Caste heat: Editorial on how SC/STs and OBCs face higher levels of work-time heat exposure

 Climate change is warming the planet at an alarming pace but not everyone, research has found out, is feeling the heat equally. A study that combined data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey and weather reports found that people belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes face much higher levels of work-time heat exposure than others. Between 2019 and 2022, in at least 65 districts across India, 75% of SC and ST workers spent 75% of their working hours outdoors. This is because marginalised communities continue to dominate occupations that rely on outdoor physical labour, such as agriculture, construction, mining or municipal work. These, in turn, come with an enhanced risk of exposure to extreme heat and related illnesses, including heat stroke that is life-threatening. Significantly, the ‘thermal injustice’ is not limited to the outdoors: several National Family Health Surveys have shown that marginalised caste groups have lower access to fans, coolers and air conditioners at home. The situation is worse for women. They not only face extreme heat outside but also bear an excess burden of household air pollution on account of cooking with polluting fuels. A 2015 study also found that more women walk to work than men, especially in the mornings, leaving them vulnerable to smog and air pollution. Yet another survey revealed that Dalit and Adivasi communities have fewer adaptation resources to combat the damage from events related to climate change since they continue to be deprived of socio-economic and political rights and face systemic discrimination.

India has a National Action Plan on Climate Change; states have individual climate action policies as well. But the vulnerabilities of caste-oppressed communities seldom form a part of these plans. There is thus a case for policy mediation to be sensitised to the intersections between caste and climate. For instance, data on heat and pollution deaths and ailments could be parsed by caste and gender to monitor the efficacy of policy changes. Affirmative action must also target the chokehold that caste has over labour, the choice of professions, as well as education and employment. Dismantling ancient prejudi­ces will take time. What can begin immediately though are interventions such as making breaks during peak hours of heat mandatory. Regular health check-ups of workers along with simple infrastructural modifications — the construction of shaded resting spots and public water dispensers — can be effective ways of making the respite from heat more democratic.

What is Climatisation of Forests?

 Recently, during the 19th Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF19) in New York, a significant report titled “International Forest Governance: A Critical Review of Trends, Drawbacks, and New Approaches” was released. Authored by the Science-Policy Programme (SciPol) of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), it marks the first global synthesis on international forest governance in 14 years. The report exposes the rising trend of ‘climatisation’ of forests.

What is Climatisation of Forests?

Climatisation of forests refers to the trend where the emphasis has shifted primarily towards their valuation as carbon sinks, overshadowing their crucial ecological and social roles. This shift largely stems from increasing political and financial orientations aimed at carbon sequestration to combat climate issues, frequently sidelining long-term sustainability and socio-ecological justice.

Risks and Impacts

Despite some progress in reducing deforestation, particularly in tropical regions, the report has highlighted the ongoing crises such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and growing socio-economic inequalities. The commodification of forests for carbon captures not only risks perpetuating these inequalities but also potentially diminishes effective forest management practices.

Market-based Versus Non-market Approaches

Professor Constance McDermott, one of the lead authors and head of the Land, Society, and Governance programme at the ECI, highlights significant traction in market-based solutions like forest carbon trading and zero-deforestation supply chains. However, the report indicates that these approaches may exacerbate inequities and lead to unintended negative impacts on sustainable forest management. As an alternative, non-market mechanisms, including state regulation and community-led initiatives, are suggested to offer more just and effective pathways for forest governance.

Policy Recommendations

The report calls on policymakers to revalue forests beyond just carbon sinks, stressing the importance of long-term investments focused on sustainable and equitable outcomes. It recommends fostering policies that correct power imbalances among various stakeholders and ensure protection for the rights and livelihoods of resource-dependent communities.

More About Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration refers to the process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the primary greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. This process aims to reduce the impact of carbon emissions on global warming.

Carbon sequestration can occur naturally in forests, oceans, and soil, which absorb CO2 through biological processes. Additionally, it can be engineered through technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), where CO2 is removed from industrial and energy-related emissions at the source and stored underground in geological formations, preventing its release into the atmosphere.

More About Forest carbon trading

Forest Carbon Trading refers to the economic mechanism aimed at reducing carbon emissions by valuing the carbon stored in forests. It builds on the concept that forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Through this system, companies or nations can offset their emissions by investing in forest conservation projects, effectively trading carbon credits.

Each credit represents a ton of CO2 either absorbed or not emitted. This market-driven approach incentivizes forest protection and sustainable management, thereby contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts and supporting biodiversity conservation and local communities.

More About Zero deforestation supply chains

Zero deforestation supply chains refer to the commitment by companies to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. This involves sourcing raw materials in a manner that does not contribute to the cutting down of forests. Key commodities often targeted include palm oil, soy, beef, and timber, which are linked to significant forest loss globally.

Organizations adopting these policies work to trace and verify the origins of their commodities, enforce sustainable practices among suppliers, and often collaborate with environmental groups to achieve transparency and accountability. The goal is to promote biodiversity conservation and reduce carbon emissions while maintaining supply demands.

How caste comes into play when climate changes

 

Dalit and Adivasi communities have fewer adaptation resources to combat the damage from events related to climate change since they continue to be deprived of socio-economic and political rights and face systemic discrimination.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released the final part of the Sixth Assessment Report. This report is seen as one of the most important assessments which makes it clear that anthropogenic climate change has caused widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere. It’s already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damage to nature and people. The report stresses how vulnerable communities that have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected. Unlike most of the previous reports by the IPCC, the AR6 synthesis report stresses on international and internal inequality and the disproportionate impacts on the most vulnerable communities, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America.

