Interview with D. Raghunandan
Interviewed by Prabir Purkayastha

Newclick talked to D Raghunandan, former President, All India Peoples Science Network on climate change. Climate change has been causing extreme weather across the globe. Cyclones in Texas, unprecedented rains in Houston, Mumbai rains, all the weather disasters are caused by climate change. With Trump cutting funds for scientific research and calling climate change a “chinese conspiracy”, US is likely to suffer more. The hopes however lie with 430 cities, in 25 states in US, who have pledged to meet the climate targets of Paris.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post US is going to suffer due to climate change appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change was signed on December 12^th 2015, as a historic result of COP21, which for the first time after 20 years of UN negotiations, provided the world with a legally binding and universal agreement on climate which intends to keep global warming below 2℃, with leaders committing their country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the most drastic effects of change. Significant work is already being done by several countries to address climate change.

Scientists and other experts are convinced that the implementation of this agreement is critical if the planet is to have any chance of tackling the catastrophic climate change, which is having disastrous effects in so many parts of the globe.

The 23^rd Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be held in Bonn coming November. The tiny Pacific island nation of Fiji will be presiding over COP23. Fiji has been severely impacted upon because of climate change; so COP23 is bound to demand greater action from all countries in the world.

Trump has consistently pooh-poohed this ‘agreement’ referring to the climate change science as a hoax and he is convinced that its “bad for business”. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement was one of the promises he made during his election campaign. In just about one hundred days in office, Trump has reversed course on nearly two dozen environmental rules, regulations and other Obama-era. Citing federal overreach and burdensome regulations, he has prioritized domestic fossil fuel interests and undone measures aimed at protecting the environment and limiting global warming.

During his White House press conference on June 1^st, Trump literally thrashed the Paris Agreement and outlined his reasons for withdrawing from it; his reasons however, were based on very questionable and insufficient data. The main reasons Trump gave are job losses in the US; that there is in fact only a tiny temperature increase; that there will be a negative impact on the US economy; there will be ‘blackouts and brownouts’ (justifying the need and the use of fossil fuels) and the that the US is already paying, “billions and billions and billions of dollars” to keep the Paris Agreement going. And of course that he wants to put “America First” and “make it great again!” These reasons were severely thrashed in editorials and opinion pieces, in mainstream and social media, both in the US and throughout the world and Trump has been criticised for misleading statements, for manipulating facts and even for blatantly lying.
 
In an unprecedented joint response to Trump’s withdrawal, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime minister Paolo Gentiloni of Italy said they regretted the US decision but went on further saying that, “we deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies.” Several other world leaders voiced similar sentiments. Late in May, in their meetings with him, the G7 leaders had urged Tump not to pull US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
 
Pope Francis and US President Donald Trump met for the first time in the Vatican on May 24^th 2017, the Pope gave Trump two significant gifts: a copy of his encyclical on the environment ‘Laudato Si’ and a medallion of ‘peace’ (together with his message for the World Day of Peace 2017). In doing so, Pope Francis emphasised the interconnectedness between ‘environment’ and ‘peace’. In a lead article entitled ‘The Pope’s Gifts to Trump Send Some Clear Messages’, the ‘New York Times’ of May 24^th opined, ‘Francis left no doubt about his message in the gifts he gave to his guest, notably the essay on the importance of the environment, which stands as a rebuke to the climate change scepticism espoused by Mr. Trump. Francis also presented him with a medallion engraved with the image of an olive tree — “a symbol of peace,” he explained. “We can use peace,” Mr. Trump said. Francis replied, “It is with all hope that you may become an olive tree to make peace.” As he bade the Pope farewell, Mr. Trump told him, “I won’t forget what you said.”’

In June 2015, a few months before the Paris Agreement, Pope Francis gifted the world his manga carta on the environment with his Encyclical ‘Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home’. In the opening statements, he makes his intention clear “to address every person living on this planet”. “This sister (mother earth) now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her.  We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life” and further, “the earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production” Laudato Si’ is path-breaking, radical in nature; it makes one uncomfortable and touches every single dimension of our human existence.  The Pope invites all to an ecological conversion, to change directions so that we can truly care for our common home; he challenges all “what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?” Apparently Trump has not yet read what Pope Francis has written about the environment.

