to be planted.”[10] There seems to have been a convergence of political and scientific interests which led to this bizarre, and dangerous, neglect of the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity.
Government representatives involved in the ipcc political working parties did not want ipcc scientists to make recommendations for extending/preserving the Earth’s Forest cover because of the huge economic costs. As far as the over-industrialized nations were concerned, Reforesting large tracts of their own land to soak up atmospheric Carbon would not only be expensive but a gross misuse of scarce resources which could be used much more profitably for the construction of new car factories, new office blocks, new roads, etc.. On the other side of the Planet, the disintegrating/industrializing nations didn’t want their Forests commandeered as sinks for the Carbon pollution created by rich countries. There seems, then, to have been a tacit agreement between rich and the poor governments to avoid any agreement over the issue of Forest cover.
The ipcc scientists’, however, had their own reasons for focussing on Carbon emissions. These had little to do with the politics of the global political community but everything to do with the politics of the global scientific community. In the scientific world each discipline acts, very unscientifically, like an intellectual closed shop rigorously defending its area of specialized knowledge and discouraging scientists from straying beyond the confines of their own discipline.[11] The scientists involved in the ipcc scientific working party were meteorologists and climatologists - they were not biologists, life scientists, nor ecologists. As a result they concentrated upon their field of expertise, the atmosphere, and ignored the role played by Plants and Wildlife in determining the atmosphere’s chemical composition. During the final discussions for the ipcc’s second report, published in may 1992 in preparation for the rio Earth summit, one commentator complained about this state of affairs, “At this year’s (ipcc) meeting in China, when the 1992 report was finalized, not a single ecologist took the microphone to put their case among the atmospheric scientists who dominated the meeting.”[12] It seems the ipcc scientists were far from disturbed by the political failure to agree policies for Reforestation.
The consequence of the ipcc scientists’ intellectual closed shoppism was a half baked ecological analysis whose focus on Carbon emissions has led to a global repetition of this nonsense.[13] Far worse is that it has allowed governments around the world to continue ransacking their Forests in the absurd belief that as long as they reduce their Carbon emissions they can continue to deforest their country, and thus the Planet, with climatic impunity. But, even if the required reductions in Carbon emissions are eventually achieved, the level of atmospheric Carbon could go on rising if the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity continues to be decimated. One commentator blames scientists for allowing governments to go on ransacking Forests and for failing to come to an agreement about the need to increase the Earth’s Forest cover .. “the halting progress of the continuing discussions on forests in the Prepatory Committee of the UNCED. The critical observation .. was that in no case has there been political progress in addressing environmental issues internationally without consensus from the scientific community as to the definition of the problem and an equally clear definition of potential solutions.”[14]
ii) Climate Change Not Inevitable.
Perhaps the ipcc scientists’ most disturbing error was their view that climate change is inevitable because of the current levels of atmospheric Carbon. This error stems directly from their failure to take into account the role of Forests in regulating the climate.
For the sake of simplicity, it can be argued that deforestation boosts global warming in three ways;
firstly, by releasing Carbon emissions which boost the greenhouse effect;
secondly, by reducing the Planet’s ability to absorb atmospheric Carbon and,
thirdly, by changing the Planet’s albedo so that the Earth absorbs more sunlight, “The evaporation of water from forests is part of Gaia's cooling system.”[15]
Conversely, Reforestation could be used to combat global warming in two ways; firstly, by absorbing atmospheric Carbon (thereby decreasing the greenhouse effect) and, secondly, by generating clouds which reflect sunlight back into space (thereby decreasing the heat effect). The point which needs to be emphasized is that whilst the former reduces the greenhouse effect only slowly over the decades and centuries, the latter reduces global warming within years by increasing the Planet's albedo. Reforestation thus has a critical, short term, role in reducing global temperatures. Although it cannot combat global warming in the short term via a reduction in Carbon emissions, it can do so via a reduction in the heat effect, “Changes in the terrestrial biota will also effect the overall albedo of the planet. Lashof believes this to be 'probably the most significant feedback produced by the terrestrial biota'.”[16] There is, therefore, no inevitability about a latent rise in global warming since it could be prevented by Reforestation. Even though the build-up of Carbon emissions will exert a considerable upward pressure on global temperatures this does not mean there will inevitably be a rise in temperatures because Reforestation could create a refrigeration effect which, if extensive enough, could more than offset such pressures.