How do we make sense of this report in India where the most climate vulnerable communities are Dalits, Adivasis, backward castes groups, nomadic and pastoral communities, traditional and small-scale fishers and small and marginal farmers, urban poor, women, and sexual minorities, etc?

In most part of India, the term climate change is slowly getting registered though its impact was being felt for more than a decade in India as variability in rain falls, changing monsoon patterns, increasing floods and heat waves, erratic weather conditions and coastal erosion, etc. As the Indian monsoon and rainfall patterns are changing significantly due to climate change, the agriculture sector, where 70 per cent of all farmers from the Scheduled Castes work as agricultural labourers dependent on daily or seasonal wages, gets hit first. As floods, heat waves, sea levels rise and extreme weather events are increasing, experiences from most part of India demonstrate how caste oppressed communities are not only disproportionately affected by them but get discriminated against during rescue, rehabilitation, and recovery from climate onslaughts.

Last year, Assam was flooded and around 197 people lost their lives and 2,35,845.74 hectares of crops were damaged. The sanitation workers (safai karamcharis) from the Banshphor (Scheduled Caste) community of Guwahati city had to work day and night to unclog drains and wash off the sludge in the city. According to the Safai Karmachari Andolan, a movement aimed at eliminating manual scavenging, approximately 98 per cent of all workers employed in this kind of work are Dalits and predominantly women.

Research has demonstrated how in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra, one of the most drought-prone regions in the country, Mahar, Matang, Chambhar, Pardhi, and Koli-Mahadev communities bear the brunt of caste-based oppression, inequalities, and discrimination with recurring droughts in the region for decades.

As part of my research, in 2022, I traveled across South and North 24 Parganas districts in the state of West Bengal which are part of the Indian Sundarbans, one of the most climate vulnerable regions in the country. Most of the women from Munda, Bediya, Bhumij, and Oraon Adivasi communities I met complained about how their health is being impacted by the increasing saltwater content as a result of sea level rise. The women have to stand for several hours in the water to catch fish and collect crabs and mussels — a major part of their livelihood and diet.

Dalit and Adivasi communities have fewer adaptation resources to combat the damage from events related to climate change since they continue to be deprived of socio-economic and political rights and face systemic discrimination.

In the recently concluded United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 27) in Egypt, India spoke eloquently about international climate justice and the loss and damage funds that developed countries have to contribute to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. However, India doesn’t address internal climate justice and inequalities within. How do we even think about loss and damage when our society is based on caste that ensure permanent loss and damage to Dalit communities for centuries? What about the loss and damage of Dalits, Adivasis, backward castes, nomadic and pastoral groups, traditional and small-scale fishers and small and marginal farmers, urban poor, women, and sexual minorities in India? Can the government of India acknowledge that caste oppressed communities have disproportionate losses and damages? Do these communities have any rights over the loss and damage funds? Though India has a National Climate Action Policy adopted in 2008 and all states have state climate action policies by now, caste and the vulnerabilities of the caste-oppressed communities aren’t part of most of these action plans. The action plans need to acknowledge and address caste and climate vulnerability and special protection measures need to be in place during climate event preparedness and during the onslaught of climate events and post that.

Along with class, gender, and race, caste needs to be acknowledged as a category by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. India should recognise caste and climate vulnerabilities of caste-oppressed communities and initiate measures to protect them, and these efforts should be part of the national and state climate action policies.

These special vulnerabilities should also be integrated into disaster and climate risk management plans, governance, climate risk preparedness plans, climate impact relief assistance programmes, and social protection coverage in the context of climate change.

Beyond that, there should be separate climate action plans and implementation funds for caste oppressed communities. Mushrooming climate, energy, and sustainability initiatives across the country, mostly led by upper caste and savarna professionals who are distant from the caste realities, is another challenge for caste to get any importance in these spaces. It’s also crucial that the climate justice movement in India, mostly led by the urban upper caste and savarna youth from major Indian metros, genuinely integrate environmental and caste justice questions into their campaigns. They also need to have honest conversations with the ongoing Dalit, Adivasi, and backward castes movements across the country that have been raising the issues of water, forest, land, environmental rights, and dignity for centuries.

Written by Ajmal Khan

Source: Indian Express, 16/04/23

Need to fix relationship with nature

 The scope of climate change is not limited to Bangladesh only. Almost every country needs to worry, and India should particularly think about it. What Uttarakhand’s Joshimath has recently faced should be indeed alarming.

A study on our neighbouring country, Bangladesh revealed that extreme heat, humidity and other climate changes have impacts on mental health in terms of depression and anxiety. The study showed that the overall prevalence of depression is 16.3 per cent, compared to the global rate of 4.4 per cent. Anxiety rates were also higher in the country compared to the rest of the world, 6 per cent to 3.6 per cent.

The scope of climate change is not limited to Bangladesh only. Almost every country needs to worry, and India should particularly think about it. What Uttarakhand’s Joshimath has recently faced should be indeed alarming. The footprint of climate change can already be seen in every corner of the planet – erratic weather patterns, rising sea levels and melting glaciers due to climate change.

These changes are affecting human health, food production, clean water access, wildlife, and the economy at large. It seems that the climate crisis is threatening to undo the last fifty years of progress in development, particularly infrastructural development. Having caused damage to Mother Nature, we are now getting a dose of our own medicine.