In his speech yesterday Trump faulted not only China’s role with regard to climate change but also India’s; India he said was taking millions of dollars in aid but its response to the environment is ‘contingent’. It is true that India has been faring very poorly on environmental issues. The ‘Environmental Performance Index’ (EPI) developed by the Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in its Report of 2016 ranked India a poor 141 out of 180 countries. This is not surprising. Ever since, it came into power three years ago, the NDA Government under Narendra Modi has demonstrated that the environment can be destroyed at the whims and fancies of the powerful and vested interests.
 
 Gautam Adani is regarded by many as Modi’s right hand man. When Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Adani built a coal port and power plant in Mundra which resulted in an unimaginable destruction of the environment that had sustained local fishing and farming businesses for generations. So when the Modi government goes all out of the way to support Adani’s venture in the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, which poses a huge risk to the reefs already vulnerable eco-system, it comes as no surprise to many. Inspite of protests from celebrities in Australia (including two former cricket captains) Adani seems to be having his way with the Carmichael coalmine in the Queensland State. Fishermen of Gujarat, who have suffered greatly because of the Mundra port, recently sent a powerful message to Australia saying that the Adani project is harming them and killing off sea life.
 
In a few days from now, on June 5^th , the world will once again observe Environment Day on the theme ‘Connecting People to Nature’, imploring us to get outdoors and into nature, to appreciate its beauty and its importance, and to take forward the call to protect the Earth that we share. There will certainly be plenty of hoop-la, cosmetic activities like tree-planting and the ‘politically correct speeches’ given! Everybody knows that these certainly do not scratch the surface of what needs to be done to address the serious environmental issues, which plague us. Too many of the powerful are actually playing games with and like Trump, thrashing our environment. Parrikar the CM of Goa wants to fine anybody using plastics (that’s okay) but he will allow his cronies to continue with their nefarious mining activities. A good percentage of the world are too afraid to take on these ‘thrashers of our environment’. Many are content with playing a goody-goody role: grow trees, have manicured lawns; but do not risk disturbing the ‘status quo’ as ‘Greenpeace’ has done, else like them, you will have to face the consequences!
 
More than ever today we are called to protect and care for our common home!
 
* (Fr Cedric Prakash sj is a human rights activist. He is currently based in Lebanon, with the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) in the Middle East, on advocacy and   communications. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com )     
 

The post Thrashing Our Environment, the Donald Trump Way appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Some suggest there will be additional emissions of up to three billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in the air a year. Others point to higher U.S. emissions due to potentially diluted auto fuel efficiency standards and changes to rules to restrict methane leaks from the oil and gas industry.

To be sure, the decision to pull the U.S. out of a global agreement is a dramatic one. But we suggest that this withdrawal is a symbolic action with little substantive impact on climate mitigation.

As such, it is critical not to overreact and lose sight of domestic issues that could significantly jeopardize future climate policies.
 

How to assess the impact?

To assess the impact of Trump’s decision, the questions we need to ask are the following: First, will new policies be enacted after the withdrawal that will significantly alter carbon emissions? Even before today’s announcement, the Trump administration has indicated plans to cut back on regulations, such as the CAFE auto fuel efficiency and methane rules.

Second, will this withdrawal alter the efforts of China, India or the EU in the realm of renewable energy? Or, for that matter, the states of California and Washington and the businesses that have openly argued for the U.S. to honor the Paris Agreement?

We suggest subjecting the Paris withdrawal to the “additionality” principle: that is, identify the additional impact of Paris withdrawal on climate policy over and above the existing policy trajectory. We would argue that based on the Trump administration’s actions since taking office, pulling out of the Paris climate agreement only reinforces existing actions, rather than leads to a radically new path.

