Monthly Archives: July 2017
In efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change, the common man too plays a huge role.
What is the major shift in the market produces that we can buy today compared to a decade ago?
When we buy LED bulbs, energy star-marked electrical fittings, packaging that suggests it be recycled or pick up paints with low VOC (volatile organic compounds), we may not bother to think what made them available today. The story behind them is the growing awareness and global action about environment.
In the new millennium, there have been a plethora of research, reports and meetings across the world, both at global and local levels. Even small towns and colleges in India today host discussions on the environmental crisis, with the participants releasing press statements. All these have been made possible, indirectly, by the deluge of information and the annual gathering of world leaders happening since then.
It all started in 1995 at Berlin when the first UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCC) was held, being held annually since then. Popularly named as COP (Conference of Parties, nations who are a party to the protocols), the last one held in 2016 at Marrakesh was the 22nd in line.
These meetings are attended by heads of nations or the seniormost officials dealing with climate change issues to discuss progress in reduction in greenhouse gases by the rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol. This protocol was among the major international resolutions until then, adopted in 1997 by 192 nations as the signatory parties placing common but differentiated responsibilities on each nation to fight global warming – mainly placing obligations on developed nations since they are more responsible than others in causing higher levels of greenhouse gases.
COP 17 held at Durban, South Africa, marked another milestone in binding all nations to limit carbon emissions by 2015 and create a Green Climate Fund of $100 billion per year to distribute to poor nations. Accordingly, each nation committed to specific reductions in emissions, which were ratified by the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 195 UNFCCC members, which sets 2020 as the year to start major contributions towards adaptation, mitigation and financing. Each signatory develops programmes, action plans, funds and executes to control global warming.
COP has become an annual ritual at exotic places, sometimes failing like at The Hague (2000) or often producing no major results like at Nairobi (2006) or Warsaw (2013). We can take pride in the COP New Delhi (2002), though it too was not a big success. In between, some of them like those held at Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010) or Doha (2012) arrive at far reaching conclusions, keeping the hopes alive.
However recently, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that his country is quitting the Paris Agreement, to shock the world which has been struggling to arrive at consensus towards climate action. It reminded one of the days when the then U.S. President George Bush had rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.
We need to realise that leaders and Presidents matter in mitigating climate change, but people like us matter even more.
Interactions among nations for preserving the environment have been going on for quite some time. Concrete action is awaited.
Many of us reading this essay might have stayed past the midnight of December 31, 1999, to sing, dance and welcome the new millennium, waking up to January 1, 2000. We all considered us to be among the lucky few witnesses to the march of civilisation, occurring once in a thousand years.
Now what if we ask, will there be humans to dance on December 31, 2999, and welcome January 1, 3000? It is not a complex question, but a frightening question considering the devastating march of humans on the Earth. May be this rapidly increasing fear is what is catapulting us to greater ideas and actions since 1999.
In the year 2000, 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were set out by the United Nations to be accomplished by 2015, ratified by the largest ever congregation of world leaders in human history.
Though it focused more on societal than environmental issues, it suggested that the humankind could come together, as was later proved by the World Summit of 2005.
A little before it, in 2002, the Earth Summit at Johannesburg placed sustainable development as an overarching concern, further emphasised upon at the Earth Summit of 2012, also called as Rio+20. Here, 192 nation heads, chief executives of private sector companies and innumerable NGOs converged for 10 days to work out the modalities of sustainable development. The major issue that emerged was about reconciling economic and environmental issues, which most often are at loggerheads.
Among the results of these initiatives, an important one is Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) with 169 targets. These extended the MDGs beyond 2015 and expanded the inter-governmental agreements.
With the word ‘sustainability’ appearing 13 times in this list, besides climate change, equitable quality, inclusiveness, consumption, production patterns, energy, inequality among nations, global partnership, economic growth and such others, the SDGs must be the most ambitious set of visions ever envisioned by humankind.
The multiple meetings being held from 1972 onwards have reduced as decades advanced and the UN summits paved the path for global leaders to be on the same platform.
The new millennium also saw scores of research, books and seminars, converting the sceptics into believers of climate change.
Today we do not have frequent global events, but the interactions after 2000 have led to agreements by all to restore ecological balance, mainly during the Conference of Parties (CoP), which started in 1997 and has been held every year without fail. Together with the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reports, our environmental awareness has advanced far and deep.
How many of these goals have been achieved or are they really achievable at all, should not be the debate today, for the very coming together of nations on a single stage, nations that have been warring a few decades ago, itself is a human achievement.
Now the challenge is to convert this achievement into action and let awareness lead to execution of ideas.
We demolish old buildings even when they are in good condition for the sake of bigger and better structures. But is this justified?
What’s the talk of the town in the lighting sector now? It is replacing old bulbs with LED fixtures in existing buildings. Thanks to government schemes, millions of tube lights, CFLs and incandescent bulbs have been replaced, to save electricity, which is a laudable project.
So too, we have been replacing millions of cell phones, laptops, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners and other gadgets to keep pace with technological upgradation. What about buying a new vehicle every five years? Not a bad idea because maintenance costs go up after few years of driving and anyway there are buyers for used cars. Exchange offers are very attractive, and we feel good about the increased speed, storage and comforts.
Contrastingly, if we think of the past, how often the tube light got changed; house landline phone replaced; new wall clock bought; ceiling fan disposed or any such other household item was exchanged, we realise a major shift in our lifestyle – a lifestyle which embraces products in the name of advantages. Do we compare electricity saved with embodied energy to nature and monetary cost to individual to check if the replacement was judicious?
Thoughtless replacement is not ecologically advantageous on all occasions. We rarely bother about where the disposed item goes and whether it gets responsibly recycled without leftover waste.
Even if we care, what about the additional production we are supporting by buying a new product? What about the resources it is consuming, waste it generates, fossil fuel for transportation and marketing energy?
The tragedy is that we are replacing products while they are still functional with many more years of working life left; unlike in the past when the new entered only when the old became dysfunctional and exited.
Majority of us use fairly recent mobile phones today, which could be the third or sixth one since we purchased our first mobile, say a decade ago. It is a financial burden, but we justify it saying we can afford the cost. The old ones could perform, but we justify claiming the need for updating.
Old buildings are still good, but we demolish them seeking a bigger and better building. But can we justify the ecological cost of replacing, a burden not directly on us, but on the Earth? Can the money we have that buys a new phone solve the problem of the disposed old one? With our own body, do we try to extend our working life as we age or simply stop functioning, letting the new and young take over?
Replacing is required, but not unless the utility of the old product is over. Green living does not revolve around switching over to the latest, every time a new product introduction happens. It revolves around utilising what we have fully, until the end of its functional life.