A study shows extreme weather events due to climate change have led to 17 out of 20 people in India being vulnerable to disasters like floods, drought and cyclones. UNICEF’s 2021 report titled ‘The Climate Crisis Is a Child Rights Crisis: Introducing the Children’s Climate Risk Index’?(CCRI), presents the first child-focused global climate risk index. The report ranks India as 26th?out of 163 ranked countries. This implies that children in India are among the most ‘at-risk’ for the impacts of climate change, threatening their health, education, and protection. Air pollution is identified as one of the biggest risks to children.

Recently, India has taken steps towards education on climate change and its impact on health. India will upgrade its medical syllabus in which students will be taught about the harmful effects of climate breakdown on human health. The National Centre for Disease Control, National Medical Commission and other medical education bodies would form a panel to discuss how to add this to the syllabus for all medical courses in India.

This landmark decision was made after a two-day national conference on Heat Waves and their consequences at IIT Bombay. At least now we seem to have taken seriously that the intensity of heat waves would increase and that it is important to reduce their impact on health, ecology and the economy.

Many nations are now researching this threat and acknowledging that as bad as the storms are outside, the storms are inside as well. WHO says areas with weak health infrastructure, mostly in developing countries, will be the least equipped to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.

India is not on the list of countries with good health infrastructure. So, upgrading the medical syllabus needs to work as well as improvement in health infrastructures. This unfolding crisis would not only be tackled by producing more doctors but by building better health facilities. And protecting the natural environment shouldn’t be forgotten.

WHO writes, ‘while no one is safe from these risks, the people whose health is being harmed first and worst by the climate crisis are the people who contribute least to its causes, and who are least able to protect themselves and their families against it – people in low-income and disadvantaged countries and communities.’ But nature is wreaking vengeance on everyone.

This distressing situation cannot be solved at high speed. We cannot stop global warming overnight and cannot establish infrastructure in minutes. We can slow the rate and limit the amount of global warming by reducing human emissions of heat-trapping gases and with proper planning to get health untouched by any climate crisis or environmental destruction. Now it’s time to fix our broken relationship with mother nature.

Surabhi Mishra

Source: The Statesman, 26/02/23

Why it is so difficult to tackle climate change

 Life begins with a single cell, and is a journey from life to death to renewal. Not dust to dust, but soil that nurtures life to soil. Destroy that diversity, and we destroy ourselves as part of that diversity

Sixty years ago, the Club of Rome’s report “Limits to Growth” already projected how human activity was going to change the planet, heating up the climate through carbon emissions that would raise the sea level, change weather and damage food, water and natural resources.

Since most people do not understand how their individual activities change the planet, scientists worked hard to provide more evidence, but economists thought they had a perfect market solution. If carbon markets can be created to price carbon costs and benefits, emitters could pay those who are willing to sequester carbon at the right price. Unfortunately, carbon markets are still nascent in most countries and are so fragmented that their impact is limited. People don’t trade carbon if they don’t understand it.

Dealing with climate change is a complex system change. This is tough because everyone is connected or interdependent in this complex world. This leads to “collective action traps”. Human beings find it difficult to work together because of different values, objectives and circumstances. Each expects the other to act, whereas if all do not cooperate, nothing will change. Like a network of individuals bound to each other, one virus can take the whole network down. This inability to act is called Tragedy of the Commons, because individuals for their selfish action, destroy the commons, or what is considered public good.

When the corporate world adopts ESG (environment, society and governance) standards to improve corporate social responsibility (CSR), it forgets that all three are entangled. Fundamentally, poor human governance is actually the evil that creates environmental destruction and social injustices.

There are essentially three broad categories of governance – state, market, or civil society (communities – the smallest being the family). State institutions are essentially hierarchical, top-down governance, with siloed bureaucracies that often work against each other for their own interests. Profit-driven market organizations end up being highly concentrated with monopolistic or oligopolistic control over their consumers and workers. Civil societies or communities are more flexible, but at the micro or small end often suffer from lack of fair access to funding and incur higher transactions costs than larger multinationals.

United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action Mark Carney identified what he called the Tragedy of Horizon, namely, people cannot cooperate because of different time horizons. Profit-motivated companies are reluctant to cut carbon emissions because they involve additional costs. Corporate quarterly and annual financial reporting cycles mean that CEOs whose bonuses are tied to short-term profits decline long-term investments for the future.

Similarly, few politicians in a democracy will make very tough decisions for the long-term because they all face electoral cycles of not more than 4-5 years. In seeking popularity, they will not act to inflict pain through tougher regulations or higher taxes. The tragedy of horizons almost guarantees that long-term or public interests will be sacrificed for short-term gain.

All these explain why governments and corporations find it hard to change. However, communities (either urban or rural) that face the consequences of climate change, such as those hurt by wild forest fires, rising seas, food shortages, water pollution, etc. are more driven to work together when they identify common threats. The bottom-up approach works better because those who are most directly affected by climate threats have a common fate and therefore are incentivized to work together to meet these challenges. On the other hand, governments and corporations are hierarchical, divided into top-down bureaucracies that have few incentives to work together because each seeks to deliver partial results for their own vested interests.