Since its inauguration, the Trump administration has acquired a reputation for hostility to environmental issues. There have been severe cuts to the EPA’s budget, the Clean Power Plan has been discontinued, the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines have been given the go-ahead and public lands have been opened up to extractive industries.

In other words, the administration had already adopted anti-climate mitigation policies prior to the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. And so we can expect all actors, be they foreign governments, state governments or businesses, to already have adjusted their expectations about climate change policy compared to the previous administration.

If the Obama administration had withdrawn from Paris, it would have been unexpected and therefore different. But withdrawal by Trump does not provide any new information to other governments and businesses. And so it will not cause them to revise their assessment of how federal government will act on climate change.
 

Will the world look different?

So will this withdrawal derail global efforts toward climate mitigation?

China has already emerged a leader in several renewable energy areas, particularly solar and wind. It now has a commercial imperative to move more aggressively given that a growing percentage of new global electricity generation capacity is based on renewable sources. At the same time, China faces severe domestic air pollution problems due to its reliance on coal for electricity generation. Thus, China has strong incentives, both commercial and environmental, to continue its focus on renewable energy.

A similar logic, to some extent, holds for the EU and India. The bottom line is that U.S. withdrawal will probably not change the uptake of renewable energy in other countries.
 

Red states’ support

Closer to home, might this decision affect domestic efforts toward climate mitigation? Within the U.S., much of environmental policy innovation is taking place at the state and city level. Withdrawal from Paris does not change these dynamics in climate leaders such as California or Washington.

Some Republicans governors, such as Sam Brownback of Kansas and John Kasich of Ohio, have already become strong supporters of wind energy due to economic benefits it brings to their states. Many policymakers recognize that the decline of coal is due to technological factors resulting in cheap natural gas, and not regulations. In fact, in Wyoming, the largest coal-producing state, wind power is coming to the rescue of some coal communities. In fact, this withdrawal may energize some governors and mayors to become even more aggressive in the area of climate change mitigation.

Importantly, many large businesses support climate change mitigation. The recent open letter by leading CEOs is a case in point. One reason for supporting climate policy is that most businesses are now transnational and have incentives to develop policies that are acceptable across the world. They want a predictable and stable policy environment.

In sum, it is important not to overreact to withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Instead, pro-environment groups should focus their attention on domestic policy issues by encouraging governors and businesses to move aggressively on climate mitigation. For instance, they should be prepared to fight if the federal government seeks to revoke California’s ability to set higher auto emissions standards, which could greatly change emission policy dynamics. These are the sort of issues people concerned with climate change need to worry about.
 

Nives Dolsak, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of Washington and Aseem Prakash, Walker Family Professor and Founding Director, Center for Environmental Politics, University of Washington
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Are we overreacting to US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

af b k. Hero of the Poor/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

We should all take note of Sir Andrew Dilnot, Warden of Nuffield College, who said Atkinson will be remembered for his “belief that things could be done to improve the world”. The new generation has its own figurehead in the battle against inequality, of course: the economist and author of Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty. It is no accident that Piketty had worked with Atkinson.

Both would have recognised the observation in this year’s risk report that:

Pervasive corruption, short-termism and unequal distribution of the benefits of growth suggest that the capitalist economic model may not be delivering for people.

It is ironic that the maxim “some are more equal than others” was coined by George Orwell as a critique of socialism. In the UK, we have had David Cameron’s mantra of “we’re all in this together”, followed by Theresa May’s rapid rowback on a pledge to put workers on company boards, all while regional and class inequality continues to rise. Some seem to be in this more than others – or at least, some seem to be taking more out.

Heir to Atkinson? Thomas Piketty. EPA/SEBASTIAN SILVA

Risk management

Along with economic inequality and societal polarisation, intensifying environmental dangers makes up the top three trends identified by the report as shaping global developments over the next ten years.

