Random Views

Prof Charles Basalirwa of Makerere Universities department of Geography however says, the current flurry of organisations that have sprung up to try and address the dangers of climate change are causing more confusion than helping the situation.

Basalirwa who spoke at media meeting on Climate Change at the Hotel Africana in Kampala accused media organisations and media colleges of jumping onto the bandwagon without first of all understanding the delicate issues on the subject.

"Let the media first of all understand what climate change is, then try to apply it to the current situation and interrogate the stories before putting them into the public arena," said Prof Basalirwa who is also the focal point of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC.

The Professor has nailed it. The issue of thousands of private organisations sprouting up which seem to be cashing on the opportunity of increasing concern about the changing climate needs a to be highlighted. Climate change must not become a business tool for these organizations. Common people who are concerned about climate change, the deteriorating environment and their carbon footprints could possibly be duped by these organizations.

We have seen in the recent past that the scientists have not been as open about the climate change research, for which they had to pay dearly with several grave accusations from the deniers.

Therefore the media must take up a more responsible role than they have in the past. We have had unfortunate incidents such as the infamous climate change article by Telegraph's Christopher Booker. Fortunately, the climate scientists came forward and were cleared by various investigation teams.

The scientists and media should work together in deciphering the riddle that the climate change science is so that the common people could understand the real science and take informed decisions about how they can play a part in reducing their carbon footprint and use the natural resources in a sustainable manner.

BP, the very company responsible for the oil spill that is already the worst in U.S. history, has purchased several phrases on search engines such as Google and Yahoo so that the first result that shows up directs information seekers to the company’s official website.

A simple Google search of “oil spill” turns up several thousand news results, but the first link, highlighted at the very top of the page, is from BP. “Learn more about how BP is helping,” the link’s tagline reads. [...]

“We have bought search terms on search engines like Google to make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf and make it easier for people to find key links to information on filing claims, reporting oil on the beach and signing up to volunteer,” BP spokesman Toby Odone told ABC News.

BP should concentrate on stopping the gushing oil, stopping the oil from doing further damage to sensitive areas and eco-restore the damaged areas. PR will do no good except kicking up the company's share prices few percentage points. Cleaning up, compensation and restoration of affected areas would take a whole lot of effort, and that should be priority and focus of BP.

Climate can be expected to have warmed over 150 years as we exit the "little ice age" which started about 1400. The climate is still not as warm as it was in the "medieval high" nor when the Romans were in Britain.

Likewise CO2 level has risen in the last 150 years. There is good science to suggest that CO2 leads to warming; there is also good science to suggest that warming increases CO2. We simply do not know which is the independent variable - which leads the other.

In absolute terms, the earth is in an "ice-house" condition comparable to the Carboniferous era. Through 98% of the earth's existence there has been no ice at either pole. CO2 levels are low on a long term scale - they have been 8 or 10 times higher. In the Eocene, mean global temperature was 14C higher than at present.

We need to distinguish between two elements; (!) the need to clean up our act as occupants of the planet, which is feasible (2) an attempt to control the way the planet works, which almost certainly is not. When India stops pushing into Asia and the Himalayas stop rising, things will change.

Artificial reduction of CO2 by carbon sequestration will place a lower limit on plant growth ie crops may yield less. It will also increase atmospheric oxygen level, the effect of which is unknown and has not even been brought into consideration.

We need to be aware that some aspects of human behaviour are damaging in the human time-span, eg the accumulation of plastic debris in the oceans. But there is no panic - just calm, deliberate, well thought out action is all that is needed. In any case we can hardly return to a hunter-gatherer existence - there are too many people.

Ultimately this seems to be at the root of the problem, such as it is; not that individual footprints are too heavy, but that there are just too many footprints at the moment. But be aware that the earth is quite capable of dealing with that. Extinctions are normal in the geological record.

There are several issues that the climate scientists need to work on and till then our understanding of the earth's climate and its dynamics would remain limited. But some of the problems that we are aware of are: increasing population, overexploitation of natural resources, unsustainable use of natural resources and emission of harmful substances.

These problems need immediate attention. We cannot sit back and plan for decades before starting solving these problems. Efficient and sustainable use of natural resources is extremely important since it is directly related to the development of the mankind. Efficient use of energy resources is also extremely important so that our future generations also have equal and fair opportunities to excel.

We have been witnessing abrupt weather events for the past decade or so. Such massive changes in weather patterns over such a short span of time are alarming and it is hard to believe that they are natural. And so is the fact that human activities since the Industrial Revolution have had no impact on the environment and the climate.

As we continue to learn and understand the complexities of climate science we must start taking steps to ensure that our actions do not cause any harm to the environment and, eventually, us.

Efficient use of resources, moving towards renewable energy and reducing the outputs of harmful substances is in our own interest and no scientific evidence and theory is needed to prove that.

Like cutting itself off at the knees to save on shoe leather, the Republican-held legislature is considering three pieces of very short sighted legislation that cut off the few tax breaks that wind investment had.

• Senate Bill 123 would remove all incentives for large capital improvement projects.
• Senate Bill 195 would eliminate any refunds on projects that cost more than $40 million.
• House Bill 1060 heard yesterday would cut tax refunds for large commercial projects.

Like all new power stations, wind projects are “large capital improvement projects”, “cost more than $40 million” and are “large commercial projects”. The shortsighted laws curtail wind power.

“When you’re talking investments in wind, you’re talking about heavy, capital-intensive projects. A cheap project for us is $300 million.” says Steve Wegman executive director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association.”We have a huge problem coming down the pike, and we need consistent public policy.”