The tragedy of horizons reveals a fundamental mismatch of different cycles. What goes around must come around – meaning that there are consequences for any action. Agricultural communities work together because planting any crop works in cycles and seasons. You cannot rely on too much chemical fertilizers or pesticides without polluting or poisoning the crops. Grain crops like rice and wheat or vegetables can be planted once or twice a year. Fruit trees and trees cultivated for their wood have cycles that last decades, since the former may take four-five years before they bear fruit and commercial forests may take much longer, requiring planned cutting, planting, and re-planting. Indigenous farmers know that you cannot rely on mono-crops, which kill the soil and that diverse crops, as well as crop rotation would regenerate the soil.

The real barrier in tackling climate change is therefore high population Homo Sapiens, a species that has grown to become a monoculture that is killing biodiversity through overconsumption of natural resources. Indigenous people have always lived with nature. Life is a cycle from dust to dust, but death returns our physical body to the soil, so that micro-bacteria, viruses and fungi replenish the soil from which other plants, worms and life regenerate. Tackling climate warming and biodiversity cannot be two separate tracks, as is being done through COP27 in Egypt and COP15 on biodiversity in Toronto.

The unity of complex systems within complex systems is through cycles linking different parts, just as ocean and air currents circulate like Nina weather effects that impact on rain, thunderstorms and fish and farm growth.

By discovering fossil fuels, which are after all carbonized energy deposits of previously living things, humanity has used these to power its domination over the rest of mankind and other living things, destroying biodiversity wantonly.

When individuals, communities, corporations and states want to deal with climate action, they only have to look in the mirror to see the major culprits. Until we become aware that we, the collective humanity, are the ultimate threat to our own existence, through either nuclear war or wanton waste of what nature provided, we will never stop climate warming.

Life begins with a single cell, and is a journey from life to death to renewal. Not dust to dust, but soil that nurtures life to soil. Destroy that diversity, and we destroy ourselves as part of that diversity.   

Andrew Sheng 

Source: The Statesman, 11/02/23

The clock’s ticking

 Climate change is the defining issue of the century but is clearly on the back-burner

It is not often that the secretary-general of the United Nations, arguably the world’s most visible diplomat and peace-maker, tells it like he sees it. At COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, António Guterres did just that. The planet is fast approaching tipping points in terms of greenhouse emissions and their consequences. Climate change is the defining issue of the century but is clearly on the back-burner.

He was spot on vis-àvis  the projections. The figure of 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is the limit needed for net-zero emissions by the mid-point of the 21st century. There is now little chance of this being achieved. Significant increase in methane has now been added to the specific evidence of the rise in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. These three chemical compounds will combine to push global temperatures up faster.

The proximate reasons for the inaction or slow action are not far to seek. Two years ago, Joseph Biden’s election and the announcement of John Kerry as his envoy for climate change had raised hopes of an American initiative. Despite the pulls and pressures of domestic politics, the financial package and executive action approved by the outgoing Congress is the most far-reaching in history. Yet, there is a major hurdle ahead as climate-change deniers hold centre ground in the House of Representatives with its new Republican majority.

At the global level, the war in Ukraine and the post sanctions crisis in Europe have put fossil fuels and nuclear power back on the agenda even in Germany, a leader in the shift towards renewables. The squeeze on Russian energy has led to higher prices from the oil-exporting countries in the Gulf and Southeast Asia. In the short run at least, energy transitions are on the back-burner, as Guterres hinted.

The larger issue that has been a stumbling block since the UN Convention of 1994 remains so. The gap between the rich world and most of the developing countries is yawning. Per capita comparisons may skew the picture for India, China, Indonesia or Brazil. But that apart, many sub- Saharan countries have very low use of nitrogenous fertiliser, let alone gas and oil. The brave promise of 100-billion-dollar-a-year aid from the developed countries was tiny. Yet, it has not been met even in one calendar year.

Looking back at a somewhat longer time frame, it is evident that global environmental cooperation sought to take wings just when the great powers were losing interest in multilateral fora.

The first ever conference on human environment in 1972 was marred by the Cold War, with only two heads of government, those of Sweden and India, in attendance at Stockholm. The end of the1980s saw new, science-based concerns about the decline of biological diversity and global climate change evoke wide spread concern. All eyes in Rio de Janeiro were on the former president, George Bush,  a veteran diplomat and senior leader. The United States of America did sign the agreement on biodiversity, but has dragged its feet on climate change ever since. Ronal Reagan’s sustained attack on environmental regulation (1980-89) at home was matched by the undermining of the UN system, with funds for global environmental monitoring programmes being a casualty. It is true that in the post-1945 world, the US accounted for 40% of the global gross domestic product but it makes up far less than that figure today. But the average American still uses as much energy in a month as an Indian in a year as per the World Resources Institute.

But history holds out hope. The end of the Cold War was made possible by Reagan and Gorbachev, both eyeing a place in the history books. The long years of work by scientists and peace activists helped create a wider realisation that there would be no winners in a nuclear war. The climate crises may not be as explosive but is no less a challenge to the continuation of civilisation. It is a chimera to believe that the rich world will be spared the human and ecological costs of climate change. Guterres’s counsel is timely. But time may not be at hand.

Mahesh Rangarajan teaches History and Environmental Studies at Ashoka University

A manifesto for social progress

 We are threatened simultaneously by poly-crises from war, climate change, technology, social injustices, and geopolitical rivalries. There is no super prophet available who has the sufficient moral and credible standing to lead us all out of the current wilderness.

We are threatened simultaneously by poly-crises from war, climate change, technology, social injustices, and geopolitical rivalries. There is no super prophet available who has the sufficient moral and credible standing to lead us all out of the current wilderness.