It is imperative to reduce Carbon emissions and prevent further boosts to the greenhouse effect. However, this does not mean that cutting Carbon emissions is the most important policy for combatting global warming. The most urgent priority is Reforestation.
The consequence of the IPCC climatologists’ closed shop mentality was that it led them, and thereby many politicians and green organizations, to dismiss the priority of Reforestation.[17] The irony is that although the IPCC scientists measured the effect of sea-ice albedo on the climate, they did not measure the role of biomass albedo, “biogeochemical feedbacks such as .. vegetation albedo are generally neglected.”[18] If they had done so it is doubtful whether they would have made such a dangerous mistake.
iii) The Need to Return to Pre-industrial Levels of Atmospheric Carbon.
Politically, the ipcc scientists played safe by recommending that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon should be stabilized at the 1990 level. Given that the current level of greenhouse gases is 50% higher than in pre-industrial times and could have serious climatic consequences, the ipcc scientists should have been courageous enough to risk the ire of the global community by insisting that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon should be reduced to pre-industrial levels to avoid any potential environmental disaster - even if this meant even more draconian action than that entailed by the demand for 60-80% reductions in CO2 emissions.
James lovelock, however, doubts whether even a return to pre-industrial levels will be sufficient to prevent a climatic disaster, “In the last few tens of millions of years the solar output has reached a level where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the CO2 pumping system to operate. To keep cool when the solar output is as high as now requires efficient pumping by the system so that a carbon dioxide level below 200 parts per million (ppm) is sustained.”[19]
Lovelock’s target for the concentration of atmospheric Carbon needs to be put into context. There are currently about 700,000,000,000 tonnes of Carbon in the atmosphere - approximately 350 ppm. Carbon is being dumped into the atmosphere at the rate of about 5-6 billion tonnes a year and, as a consequence, “It is estimated that by the year 2040 it (the concentration of Carbon) will have increased to 560 ppm.”[20] Prior to the industrial revolution there were approximately 270 ppm of atmospheric Carbon. Further back in history, “At the height of the ice age, 18,000 years ago... the content in the atmosphere of CO2 was 210 parts per million.”[21]
In other words, for the sake of the Planet’s health, lovelock recommends a concentration of atmospheric Carbon which is lower than that found at the height of the last ice age. He believes the Earth’s natural state is an ice age, warm periods seem to be geophysiological abnormalities, “The present interglacial warm period could be regarded as a fever for Gaia and that left to herself she would be relaxing into her normal, comfortable for her, ice age.”[22] Given the rapid accumulation of atmospheric Carbon over the last couple of centuries and the rate at which Carbon is currently being dumped into the atmosphere, it should be obvious that attempting to decrease current levels of Carbon to that which existed not merely before the industrial revolution but during the height of the last ice age would require nothing less than a total revolution in humans’ attitude toward the Earth. But, if it is imperative to make a dramatic reversal of current trends in which humans are turning large portions of the Planet into a lifeless deserts, is it necessary to go all the way to the other extreme and actively regulate the climate to encourage the return of ice sheets to the north american and euroasian continents?
FOUR: THE IPCC’S INTELLECTUAL APARTHEID.
i) The Inadequacies of the IPCC's General Circulation Model.
I: The Inadequacies of Computing Power.
