|
|
|
|
|
The latest IPCC report assesses the options for mitigating climate change. Earlier reports have showed that global greenhouse gas emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than any of the three previous decades. The Tribune takes stock. |
|
|
on record‘Adapt now, or pay dearly later’ Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), talks to Raj Chengappa , Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune Group of Newspapers
|
|
The latest IPCC report assesses the options for mitigating climate change. Earlier reports have showed that global greenhouse gas emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than any of the three previous decades. The Tribune takes stock.
Atmosphere
Hottest 30 years: Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years. 0.85°C rise:
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data show a warming of 0.85°C, over the period 1880 to 2012. Historical highs: Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century. Extreme weather: Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased.
Ocean
Energy store: Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010. More than 60% of the net energy increase in the climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0-700 m) during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010. 0.11°C per decade: On a global scale, ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11°C per decade from 1971 to 2010. Salinity:
It is very likely that regions of high salinity where evaporation dominates have become more.
Cryosphere (Ice areas)
Shrinking glaciers: Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent. Ice loss: The average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was 226 gigatonne (GT) per year from 1971 to 2009, and 275 GT per year from 1993 to 2009. High speed: The average rate of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet has likely increased from 30 GT per year between 1992 and 2001 to 147 GT between 2002 and 2011.
Sea level
Rapid rise: The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia. Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level (MSL) rose by 0.19 m. Increasing rate: Data shows a transition in the late 19th to early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise. It is likely the rate of global MSL rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century. It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 mm/year between 1901 and 2010; 2.0 mm/year between 1971 and 2010; and 3.2 mm/year between 1993 and 2010. Since the early 1970s, glacier mass loss and ocean thermal expansion from warming together explain about 75% of the observed global MSL rise.
Carbon, other bio-geochemical cycles 40% rise: The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40 per cent since pre-industrial times. The ocean has absorbed about 30 per cent of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. Human activity: The atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O have all increased since 1750. In 2011 the concentrations of these greenhouse gases were 391 ppm, 1803 ppb, and 324 ppb, and exceeded the pre-industrial levels by about 40%, 150%, and 20%, respectively.
How greenhouse gases make the planet a hotter place
The radiative balance between incoming solar shortwave radiation (SWR) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is influenced by global climate ‘drivers’. Natural fluctuations in solar output (solar cycles) can cause changes in the energy balance (through fluctuations in the amount of incoming SWR). Human activity changes the emissions of gases and aerosols, which are involved in atmospheric chemical reactions, resulting in modified ozone (O3) and aerosol amounts. O3 and aerosol particles absorb, scatter and reflect SWR, changing the energy balance. Some aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei modifying the properties of cloud droplets and possibly affecting precipitation. Because cloud interactions with SWR and LWR are large, small changes in the properties of clouds have important implications for the radiative budget. Anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) and large aerosols (>2.5 µm in size) modify the amount of outgoing LWR by absorbing outgoing LWR and re-emitting less energy at a lower temperature. Surface albedo (reflection coefficient) is changed by changes in vegetation or land surface properties, snow or ice cover and ocean colour. These changes are driven by natural seasonal and diurnal changes (e.g., snow cover), as well as human influence (e.g., changes in vegetation types).
Why India and Asia have to worry about the impact
Economic development
Extreme climate
Warming trends
Water scarcity
Food security
Where to plug the gases
Energy generation
Energy end-use sectors
Buildings: In 2010, the building sector accounted for around 32% final energy use and 8.8 GT CO2 emissions, with energy demand projected to approximately double and CO2 emissions to increase by 50-150% by mid-century. Recent advances in technologies and policies provide opportunities to reduce global buildings sector energy use. For new buildings, the adoption of very low energy building codes is important and has progressed substantially. Retrofits form a key part of the mitigation strategy. Industry: In 2010, the industry sector accounted for around 28% of final energy use, and 13 GT CO2 emissions, with emissions projected to increase by 50-150% by 2050 in the baseline scenarios. The energy intensity of the industry sector could be directly reduced by about 25% compared to the current level through wide-scale upgrading, replacement and deployment of best available technologies, particularly in countries where these are not in use and in non-energy intensive industries.