Change is coming so rapidly and bewilderingly from all directions that in a world of specialist experts, each in their own narrow fields, no single person has the breadth and depth of knowledge to explain simply to 8 billion people how to act for social progress.

Young climate activist Greta Thunberg has 2 billion followers, but no concrete plans on how to make change for climate warming. Just saying Net Zero by 2050 is just blah blah blah does not make serious change. In 2018, 300 leading global social scientists (International Panel on Social Progress) worked together to produce a multi-disciplinary three-volume report called “Re-thinking Society for the 21st Century”, considered then the cutting edge thinking on what is social progress and how to achieve it.

Since the report was highly technical, Cambridge University Press brought out a simpler version called A Manifesto for Social Progress: Ideas for a Better Society. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s foreword recalled that 170 years ago, the era of social injustices from industrial capitalism produced a Communist Manifesto that claimed “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” The new Manifesto argues that social progress can be enhanced through reforms in institutions and behavioral changes. The difference between the two Manifestos is that the newer version is based on the latest empirical data and research.

The core idea of a good society starts from the premise that every human being is entitled to full dignity, irrespective of gender, race, religion, education, talent, and productive capacities. Since human activity is changing the planet (the Age of Anthropocene), humans should be in the driving seat of change. Indeed, the mantra of Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) means that improvements in the environment and addressing social change must involve better governance.

Since governance quality determines the final delivery of social progress, politics is all about how to achieve the three pillars of social equity (reduce inequalities between and within nations), freedom (expand and deepen basic liberties, rule of law, and democratic rights for all populations); and environmental sustainability (preserving the ecosystem for future generations). Conventional thinking about governance is often presented as a binary choice between state versus market.

But in practice, there are many variants of mixed economies and political systems, in which state and markets are symbiotic, simultaneously working and fighting with each other. Whatever modes of governance, all must have bottom-up legitimacy and accountability, in which the link between leaders and communities have feedback mechanisms of empowerment, representation, participation, and deliberations that mobilize change-makers for social progress.

The alternative is social regression. Amidst all the polarisation and contention, the book draws common lessons about social change, which can come from revolution or evolution, depending on the degree of imbalances.

First, deep social change often comes from people, social movements and civil society organisations, rarely from top down.

Second, democratisation and empowerment require the participation of and pressure by those stakeholders who are affected by change.

Third, many experiments are needed to explore how to implement and adapt general ideas to local needs and possibilities for change to be accepted. In short, the consensus of 300 social scientists is that there is no single model, no single recipe for transformation. Social change comes from diversity and openness to different paths to change, but it is important to adapt general principles of human dignity and needs to local contexts and possibilities, and to exclude all forms of dogmatic approaches.

The latest mid-term elections in the United States reflect this complex but deep shift after nearly six years of Trumpian politics that deeply divided the nation. Past mid-term elections have always been against the incumbent party, but this time round, the “red wave” shift back to the Republicans winning both the Senate and the House of Representatives did not happen. The Democrats did well to retain narrowly the Senate and lost narrowly to the Republicans in Congress.

A new Republican leader in Ron DeSantis has emerged as an alternative Republican candidate to Donald Trump for the 2024 Presidential elections. The election results signal that American voters prefer a move towards the centre after years of traumatic polarization. In Bali this month, the success in their respective elections by President Biden and President Xi gave both the mandate to begin to calm down rhetoric after months of escalating US-China tensions. Differences will always exist, because progress comes from continuous work on change from individual to community to national and then global levels.

To expect top leaders of state or corporations alone to do the heavy lifting will not work. The social scientists’ manifest has six ideas to change one’s own life and the world. Climate change is a complex system change, and there is no silver bullet or instant change possible. First, one could change through family, especially listening more to the young. Second, change can come from the workplace, as one contributes through jobs. Third, we can effect change through community.

Fourth, we can change the market through our consumption and savings choices. Fifth, we can be a torch bearer to all we meet by caring and sharing. Lastly, each of us should be an active citizen, open and adaptive to change. Change must take time, which means often painful or tortuous transitions that cannot be avoided. Each generation must make their own mistakes or create their own opportunities for betterment. Change or be changed. This is an opportunity to either make lunch or be lunch.

ANDREW SHENG 

Source: The Statesman, 2011/22

What is the Mangrove Alliance for Climate, which India joined at COP27?

 

The Mangrove Alliance for Climate seeks to educate and spread awareness worldwide on the role of mangroves in curbing global warming and its potential as a solution for climate change.

At the 27th Session of Conference of Parties (COP27), this year’s UN climate summit, the Mangrove Alliance for Climate (MAC) was launched with India as a partner on Tuesday (November 8). The move, in line with India’s goal to increase its carbon sink, will see New Delhi collaborating with Sri Lanka, Indonesia and other countries to preserve and restore the mangrove forests in the region.

Attending the event in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on Tuesday, Union Minister for Environment Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav said that India is home to one of the largest remaining areas of mangroves in the world — the Sundarbans — and has years of expertise in restoration of mangrove cover that can be used to aid global measures in this direction.

The MAC

An initiative led by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Indonesia, the Mangrove Alliance for Climate (MAC) includes India, Sri Lanka, Australia, Japan, and Spain. It seeks to educate and spread awareness worldwide on the role of mangroves in curbing global warming and its potential as a solution for climate change.

Mariam bint Mohammed Almheiri, UAE’s Minister of Climate Change and the Environment, while launching the alliance, said that her country intends to plant 3 million mangroves in the next two months, in keeping with UAE’s COP26 pledge of planting 100 million mangroves by 2030.