The ipcc scientists’ recommendation for draconian cuts in Carbon emissions was derived from forecasts about the Planet’s long term climate produced by computer models, known as general circulation models, (gcms).[23] They simulate the Earth’s past, present and future, climates. At the moment, however, even the most powerful supercomputers and the most sophisticated computer software can measure the Planet’s climate only by aggregating climatic conditions across huge areas of the Earth’s atmosphere, covering tens of thousands of cubic miles - which means they can’t even resolve the climate of the brutish isles. In addition, at present gcms can handle only a limited number of climatic variables. Not surprisingly, a number of factors influencing the Planet’s climate had to be left out of the ipcc's computer model - many of which could boost global warming, “Unfortunately, even though this is crucial for climate change prediction, only a few models linking all the main components of the climate system in a comprehensive way have been developed.”[24]
II: The Failure to Incorporate Phyotomass.
The first major deficiency of the ipcc’s computer model was, as has been pointed out above, the failure to incorporate the role played by terrestrial Phytomass. “Today's (climate) models do not account fully for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by land plants, but may overstate the oceans' ability to absorb it.”;[25] “The role of forests in affecting climate has been grossly underestimated by climatologists, largely as a result of too heavy a focus on the role of the oceans. The distortion persists in the recent report of the scientific sessions of the second World Climate Conference held in Geneva (WMO, 1990). The role of forests is acknowledged as potentially contributing to solution of the problem by storing additional carbon through reforestation, but the need to stop deforestation is not emphasized.”;[26] “The weaknesses of current climate models in respect of clouds and oceans arise even before other pieces of the Earth system, like icecaps, vegetation and volcanoes, are incorporated properly.”[27] One of the leading ipcc scientists pointed out that none of the world’s seven major computer models incorporated the biosphere, “Very little has been said in this chapter about the biosphere. The large three-dimensional gcm described in this chapter contain a lot of dynamics and physics but no interactive chemistry or biology.”[28]
The role played by Phytoplankton was also ignored, “The damage done to certain species of plankton by increased ultra-violet radiation .. was highlighted recently by the ozone trends panel of the UNEP but ignored by the IPCC.”[29] “One group of plankton, the Coccolithophorids, are apparently a major source of DMS and their bloom processes would most likely respond, although in uncertain ways, to changes in ocean-atmosphere exchanges resulting from climate change.”[30]
III: The Failure to Take into Account Biotic Feedback Processes.
Much more importantly than the ipcc’s biotic blinkeredness was that no account was taken of biotic feedback processes whereby increases in anthropogenic global warming cause changes to the Earth’s Phytomass which stimulates further increases in global temperatures, “Current gcms contain the key geophysical climate feedbacks, such as changes in water vapour, clouds and sea ice albedo, but biogeochemical feedbacks such as changes in methane emissions, ocean CO2 uptake and vegetation albedo are generally neglected.”;[31] “Several atmospheric feedback processes are well defined in GCM but those relating to ocean productivity are not yet sufficiently well understood to be included.”[32]
The ipcc’s second report failed to remedy this inadequacy, “Biological feedback processes were left out of the IPCC’s climate models.”[33] Two examples of the scale of such omissions can be given. Firstly, the Arctic Tundra contains vast quantities of methane, “About 27% of the world's carbon store is locked up in the peat bogs of the tundra and the boreal forests.”[34] Although the Arctic Tundra is melting and releasing methane, “The IPCC report says this effect has probably been underestimated.”[35]. Since then it has been learnt that the Arctic Tundra is now a net source of methane, “Meanwhile, in February (1993) we learned that the demonstrably-warming Arctic tundra has transformed from a CO2 sink into a significant source of CO2. Biogeochemical feedbacks like this, however, are omitted from most climate models. The dreadful rates of warming the IPCC forecasts may in fact be underestimates.”[36] Secondly, and more worrying, is the failure to take into account the release of trillions of tons of methane currently locked up in polar waters, “Potentially the most important biogeochemical feedback is the release of methane from near-shore ocean sediments.”[37] The escape of such huge quantities of methane could generate a runaway greenhouse effect.