Agriculture, forestry, land use
Human settlements
Acid in the seas
|
|
on record
You can look at it from the following figures: Since the beginning of industrialisation, of all the emissions that have taken place almost half have come in the past 40 years. And the emissions in 2010 were 49 gigatonne (GT) of carbon dioxide (Co2) equivalent. And of these 10 GT have
increased in the past 10 years, between 2000 and 2010 -- that means an increase of 1 gigatonne each year on average. Even though we have a UN convention on climate change and the world has been talking about it for
over two decades now, on the ground we find that enough has not happened. What is the co-relation of these emissions with the rise in temperature. Are we also seeing global warming as a phenomenon, and how much has that been? In the last century increase in temperature was 0.85°C and
average sea level rise has been 19 cm. That is the result of melting of all the bodies of ice, the glaciers, the polar regions, as well as the thermal expansion of the oceans. It is one thing to look at only temperature increase, it’s quite another to look at impacts like sea level rise, increase in extreme events, and these are going to become progressively more serious. What is the threshold you think, or the tipping point, on climate change? Have we crossed that? Let’s say you take a variable like sea level rise, if we do not do anything our projections indicate that by the end of the century you could get sea level rise up to 98 cm, which is close to a metre. Now you can imagine when you reach that level, then clearly there are parts of the world that would be submerged, and in any case well before that they would be threatened by coastal flooding and storm surges. It is really a value judgement on what represents the threshold, but if we do not do something about the
problem then we will reach thresholds beyond which adapting to the impacts of climate change will become very, very challenging. You had mentioned that rise in greenhouse gases has happened despite the policies to check climate changes. What is the reason that these have failed or have not taken off? Is this because of our failure to achieve a global pact? We have had several conferences but not reached an agreement. Those who started the process are still not willing to take responsibility, particularly the US, and the pressure is building on countries like India and China. That is one reason, but you can also take action at the local level. In the US you have several examples of very good practice. California is way ahead of the rest; there are several cities which have very ambitious programmes in cutting
greenhouse gas emissions. So it’s not as though these things cannot be done. Yes, global agreements would be very valuable, but a great deal could be done by national governments, sub-national governments, local bodies and business and industry. But you need a package of policies by which this would happen and a high level of awareness on the part of the people. Do you feel the failure of reaching a pact and getting major countries to keep their commitments is beginning to tell? That is certainly a factor, but despite the lack of a global agreement fortunately there are plenty of good examples in different parts of the world. If only those could be scaled up and replicated then a lot could be done. The best part of it is that most of these are win-win opportunities, which means the solutions are very cost effective, often even at negative cost. What are the new technologies that have emerged over the past two decades that could make a difference in terms of bringing down the greenhouse gases as well as the mitigate the negative impact? Most of the technologies that you can start mitigation with are here. There are
renewable energy technologies which have become far more cost effective that anyone anticipated. Secondly, energy efficiency has enormous opportunities, whether it is buildings or transport sector which is becoming progressively more efficient, even in India. For India to go in the direction of such large scale dependence on private transport is a disaster. There are opportunities for energy efficiency where technologies are available, but if we want technologies to develop in the future then you need a policy package which provides incentives and disincentives that send a market signal for industry to invest in R&D and technology development. It is happening in some parts of the world. Germany, despite the fact that it does not have too much sunshine, has very proactive policies
for using photovoltaic cells. In Japan enormous strides have been made in improving energy efficiency. Behaviour is very important. One of the things we have highlighted in this report is that there have to be lifestyle and behaviour changes as well. The other thing we have highlighted is