Last year we saw several countries announcing billions dollar stimulus packages specifically for the renewable energy sector. China, Japan and South Korea all announced packages close to $400-500 billion but there was no such announcement from the US. These countries recognized that economic slowdown as an opportunity to lay the foundation for energy security and economic prosperity through renewable energy infrastructure.

Foreign scholars coming to my university emphasize on the need for the US to revamp its power grid in order to tap full potential of renewable sources, but I believe that after the initial talks of spending billions on infrastructure projects, like building a smart grid no concentre investments of actions have been taken.

Lately, the politicians have been announcing policies which completely isolate the US from rest of the world in terms of promoting renewable energy. Be it cap and trade, regulating carbon emissions or supporting renewable energy projects. If this continues, US might lose its strategic, economic and technological edge very soon.

The teaching of climate change is under attack in some U.S. public schools. This week, South Dakota's legislature passed a resolution calling  for the "balanced teaching of global warming."

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life," says the resolution, which passed with mostly GOP votes.  It also says global warming is "a scientific theory rather than a proven fact" and a variety of "astrological" and other "dynamics" affect weather.

In other states, critics of teaching evolution are gaining ground by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both subjects should be taught in public schools, according to a story today in the New York Times.

It is important that young people are made aware of the changes occurring today so that they can take informed decisions tomorrow. But even the scientists have not been able to ascertain whether our climate is changing what should we teach the students at school. That's the debate in the US these days. Ever since the pandora's box of climategates opened the politicians and skeptics have been attacking the scientific basis of the climate studies. Some are comparing its to the contentious issue of evolution being taught in US schools

So what should we teach our children in schools? The answer is simple. Present the facts, and only the facts. Since not even the scientists have not been able to reach to definite conclusion it is better to tell the students only what has been scientifically established.

But politically motivated and scientifically baseless claims that carbon dioxide brings no harm to the environment are extremely unfortunate and would only breed partisan division in the young minds rather than scientific aptitude.

If you don't know for such about climate change then just leave it, don't put much emphasis on it. Teach them the importance and need of sustainable development, renewable energy, resource conservation, waste management.

One doesn't need to burden the young shoulders just for the sake of building an army of skeptics or believers. Teach them what you are sure of, the most basic stuff upon which a substantial majority agrees and let them search and pursue the knowledge and contribute to our endeavor to reach to the right conclusion.

This comparison makes some in the United States, and especially in Washington, nervous. Thomas Friedman has used the bully pulpit of his influential New York Times column to warn that the United States is engaged in a global green-tech competition with China, whose potential dominance represents a “new Sputnik.” (“How do you say ‘clean your clock’ in Chinese?” he wrote.) This notion, conjuring residual memories of the days in which U.S. rivalry with Soviet Union was crystallized in the space race — when the word “Sputnik,” the name of the Soviet space program, inspired quivers of anxiety about America’s political and economic prowess and its existential place in the world — has today struck a resonant chord in Washington, drawing upon existing fears and mistrust of China.

Be it manufacturing or technology the Chinese, or for that matter the Indians, are stealing the show from Americans and the rest of the world. Chinese and Indian companies supply wind turbines to the US at very cheaper rates. That is bound to impact the local manufacturing units.

China has seen tremendous growth in terms of technical advancement over the last few decades. Their solar PV industry has grown tremendously in terms of size and technology.

There is more potential for renewable energy in China as compared to the US which will take months if not years to approve a bill that supports renewable as the energy source of tomorrow. By that time China would have overtaken almost every country. And that process has already began.

If there is no market the advancements in the research and technology wouldn't be their and China is today the world's largest renewable energy market. Industrialists in India and China are today working to improve the efficiencies and reduce the costs fo renewable energy systems. Many of these companies have either bought European and American companies to get the technical know-how or have sent their professionals to learn about these technologies from European countries. These professionals come back and help their companies produce similar energy systems at lower cost and better efficiencies. And these companies sell these systems to the developed countries.

We have seen Indian and Chinese firms buying out renewable energy firms in the EU and US. It is because they are agressive. They are in a better position to meet the demands from the developed countries because they produce the energy systems at lower costs despite the fact that their governments are yet to announce any comprehensive incentives for the industry.

It seems to me that those skipped steps (I picked on the Times, but they’re all pretty much the same, most of the time), even in what is admittedly a budget story and not a climate story, garble the messaging on climate. The confused and often uncaring public won’t be swayed by repetition of “cap-and-trade.” It needs to be placed in context. Only when the average reader starts to see the connection between a confusing bill being passed around Congress and, say, the Florida Keys being underwater, will public opinion truly start to sway in the right direction.

Carbon tax would be much more simpler and effective way of capping carbon emissions but the name 'carbon tax' is certainly not helpful. Cap-and-Trade has become a business rather than a tool to cap emissions.

I attended a presentation by the carbon trading division head at JP Morgan last week. when a fellow student asked him about the effectiveness of carbon trading with respect to environmental benefits, sadly he was unable to provide a satisfactory answer.

Whatever be the scheme to reduce carbon emissions it must be simple, should effectively reduce emissions, transparent only then the general public can understand its importance. Emission reduction is not only important for mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change but also improve the air quality.

Public support for reducing carbon emissions and expanding renewable energy infrastructure is essential and people would not support anything that is not simple and transparent. Therefore, we need to develop a simpler method of capping carbon emissions and stop it from becoming a business-centered thing.