If, as a result of such feedback mechanisms, a quantum leap in the climate took place the likelihood of a global ecological breakdown would increase dramatically. The longer it takes to implement effective policies to combat global warming, the greater the accumulation of atmospheric Carbon, the greater the chance of a quantum change in the Planet’s climate, the greater the difficulties of reversing such a change.
IV: The Vulnerability of Ecosystems.
Another factor not considered by ipcc scientists is a danger highlighted by james lovelock - that an ecological system is likely to collapse if it surpasses a threshold level of damage, “To a planetary physician, by far the most dangerous malady afflicting the Earth is that of exfoliation - destruction of its living skin. In human medicine the loss of skin from whatever cause is a serious threat to life: the loss of more than 70% of the skin by burning is usually fatal. To denude the Earth of its forests and other natural ecosystems and of its soils is like burning the skin of a human. And we shall soon have destroyed or replaced with inefficient farmlands 70% of the earth's natural land surface cover.”[38] If this is the case then the safety margin before an ecological collapse may be much smaller than the ipcc assumed.
V: Research Failures.
It should also be noted that a number of atmospheric pollutants could not be included because their contribution to the greenhouse effect had not been quantified, e.g. “Ground level (tropospheric) ozone (from vehicles) makes a significant contribution to global warming, but is very difficult to quantify. For this reason the IPCC did not include it in its estimates of the contribution that various greenhouse gases make to global climate change.”[39]
ii) Conclusions.
The ipcc’s gcm is not merely inadequate and fundamentally flawed, it is also dangerous because by concentrating solely upon the greenhouse effect they have ignored the contribution which deforestation makes to gobal warming and this has allowed countries all over the world to continue ransacking their Forests. Even worse is that it underestimates the threat posed by global warming. The ipcc have admitted that, “although many of the feedback processes are poorly understood, it seems likely that, overall, they will act to increase, rather than decrease, greenhouse gas concentrations in a warmer world.”[40] The inadequacies of the ipcc’s model meant, “Uncertainty led to 7 of the potentially most alarming factors being left out of the UN's final report.”[41] This led one commentator to criticize the ipcc for failing to warn political leaders about the possibility of a runaway global warming, “The scientists of the IPCC have undersold the worst possibilities outlined in their analysis of global warming.”[42]
The ipcc scientists’ failure to explore biotic factors critical to global warming is partly technological due to inadequate computers and computer software, but mainly a result of the scientific establishment’s creation of intellectual demarcation zones and the disputes between Earth scientists and life scientists; climatologists and biologists; as well as battles between those inside the scientific establishment and those outside, primarily Gaians, who do not subject themselves to the same constraints as the ipcc scientists. Whilst ipcc scientists like john houghton admit that they do not take the biosphere into account when assessing global warming, james lovelock has shown that the climate is regulated by the biosphere. Although it is argued that, “There have been no long term studies of the responses of most of the world’s ecostsyems to elevated CO2 or climate change.”[43] the fact is that huge masses of information about the state of the Earth’s Vegetation cover have been collected from satellites over the last decade or so, “When Tucker and Townsend mapped the vegetation index, season by season, they were able to distinguish broad areas of rainforest, grassland and so on, by the density of vegetation and its seasonal behaviour.”[44]The vegetation index .. “turned out to be a prime measure of the influence of plants in the Earth system.”[45] Only one team of scientists have created a computer model to use this information to determine what is happening to the Earth’s Vegetation. Piers Sellars and his colleagues in Maryland designed a computer model of the climate to interpret the satellite’s data. By 1986 they were feeding the model with vast quantities of information and helping to evaluate a huge segment of the Earth’s Carbon spiral, “Their Simple Biosphere Model takes in conventional weather data and computes changes in leaf temperatures, the rain, and dew wetting the leaves, and the wetness of various layers of soil.”[46] It might have been thought that it should be the highest priority for the ipcc, and the other major climate modellers, to incorporate this simple biosphere model and the vast quantities of information it contains.