“Increasing reliance on nature-based solutions is an integral element of the UAE’s climate action on the domestic as well as international level, therefore, we seek to expand our mangrove cover,” she said, as per a report in Dubai-based news channel Al Arabiya. “We are pleased to launch MAC jointly with Indonesia, and believe it will go a long way in driving collective climate action and rehabilitating blue carbon ecosystems,” she added.

However, the intergovernmental alliance works on a voluntary basis which means that there are no real checks and balances to hold members accountable. Instead, the parties will decide their own commitments and deadlines regarding planting and restoring mangroves. The members will also share expertise and support each other in researching, managing and protecting coastal areas.

The significance of mangroves

Mangroves have been the focus of conservationists for years and it is difficult to overstate their importance in the global climate context. Mangrove forests — consisting of trees and shrub that
live in intertidal water in coastal areas — host diverse marine life. They also support a rich food web, with molluscs and algae-filled substrate acting as a breeding ground for small fish, mud crabs and shrimps, thus providing a livelihood to local artisanal fishers.

Equally importantly, they act as effective carbon stores, holding up to four times the amount of carbon as other forested ecosystems. Mangrove forests capture vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and their preservation can both aid in removal of carbon from the atmosphere and prevent the release of the same upon their destruction.

The current state of the mangroves

South Asia houses some of the most extensive areas of mangroves globally, while Indonesia hosts one-fifth of the overall amount. India holds around 3 percent of South Asia’s mangrove population. Besides the Sundarbans in West Bengal, the Andamans region, the Kachchh and Jamnagar areas in Gujarat too have substantial mangrove cover.

However, infrastructure projects — industrial expansion and building of roads and railways, and natural processes — shifting coastlines, coastal erosion and storms, have resulted in a significant decrease in mangrove habitats.

Between 2010 and 2020, around 600 sq km of mangroves were lost of which more than 62% was due to direct human impacts, the Global Mangrove Alliance said in its 2022 report.

ndia at COP

Unlike other world leaders — US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak — Prime Minister Narendra Modi has skipped this edition of the conference, with Union Minister Bhupender Yadav representing India instead. Yadav has said that India’s focus currently is on concessional and climate-specific grants to drive climate finance, and has teamed up with Brazil, South Africa and China (the BASIC bloc) to negotiate agreements.

Demands by various negotiating blocs

As seen in the previous sessions of the climate conference, building consensus among the 190+ countries who are members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a tough task. China, for instance, has ramped up the use of coal amidst energy security risks and rising tensions with Taiwan. Its deteriorating relationship with the US, the second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas behind Beijing, has further complicated possibilities of negotiations. The European Union, which negotiates as a single entity for its 27 members, is at the lower end of the spectrum of gas emitters, but is under pressure to ease its resistance to its staunch position

against the issue of ‘loss and damage’, which calls for rich and developed countries to compensate poorer, developing countries who are disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change. 

G77 and China is the largest intergovernmental organisation of developing countries in the UN. Pakistan, which currently chairs the group and faced devastating floods this year, will lead the group in its demand for a dedicated fund for compensation from wealthy countries, Reuters reported. The Climate Vulnerable Forum, which represents 58 countries that are disproportionately affected by the consequences of climate change such as Bangladesh and Maldives, reportedly demands a dedicated fund in which rich polluting nations help bear the costs of “loss and damage”.

Written by Navmi Krishna

Source: Indian Express, 11/09/22

State of Global Climate Report 2021

 The State of the Global Climate Report 2021 has been released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). According to the report, four key climate change indicators which are sea-level rise, greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean acidification, and ocean heat set new records in 2021. This shows that human activities are causing planetary level changes in the ocean, land, and the atmosphere, with long-lasting and harmful effects on ecosystems and sustainable development.

What does the report say about extreme weather?

Due to extreme weather, the world has witnessed hundreds of billions of dollars worth of economic losses. It has also wreaked a heavy toll on the lives of humans and their well-being and triggered shocks for water and food displacement and security that have accentuated in the year 2022. The report has confirmed that the past seven years are the warmest seven years that have been recorded. In 2021, the average global temperature was around 1.11 (± 0.13) °C above the pre-industrial level.

Which organizations have contributed to this report?

Numerous experts have contributed to this report including:

• National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs)
• Regional Climate Centres
• Global Data and Analysis Centers
• Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW)
• World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)
• Global Cryosphere Watch
• UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC)
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
• International Organization for Migration (IOM)
• UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
• World Food Programme (WFP)

What does this report highlight?

• Greenhouse gas concentrations: In 2020, the concentrations of greenhouse gases reached a new global high as carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration reached 413.2 parts per million (ppm) globally which is 149 percent of the pre-industrial level. The report also shows that they continued to increase in early 2022 and 2021.
• Global Annual Mean Temperature: In 2021, this was around 1.11 ±0.13 °C above the pre-industrial average of the 1850s and the 1900s. This was less warm compared to some recent years due to the cooling La Niña conditions at the beginning and end of the year. On record, the seven warmest years are from 2015 to 2021.
• Ocean Heat: This was a record high. In 2021, the upper 2000m depth of oceans continued to warm up. It is expected to rise in the future, a change that is irreversible. The rates of ocean warming have increased in the past two decades. In 2021, much of the ocean had experienced a minimum of one strong marine heatwave.
• Ocean acidification: 23 percent of the annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2 are absorbed by the oceans. This reacts with seawater which leads to ocean acidification. This is threatening the ecosystem, organisms, tourism, food security, and coastal protection.
• Global Mean Sea Level: In 2021, it reached a new record high after it increased from 2013 to 2021 at an average of 4.5 mm per year. This is more than double what was recorded for the years between 1993 and 2002. This is mainly attributed to the accelerated loss of ice sheets and ice mass. This has impacted millions of coastal dwellers and increased tropical cyclones’ vulnerability.
• Food security: Due to economic shocks, extreme weather events, and the COVID-19 pandemic the food security of the globe worsened.
• Displacement: Due to hydrometeorological hazards, internal displacement has increased.
• Ecosystems: The ecosystems have been affected due to the changing climate. A lot of the world’s ecosystems such as water towers, mountain ecosystems, etc, are degrading at an unmatched rate. The increase in temperature is increasing the risk of irreversible coastal and marine ecosystem loss.