For the first time in this global survey, all five environmental risks were ranked both high-risk and high-likelihood. Extreme weather events emerged as the single most prominent risk. Crucially, the report – which surveyed 750 experts on 30 global risks – notes that the likelihood of positive action being taken on the environment is undermined by the political fallout from rising inequality – a nice example of how social, economic, and political factors are inevitably intertwined.
The research of such issues therefore requires interdisciplinary work, and action needs to be co-ordinated, significant, and sustained.
 

Artificial intelligence

Of all the risks highlighted, the idea that we are struggling to keep pace with technological change is perhaps the most eye-catching. Of the 12 emerging technologies examined in the report, the experts involved found artificial intelligence and robotics to have the greatest potential benefits, but also the greatest potential negative effects and the greatest need for better governance.

See? AI robots are a happy, smiley thing. Chris Devers/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Excuse me if I sound despairing, but I recall my dad saying this 50 years ago, in the 1960s. The UK had by then not only invented the world’s first electronic programmable computer at Bletchley Park during the Second World War – a fact the British government kept secret for decades after – but also the world’s first intelligent robot at the University of Edinburgh in the early 1960s.

The UK government then commissioned the Lighthill Report which concluded there was no future in artificial intelligence or robotics, and funding was slashed, and the UK’s lead was lost.
 

End of history?

The warnings in the Global Risks Report are welcome. It suggests history did not end in 1989, when socialism was studiously dismantled, along with the Berlin wall, and when the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself. Capitalism may have won, but that may prove fatal. With no more competition as a social system, and no more constraints, we got capitalism unleashed.

Berlin on November 11, 1989. EPA/STR

The orgy of free market privatisation, deregulation, and globalisation led in 2009 to the world’s first recession since the 1930s; and instead of that causing a return to sanity, the frenzy continued unabashed. Ten years on from the 2007 beginnings of the global financial crash, the rich have become even richer.

In the US, between 2009 and 2012, the incomes of the top 1% grew by more than 31%, compared to less than 0.5% for the remaining 99% of the population. Tax avoidance and evasion have continued (despite being exposed by the Panama papers).

So, left to its own devices, the excesses of capitalism are, the report suggests, threatening the very system itself.
 

Where do we go from here?

Time for a mountain retreat? Davos in the snow. EPA/ALESSANDRO DELLA BELLA

One of the lessons being learned from the votes in favour of Brexit in Britain and the rise of Donald Trump in the US is that society has become more polarised geographically as well as in other ways. The UK electorate were told we were “all in this together”, and that the economy was booming. Bank of England Chief Economist Andrew Haldane reported in December that of the 12 UK regions only two were richer than before the 2007-08 financial crisis.

Any guesses? No need to hold you in suspense: it’s London and the South East. And economics commentator Aditya Chakrabortty reports that when interviewing people even in those two regions, people believed growth to be based on rising house prices and debt.

In the US, while Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, she lost the states that felt left behind, for whom Trump promised to “drain the swamp” – pointing to Washington DC and the political elite.

So, to have the effect it desires, the World Economic Forum’s report needs to be debated in working class hubs like Sunderland in the UK and Michigan in the US – not in London and Washington. And where are they planning to discuss it? Why the Swiss ski resort of Davos, of course.

Mind you, the lack of snow in the town this week might concentrate those corporate minds on the implications of climate change at the very least.

Jonathan Michie is Professor of Innovation & Knowledge Exchange, University of Oxford

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post It’s official: inequality, climate change and social polarisation are bad for you appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhokul has faced the loss of her family’s land, and the loss of their income. Now climate change threatens her livelihood even more. Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson/UNU-EHS, Author provided

For almost three years now, as part of my research I have listened to the stories of those who know best what it is like to live on the frontlines of climatic stress and disasters in Bangladesh.

Through the Gibika project, my colleagues and I interviewed people in seven study sites across Bangladesh about the impacts on livelihoods due to the environmental stress they are facing.

Dalbanga South, Bangladesh. Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson/UNU-EHS, Author provided

Listening to those on the frontline

When we embarked on this project, we asked ourselves: how can we make sure that the histories of these people are listened to? It was clear that the answer was not by having us repeating their stories over and over again in academic journals.