Whilst the scientific establishment’s closed shop could have been condoned when the dangers posed by climate change were still in serious dispute, this is no longer the case. It is frightening that climatologists’ self-imposed “intellectual apartheid” has caused scientific misjudgements which have not only ignored the role of the biosphere on the Earth’s climate, but have overlooked the vital priority of Reforestation in combatting climate change, and considerably underestimated the threat posed by global warming.
It seems the ipcc scientists have not so much initiated a full-blown scientific revolution as allowed their own petty rivalries to override a comprehensive analysis of the ecological calamities looming on the horizon. What is certain, however, is that politically they have utterly failed to expose, and then challenge, the frightening ecocidal behaviour of the over-industrialized nations.
In a number of ways the ipcc scientists did take a number of risks in their first report. They could easily have become an object of derision for basing their extreme recommendations for reductions in atmospheric Carbon on such inadequate knowledge of the Earth’s ecological processes. However, by going out of the way to indicate the inadequacies of the evidence, and by admitting the areas of uncertainty, the ipcc not merely followed correct scientific procedures but put pressure on politicians to fund the necessary research for a comprehensive understanding of global warming.
iii) The IPCC’s 1992 Rio Update.
In May 1992 the ipcc scientific working group published an updated scientific report in time for the rio Earth summit. This included new scientific evidence about the greenhouse effect which had emerged in the intervening period. Whilst this led to minor modifications in the understanding of the greenhouse effect it did not require the ipcc scientists to change their views about the threat posed by global warming, and they reiterated their earlier recommendation, “Findings of scientific research since 1990 .. do not justify alteration of the major conclusions of the first IPCC scientific assessment.”[47]
I: The Failure to Incorporate Phyotomass.
In the second edition, the ipcc acknowledged its failure to take Phytomass into account, “Since IPCC (1990) particular attention has focussed on understanding the processes controlling the release and uptake of CO2 from both the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans, and on the quantification of the fluxes. The terrestrial biospheric processes which are suggested as contributing to the (Carbon) sinks are sequestration due to forest regeneration, and fertilization arising from the effects of both CO2 and nitrogen (N) but none of these can be adequately quantified.”[48]
The ipcc has set up a new research programme to develop a common methodology to assist each country around the world in drawing up national ecological inventories. The national inventories of net emissions of greenhouse gases will measure not only Carbon sources but sinks, “In order to support national and international responses to climate change, it is necessary to estimate emissions and sinks at the national level in an agreed and consistent way. The IPCC has established a work programme to:
i) develop an approved detailed methodology for calculating national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks
ii) assist all participating countries to implement this methodology and provide results by the end of 1993.
An IPCC workshop on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, held in Geneva from 5 to 6 December 1991, proposed guidance on needed improvements in the draft methodology and priorities for the work programme.”[49]
II: The Failure to Incorporate Biological Feedbacks.
“Biological feedbacks have not yet been taken into account in simulations of climate change.”[50]
III: The New Evidence Concerning Global Warming.
Firstly, as many commentators had suspected, it was confirmed that ozone depletion was counteracting the effects of global warming, “Depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere in the middle and high latitudes results in a decrease in radiative forcing which is believed to be comparable in magnitude to the radiative forcing contribution of CFCs (globally averaged) over the last decade or so.”[51]
The role of aerosols was elaborated, “In most cases aerosols tend to cool climate. In general, they have a much shorter lifetime than greenhouse gases so their concentrations respond much more quickly to changes in emissions.”[52]This led to a modification of the ipcc’s conclusions, “If sulphur emissions continue to increase, this warming rate is likely to be reduced, significantly in the northern hemisphere, by an amount dependent on the future magnitude and regional distribution of the emissions.”[53]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)