How does the State of the Global Climate Report 2021 complement the IPCC Sixth Assessment report?

The IPCC Sixth Assessment report which has included data up to the year 2019 has been complemented by the State of the Global Climate report 2021. The new report of the WMO is accompanied by a story map and provides practical examples as well as information for policy-makers to check how the indicators of climate change that were outlined in the IPCC reports have played out during the recent years across the globe. It also highlights the implications of extremes that have been felt at the regional and national levels in 2021. This report of the WMO will be used as an official document for COP27, which is scheduled to take place in Egypt later this year.

How to survive and grow in a warming world

 

Purnamita Dasgupta writes: This calls for an ensemble approach that places contextually appropriate emphasis on tackling climate change impacts and development needs in a world with growing challenges

The footprint of the Covid-19 pandemic across the sectors of the economy has instilled a new reckoning for resilience and sustainability on the economic, social and environmental (ESG) front. The necessity of good ESG practices in business, for instance, is being increasingly felt, while there has been widespread recognition of the benefits of cleaner air and water. Encouraging signals on sustainable development are observed across stakeholders including academia, policymakers and the industrial and consumer segments that put scientific research into practice. Climate change has become a top concern for discussion across the scientific committee.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest report on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation last month, which suggests that adaptation to climate impacts in the near to medium term can help communities and ecosystems become resilient against the threats from current and future levels of warming. At the risk of oversimplification, the message seems to be that while a single extreme weather event can erode decades of economic progress for affected communities, the severity of climate impacts can be mediated by adequate preparedness. Ecosystem-based adaptation, for instance, is recommended for taking care of communities and social well-being, while restoring forests, lands and marine ecosystems. The report details the variability in projected climate impacts and the vulnerabilities that can be expected across regions the world over due to differences in the range of warming, geographical location, demographics and the unique biophysical, social and cultural contexts. It is also logical and well-established that the need for climate action on the adaptation front will be a differentiated one, and that cost-effective adaptation depends on a host of enablers on which global partnerships need to deliver. Enablers include international cooperation, inclusive technology, financial flows, knowledge sharing and capacity building, with institutions and innovations to support policy development and on-ground implementation.

The IPCC report presents the latest findings on various aspects of climate science based on an assessment of the available peer-reviewed literature by expert authors on the subject matter. The expansive reports are based on the work of some of the best scientific minds. Expectedly, the reports are designed to be comprehensive and to come up with robust recommendations. In this spirit, it would be fair to mention a few words on the need to highlight the gaps in the literature, acknowledge the uncertainties in climate science and uncover the most effective ways to articulate recommendations that lead to action.

The IPCC has been consistently drawing attention to the lack of adequate science from and on developing countries. These countries have in turn been asking for the inclusion of what is broadly termed as “grey literature” or non-peer-reviewed literature (such as reports and working papers in the public space) in the IPCC process, wherein authors assess available literature to arrive at their recommendations for policymakers. Such “grey” resources are very often supported by respected donor organisations and governments and can be valuable sources of information in contexts where the resources for research and publishing are limited. Sometimes, the priority for national and local governments in developing countries is to allocate available resources and efforts for quicker policy response or urgent implementation. Good science encompasses the formal and the informal, theory and empiricism, the traditional along with the modern. It relies on evolution through acknowledging the gaps and unknowns, the negatives and positives of past knowledge. The understanding of adaptation finance, adaptation costing, and mapping of climate impacts and adaptation needs of communities in geographically remote locations, for instance, could improve with suitable sourcing of information.

Sustainable development, inclusive of climate resilience, calls for an ensemble approach — one that places contextually appropriate emphasis on tackling climate change impacts and development needs in a world with growing challenges. Emerging evidence indicates that developing countries that were well on target towards achieving or even out-performing SDG1 poverty targets may have to work harder to reach their projected pre–Covid levels of achievement. The pathway to be adopted is one of an integrated risk assessment approach, where solutions are interventions that impact the immediate, near and medium-term outcomes for developing economies. Striking the right balance is at any time a choice driven as much by enablers (capabilities, lifestyles and values, financial flows, technical know-how) as by constraints (warming levels, poverty, inequality, lack of health and education).

The pandemic highlighted the need for balance in nature-people relationships, even as it tested the ability of the developing world to be self-reliant in a situation where countries across the world acted to protect their own people and economies. While the SDGs (particularly for poverty alleviation, good health and well-being, jobs) became an anchor for defining recovery in the developing world, it was also evident that a well-prepared society is one that is well equipped to take care of its own. Pursuing the report’s call for climate-resilient development pathways requires follow-up action. Trust and confidence building, that developing countries will see improvements in the enablers for climate action and investments in efforts for overcoming constraints, define the path to success.