a sector involving agriculture, forestry and land use. If we really want to solve this problem then that is the sector which will need to be addressed also. Agriculture has emissions which are quite significant; deforestation is leading to large-scale emissions; and we also need to expand forestry in areas where you have wasteland or land which could be converted to forest. Much has to be done to absorb carbon dioxide and reduce emissions. But agriculture is key to India’s development. What can it do to reduce the emissions from that? The whole question of agriculture practices by which you can minimise emissions is something that we have not looked at. In the national action plan India has a mission on sustainable agriculture. I would like to ask what’s been done on that so far. What is your own opinion about the way India’s gone about the business of reducing its emissions and tackling climate change? It has been half-hearted. It is very well to develop and elaborate a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which I think was a good exercise, but what’s been the result? Has it really been implemented faithfully? There are certain ministries which have done nothing. There has been no movement on the Sustainable Urban Mission. In the case of the Solar Energy Mission I see no reason why we cannot raise our level of ambition because the technology is around and it could be cost effective. We continue to import more and more coal and invest heavily in coal mines in Australia and other parts of the world. If you carry out a proper estimate of economic costs, including the externalities that we are imposing with coal burning, then you would find that in a number of areas solar energy makes sense. We have our “Lighting a Billion Lights” campaign. Solar energy has taken off in villages on a decentralised basis and it is now being promoted by the private sector. What will you expect the new Indian government to do? The first thing the Government of India should do is to create a Ministry of Energy, rather than the fragmentation we have currently of so many different parts of the energy sector under different ministries. This clearly means that you need a very senior minister to head it and a Minister of State in each of the component
departments. There has to be a clear and integrated energy policy. We need to take a look at renewable energy and energy efficiency. Our building sector is terribly inefficient. This has to go down to the local level, where local bodies will have to come up with regulations and incentives and disincentives by which buildings are made energy efficient. We
at TERI have demonstrated that you can do that cost effectively. Every building we construct should be a model of energy efficiency. And we don’t lose money in this, we save money. You also mentioned efficient transport where India could make a difference. Look at the way we deal with public transport, it is not given priority. There is no expertise, no finance. Take the case of the railways — we have one of the best railway systems in the world, but
it is languishing and others in the world are moving on. The share of passengers and freight transport is increasing in the road sector and the railways
are losing its share. It is because we have done nothing to modernise the
railways. There is also the need to decouple the check on emissions from the economy. Given its population it is particularly relevant to a developing country like India. How do you ensure cleaner environment without affecting the economy? What would be the most promising low-carbon technology that the world could adopt? While we have to look at this sector by sector, as far as energy supply is
concerned. In this report we have estimated that if we want to keep global temperature increase to below 2 degree Celsius, then by the middle of the century the world will have to treble or quadruple low or
zero-carbon-energy supply, which means we have to accelerate the development of renewable energy. We have solutions like photovoltaic cells and wind energy that have made a difference. These are certainly breakthroughs that give you a basis for optimism quite apart from solving the
problem. Where does the world go from there? What do we need to do? The world has to firstly realise that the impacts of climate change are going to be serious, not merely in economic terms but also in terms of damage in a variety of ways. Secondly, when we realise that if we want to maintain some stability in the climate of this planet, then we have to mitigate and do it rather early because we do not have the luxury of time. Is 2°C the critical level? If the temperature rises beyond that do you think it will be a tipping point for things to go out of hand? The report also mentioned that if we carry on business as usual there could even be wars as a result. Why this assessment? Well, we haven’t said, but what we have said is that the impact of climate change can
indirectly be a reason for conflict. If people are going to be faced with water stress and reduced yields in agriculture then in some parts of the world that can contribute to conflict. Besides people will also be displaced from areas where they have been living for generations, which really has the potential to cause conflict. In terms of global pact, India has been pushing for equitable and balanced responsibility. Are we close to achieving something on this front? The new government should carry out a reappraisal of our climate policy, both domestically and internationally. We are a country of more than 1.2 billion people and the impacts of climate change are going to be progressively more serious for us. Therefore we have to be part of the solution. I am not saying we have to give up opportunities for growth and development, but we have to decide what would be the most favourable form of development and growth for us. For that reason we also need to change our posture in international negotiations. The new government should bring together a new group of people, including leaders of business and industry, and come up with a new direction. India has to take the lead. It cannot be a laggard. What about getting the US and others to do what they have committed to? Is that a sticking point? While we appreciate that India must do its bit, how can we make the US and others to do their bit? What can the world do to get them to clean up their act? To be honest, I do not see much