Therefore, instead of just publishing our interviews in project reports or journal articles, we worked with our interviews to produce photo film documentaries.

And rather than write an academic article about why the Marrakesh climate talks are important, I thought I would focus on the experiences of one woman who I interviewed for my research, Bhokul, from Dalbanga South in the southern coastal region of Bangladesh.
 

The day my soul ran away

According the Paris agreement, early warning systems may include areas of facilitation, cooperation and action to minimise losses and damages associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events.

For Bhokul, well-functioning early warning systems are crucial not only for her livelihood, but also for her survival. The Bangladesh Cyclone Preparedness Program (CPP) was set up after the devastating 1970 Bhola cyclone through the national government and the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society.

Currently, the cyclone early warning system is a combination of flags, megaphones, sirens and BDRCS volunteers but people sometimes receive the warning too late or not at all. Other times, people get the warning messages but decide not to evacuate to the cyclone shelter for different reasons, such as unwillingness to leave their livelihood assets behind.

Bhokul’s life underwent a major change in the 1960s, when her family lost a large part of the family land to riverbank erosion. She describes how before the riverbank eroded, her family never had to worry about how to put food on the table, but as a result of riverbank erosion, the family became poor.

Their livelihood security depended on what was produced in the fields so with the loss of land this security was lost too. She said:
 

Our family’s financial problems came with the riverbank erosion. If the riverbank erosion wouldn’t have taken place, our fathers and grandfathers would have continued living their lives with enough food and everything else needed, instead our family is facing scarcity.
 

The loss of the riverbank forced the family into debt. Their livelihood became unsustainable, as the family was not making enough money from the rice harvest to pay land taxes.

Debtors later took away the family’s last piece of land:
 

My father couldn’t pay the taxes on our land. There was rain and storms. We couldn’t maintain the crops on our land, our cattle died. We couldn’t pay the taxes for eight years. After that they took our land away and sold it at an auction. Other people bought our land and we became poor.

As riverbank erosion kept eating up the family land and her father could no longer support the family through the yearly rice crop, he had to shift to fishing and Bhokul had to go out and start working.

Riverbank erosion has destroyed the livelihoods of many Bangladeshi people. Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson/UNU-EHS, Author provided

The risk of cyclones

Dalbanga South, where Bhokul and her family have lived for generations, is located in the southern coastal area of Bangladesh. Here, floods and cyclones are common events. The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods and tropical cyclones are projected to increase as the future climate changes.

Cyclone Sidr was disastrous for Bangladesh’s coastal villages. NASA

Cyclone Sidr hit the village hard in 2007 and left a strong scar on Bhokul’s family. Fishing was the family’s main income source at that time, and they owned a fishing boat that they had struggled to pay for after losing their land.

When the cyclone hit, Bhokul’s brother went out and tried to save the boat that was tied up to a tree on the riverbank. His effort was in vain and fatal in the end. The boat was lost, and a couple of days later the brother fell ill and died.

The fact that he was willing to risk his life for the fishing boat shows how important this asset was to Bhokul’s family. It represented their livelihood security and without it, they had nothing. Bhokul describes what happened in the following way:
 

The wind was incredibly strong. The trees started breaking and falling on top of the houses. The children started to scream. After that, the water came flowing into the house. When the water came in, my soul ran away from me. It doesn’t matter if there is a heavy storm and it breaks my house. We can take shelter under a tree if we need to but the water? What can we do? Where are we supposed to go?
 

If global temperature rises are not kept in check, people like Bhokul all over the world will suffer even worse effects from environmental shocks and disasters. This includes loss of livelihood, housing and even loss of life.

As negotiators try to get the best deal for their countries in Marrakesh, human stories like these cannot be forgotten.

Author is Gibika Project Manager, researches livelihood resilience and environmental stress in Bangladesh, United Nations University

This article was first published on The Conversation

The post This Bangladeshi woman can tell you why the latest round of climate talks matter appeared first on SabrangIndia.