Written by Purnamita Dasgupta

The writer is Chair Professor in Environmental Economics, at the Institute of Economic Growth

Source: Indian Express, 1/04/22

Structural inequality and the response to global emergencies

 

Kaushik Das Gupta writes: For long, it has been apparent that a few people corner a lion’s share of the world’s resources, and exercise unfair sway in the way global wealth is used

The declaration of the just-concluded COP26 at Glasgow begins by making a reference to the Covid-19 pandemic. That was, perhaps, inevitable. The pandemic delayed the climate summit by a year and loomed large on the proceedings. High travel costs and quarantine rules reportedly resulted in several developing countries sending smaller delegations. On the eve of the meet, The Guardian relayed the warning of activists that about two-thirds of civil society organisations who usually send representatives to UNFCCC conclaves would keep away from the Glasgow COP, “making it one of the whitest climate conferences”. Health risks to those who attended were also obvious.

Yet, beyond such immediate links, there are other reasons to see the two challenges in a similar light. Covid, like climate change, is a global emergency — the interconnectedness of the world facilitated the proliferation of the virus and its mutants. Like decarbonising the world, rendering effete a virus that has no respect for national boundaries requires international cooperation. The WHO’s message at the pandemic’s outset — “No one is safe till everyone is safe” — expressed this imperative aptly. From a practical, as well as ethical, standpoint, therefore, preventing temperatures from rising catastrophically and dealing with the virus should be guided by the common purpose: Putting human well-being above parochial interests and commercial profits.

Since the early years of the climate change discourse, civil society activism has consistently refashioned the technical issue of cutting down emissions into one of ecological justice. At the core of this principle is the understanding that while the entire world is vulnerable to storms, floods and other extreme weather events, some people are more at peril than others. People in the small island nations face the risk of death, disease and livelihood disruptions because of coastal flooding and sea-level rises. Evidence from the US shows economically-strained communities of Black, Hispanics and indigenous people are more vulnerable to cyclones. As their land turns arid and crops fail, hundreds of millions of people from Central America to Africa to South Asia will be forced out of their homes. Madagascar is currently in the grip of a drought that could trigger the first climate change-induced famine.

Allied to the understanding of disproportionate vulnerabilities is the notion of “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)”. One of the founding principles of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, CBDR acknowledges that though all countries are obliged to address global warming, individual capabilities should guide the extent of each effort. It also recognises that all countries cannot be held similarly culpable for climate change — there is now enough evidence that a small percentage of the world’s population puts a disproportionately high amount of GHGs into the atmosphere.

This is where the global concord on averting a climate catastrophe has gotten fractured. Developed countries have scarcely acknowledged that the roots of climate change lie in their industrial trajectories and high per capita emissions. This denial has led them to renege on pledge after pledge on climate funding and made them stingy with technology transfer to the global south. COP26 disappointed by its failure to frame a pathway to address this long-standing issue. But then that was expected.

With the carbon space shrinking, the principle of climate justice has come under duress and its scope has become constricted. The Paris Pact refers to CBDR but makes no mention of the historical responsibilities of nations. At COP26, there was precious little to allay the fears that decarbonisation could mean denying the poorest the things that people in the developed world take for granted or assuage apprehensions that a transition to a system that produces power intermittently from solar panels or wind turbines, and requires large-scale retrofitting of national grids, would end up jeopardising energy equity in large parts of the world — including in India, which showcased its ambitious renewable energy plans at the meet. According to the IPCC, annual investments of $2.4 trillion would be required till 2035 to fund a global clean energy transition. A post-pandemic global economy might make such investments difficult, especially in the outposts of renewable energy.

Like extreme weather events, the virus takes a toll on livelihoods, and impacts social classes differentially. Amongst the lasting images of the pandemic will be that of the procession of Indian migrant workers to their native villages. Lacking even the most basic social security, these workers continue to bear the scars of one of the most stringent lockdowns even after a large number of them have returned to their workplaces.

Medically, success on the equity front is crucial in the battle against the virus. The sharing of information among research agencies facilitated the development of vaccines at an unprecedented pace. But even before the vaccines had completed their clinical trials, developed countries signed agreements with pharma majors to procure doses of the most promising jabs. It’s an irony that even as we are in the midst of the greatest global inoculation programme, vaccine inequity is a major reason for prolonging the pandemic. Latest estimates suggest that less than 10 per cent of the adult population in at least 70 countries has completed the inoculation regimen.

At the same time, several countries have begun administering booster doses. According to the WHO, six times more booster doses are being administered globally than primary ones — a development described as a “scandal” by the global health agency’s head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Experts have made it clear that the virus will continue to be a threat in a world dotted by pockets of inoculated populations. These warnings do not seem to have struck a chord with the vaccine hoarders.

For long, it has been apparent that very few people corner a lion’s share of the world’s resources, and exercise unfair sway in the way global wealth is used. Structural inequalities in political and economic systems are compromising humankind’s capacity to deal with emergencies such as climate change and Covid, even as science continues to create pathways for human resilience.

The sentence carrying the reference to the pandemic in the Glasgow declaration also talks about “the importance of ensuring a sustainable, resilient and inclusive global recovery”. In an unequal world, such statements are increasingly beginning to sound like homilies.

Written by Kaushik Das Gupta

Source: Indian Express, 16/11/21