reason for pausing in this regard. Given the politics of the US, the only thing that might work is the awareness that the rest of the world is moving ahead and the US is being left behind, and that might put pressure on the public and therefore on the politicians. President Obama gave out much hope on
climate, but nothing actually moved beyond platitudes? The executive branch of the US government is doing a lot, but there is only so much that can be done in the absence of legislation. As I said earlier, even in the US there are shining examples of success. I think the word is spreading and the level of ambition is also growing in several parts of the US. In a state like Iowa 30 per cent of the power generating capacity is from wind machines. California is way ahead of the rest of the country. So you hope individual examples could shape the US to go into action? People will also realise that there is huge advantage in going for clean energy and ensuring energy security. The impacts of climate change are also becoming apparent to the Americans. All of this put together should make a difference. So will encouraging such positive actions lead to promoting larger change? Absolutely, I think the positives are what we need to highlight. If we go along this path, we are going to create a much better world. The people must see the larger context in which things have to be done. IPCC REPORTS
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Warming
Warming
Multiple stresses caused by rapid urbanisation, industrialisation and economic development will be compounded. It is expected to adversely affect the sustainable development capabilities of most Asian developing countries by aggravating pressures on natural resources and the environment. Development of sustainable cities with fewer fossil fuel-driven vehicles and more trees and greenery would have a number of co-benefits.
Extreme climate events will have an increasing impact on human health, security, livelihoods, and poverty. More frequent heat-waves will increase mortality. Increases in heavy rain and temperature will increase the risk of diseases. Increases in floods and droughts will exacerbate rural poverty and resulting increases in food prices and the cost of living.
Increasing temperature extremes have been observed across most of the Asian region over the past century. Increasing numbers of warm days and decreasing cold days have been observed. Precipitation trends including extremes are characterised by strong variability.
This is expected to be a major challenge for most of the region due to increased water demand and lack of good management. Water resources are important in Asia because of the massive population. Population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living could worsen water security. Integrated water management strategies could help adapt to climate change, including water saving technologies, increasing water productivity, and water reuse.
The impacts on food production will vary by region with many experiencing a decline in productivity. Higher temperatures will lead to lower rice yields as a result of shorter growing periods. However, CO2 fertilisation may at least in part offset yield losses in rice and other crops. In Central Asia, some areas could be winners, benefiting from the longer growing season, warmer winters and increase in winter precipitation, while others could be losers because of droughts. In the Indo-Gangetic Plains there could be a decrease of about 50% in the high-yielding wheat area due to heat stress. Sea level rise will inundate low lying areas and affect rice growing regions. There are many potential adaptation strategies being practiced and being proposed but research studies on their effectiveness are still few.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the energy supply sector are projected to almost double or even triple by 2050 compared to 2010 (14.4 GT CO2/year). In the last decade, the main contributors to emission growth were a growing energy demand and an increase of the share of coal in the global fuel mix. Therefore, decarbonising (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cost-effective mitigation strategies. That will require increase in renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear.
Transport: The transport sector accounted for 27% of final energy use, with baseline CO2 emissions projected to approximately double by 2050. Technical and behavioural mitigation measures for all transport modes, plus new infrastructure and urban redevelopment investments, could reduce final energy demand in 2050 by around 40 per cent below the baseline. Projected energy efficiency and vehicle performance improvements range from 30-50% in 2030 relative to 2010. Integrated urban planning, transit-oriented development, more compact urban form that supports cycling and walking, can all lead to modal shifts as can, in the longer term, urban redevelopment and investments in new infrastructure such as high-speed rail systems that reduce short-haul air travel demand. 
This sector accounts for about a quarter of net greenhouse gas emissions mainly from deforestation, agricultural emissions from soil and nutrient management and livestock. Most recent estimates indicate a decline in emissions from this source largely due to decreasing deforestation rates and increased afforestation. The mitigation options in forestry are afforestation, sustainable forest management and reducing deforestation. In agriculture, the options are cropland management, grazing land management, and restoration of organic soils. Bioenergy can play a critical role for mitigation, but there are issues to consider, such as the sustainability of practices and efficiency of bioenergy systems.
As of 2011, more than 52% of the global population lives in urban areas. In 2006, urban areas accounted for 71–76% of energy-related CO2 emissions. By 2050, the urban population is expected to increase to 5.6-7.1 billion, or 64–69% of world population. Effective mitigation strategies involve packages of mutually reinforcing policies, including co-locating high residential with high employment densities, achieving high diversity and integration of land uses, increasing accessibility and investing in public transport and other demand management
measures.
A reef fish swimming in Milne Bay in eastern Papua New Guinea. Fish make risky decisions when exposed to ocean acidification, even becoming attracted to their predators, according to new research. The study of fish in coral reefs off the coast of Papua New Guinea where the waters are naturally acidic showed the animals took risks when exposed to levels of acidification predicted for later this century as the climate changes. “Fish will normally avoid the smell of a predator, that makes perfect sense,” says lead author Professor Philip Munday from Australia's James Cook University. AFP
The current IPCC assessment shows that the levels of greenhouse gases have grown to unprecedented levels, how serious is that rise?
At least in the democracies of the world you would want to see people demand action and ask their leaders to take steps by which we can reduce emissions, but really speaking that has not happened. The significant fact to observe is that to reduce emissions is really a very cost effective exercise. In fact in this last report we have clearly
indicated that the costs of bringing about rapid and adequate
mitigation are very modest. The other thing is that there are huge co-benefits because if you reduce emissions of greenhouse gases you reduce local pollution, you create higher levels of energy security and you can certainly save ecosystems, which otherwise would be damaged as a result of climate change. Species are threatened; there are certain coral reefs and other ecosystems which are also being endangered and damaged; 30 per cent of the Co2 that has been emitted so far has gone into the oceans, and that’s leading to ocean acidification, which has serious implications for marine life. Temperature rise is one indicator but there are so many other things that are happening.
What about human behaviour?
You can do it sector by sector. Take buildings, you can cut down energy consumption in a building if you design it right by about 40 per cent. The transport sector can easily halve its emissions. You also provide
inclusive transport solutions; a poor man really can’t ride a car, you have to give him public transport. These changes are very much in keeping with the objectives of development. Unfortunately, we are following the same model as the developed world has established in the west. We think that’s development. I am sorry, that has to be redefined. The rich can afford everything, and are getting richer. What happens to the hundreds of millions of the poor? You need a redefinition of this. The new government should focus on that. Let us not get carried away by the GDP while we keep messing with our natural resources. Our rivers are polluted and the air is affecting our lungs. The ground water in Punjab is so toxic people there are getting sick on a large scale. 
That is what has been set under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]. This is what was agreed to in Cancún [Mexico] in 2010, and actually the UNFCCC is carrying out a review right now of whether it should be two degrees or less than two degrees, but we have estimated on the basis of this report that two degrees is still feasible, but it’s going to be tough. Therefore, we need to start acting early. Because the more you delay, the more difficult and costlier it would become. 
Well, it is a sticky point, but if we keep waiting for others to act, then time will go by and the cost will get much higher. If India takes the lead in a field like renewable energy technology, which is going to have a growing market, the US will wake up and realise that it is going to be left behind. There are also opportunities in this area, it is not as though it’s only a threat. Also energy costs are a large part of production in several industries. If you improve efficiency, you also improve your competitive situation worldwide.