If someone had suggested to me six or seven years ago that I would end up working on climate change, I would have taken it with a pinch of salt. If I thought much about the issue at all I would probably have been in the Bjorn Lomborg camp – the lauded and vilified (in equal measure) author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Surely the predictions must be exaggerated a tiny bit by the green lobby groups? Surely there were more pressing priorities to spend money on, meeting basic needs in the here and now? I remember voicing these doubts in front of well-intentioned people brought in to tell us why we should take climate change so seriously.
Admitting to this is a little embarrassing frankly, in view of my current job. There are so many committed people who have worked on the subject for years and really earned their credentials. Am I merely jumping on the climate change bandwagon? It’s a fair question.
The truth is that my intellectual transformation began some years ago. I date it to 2006 when I read the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, led by the then-Chief Economist to the British Government, Sir Nicholas Stern. This book addressed the big questions that had been bugging me, considered the costs, the benefits, the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change, and did so dispassionately. I believe Sir Nick is on record as saying he had no views about climate change before he started work on the Stern Review. That, to me, made it all the more convincing. It changed my world view.
At the time I was working in Indonesia. We held a brown-bag lunch in our office to discuss the Stern Review. That same week I caught The Simpsons movie, which also contributed to my environmental awareness (not really, but it is about the environment, and made me laugh quite a lot). But what made the issue real for me in Indonesia was seeing at first hand some of the work being done under a DFID-funded forestry programme. Deforestation accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but about 80% in Indonesia. What was crystal clear was that no lasting solution would be possible that did not take fully into account the interests of the millions of predominantly poor people who live in or around these forests, and depend on them as sources of income. In other words, tackling climate change is intimately linked with tackling poverty.
Since moving to my current job last year, the closeness of the links between climate change and poverty have been driven home to me. Despite its reputation as an emerging economic power, India is home to over 450 million poor people (19% more than the whole of Africa) and has one of the world’s highest rates of child malnutrition. These are the people who will be – indeed, already are being - most affected by climate change, which will increase poverty, hunger, child mortality and disease, and threaten access to safe drinking water.
At the same time, any plan for reducing growth in greenhouse gas emissions in India, one of the world’s fastest growing economies, would be neither morally defensible nor politically saleable if it did not allow the economy to keep on growing fast enough to lift those 450m plus out of poverty. This in turn will mean expanding access to safe, reliable and affordable energy, which remains a critical unmet need for the majority of India’s poor.
This perspective – the urgent, pressing challenge of safeguarding economic growth and poverty reduction – is central to the Indian government’s approach to any global deal on climate change. It is also central to the British government’s approach - I’m delighted to say, otherwise my job would be a lot more difficult.
Finally, there’s one more critical element of my intellectual journey, which is the overwhelming scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is real and accelerating. Very few serious scientists now dispute this. It’s a body of evidence that is personified for me by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian scientist and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore).
One of the privileges of my current job is getting to interact with Dr Pachauri from time to time. Speaking to DFID staff recently at an event organised by The Energy & Resources Institute, which he heads, Dr Pachauri’s sobering message was that that even the bottom end of the range of IPCC projections for climate change would have serious damaging effects – which are already starting to be felt. Dr Pachauri has considerable faith in the power of scientific evidence to compel political action – I wonder if he will be proven right.
Before I sign off, allow me to apologise for my self-indulgence – as it’s my first blog I hope I’ll be forgiven! In future posts I will aim to share with you some of the lessons we are learning as we grapple with the practical challenges of climate change and development.
This blog features as part of Blog Action Day and the Act on Copenhagen campaign
30 comments
Comment by Andy Roby posted on
Hi Shan,
Good stuff! Well written and informative. I'm looking forward to more.
I'd also like to know if you (or anyone reading this) can recommend some articles on the impact of climate change on national security.
As you well know Indonesia's army has had a considerable hand in deforestation through their business interests (now, largely unofficial and not benefiting the defense budget). Yet the top brass are not yet convinced that their actions may, inadvertently, be threatening Indonesia's national security through rising sea levels, food security, catastrophic weather events, etc...
I am particularly interested in knowing when, at projected rates of sea level rise, Indonesia will start losing islands and therefore, importantly, it's national claim to vast areas of sea on the edges of the archipelago.
Cheers,
Andy
Comment by Siddhartha Mitra posted on
Good comments, Shan. It seems that climate change would have a huge impact on agricultural yields in India (for example, reducing wheat yields by 10-40 percent and having a substantial negative impact on rice yield), and rendering substantial hitherto cultivated area uncultivable Close to 90percent of Indis's farmers are small, marginal or landless -- a majority of these enjoy an income of less than $2 per day and risk falling below the poverty line of $ 1.08 per day. How do we tackle this impending misfortune? Any ideas?
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Siddhartha:
You've identified one of the most important issues in terms of the poverty impact of climate change. Predicting impacts on agricultural yields is complex and subject to considerable uncertainty, but most studies predict that yields will fall. And as you say, it is small/marginal farmers and landless labourers who are most vulnerable.
We are starting to document lessons from DFID-funded programmes on how to enable these groups become more resilient to climatic shocks. I'll say more about this in a future blog, but for now let me highlight some of the interventions that seem to have been effective:
- better management of natural resources to improve soil and water conservation
- greater diversification, both within agriculture and into non-farm activities
- stronger social institutions to improve management of common property resources, increase access to consumption credit etc
- facilitating access to government social safety nets such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
In areas already subject to high climatic variability such as western Orissa, this strategy has significantly improved the incomes of the poor and their ability to withstand shocks. Different strategies will be appropriate for different agro-ecological zones however, and for different households within a given area. In general I think a balanced approach will be needed, focusing both on improving the resilience and productivity of agriculture, and diversifying into less climate-sensitive activities.
There are of course broader issues not addressed by programmes of this nature - for example relating to long term economic development and accelerating growth in manufacturing and services. A full analysis however is beyond the scope of this reply!
regards, Shan
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Andy:
Thanks for your comments. The general issue you raise often seems to be neglected in discussions about the impact of climate change. In the last week alone, on separate occasions I have heard two of India's leading thinkers on climate change highlight related concerns - about the costs to defence budgets due to increased involvement of the army in disaster relief operations, and the fear that climate change will lead in the longer term to serious internal security problems in an increasing number of countries, which may become sources of instability to their neighbours.
In response to your query about research on this topic, follow the link below to a list of articles helpfully supplied by one of my colleagues. None of these focuses specifically on Indonesia, but I hope you'll find them useful.
http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Climate-change-and-security.pdf
All the best,
Shan
Comment by David Sarley posted on
Nicely written Shan, are you going to tweet as well?
Are you also looking at population growth and climate change? While at times controversial The Lancet did a nice piece on this issue on the link between unmet need for contraception, populaiton growth and climate change http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61643-3/fulltext?_eventId=login
The latest Demographic and Health Survey for India http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FRIND3/05Chapter05.pdf
Indicates some 12% of Indian women would like to use contraception but do not have access to the methods they need. That points to a public and private market failure resulting in a lack of access and unwanted pregnancies. That figure is actually lower than in many countries but that is in part due to the large proportion of women (35%) who have never used contraception. Clearly individual choice is paramount and the reasons for that are complex but again it suggests some failure in education and access.
Anyway food for thought.
I hope to catch up with you sometime soon but only as long as you don't mention the footy.
Dave
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Hello Dave:
Good point. Population growth is indeed an important factor in future climate change with the global population forecast to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050, although lifestyles and energy sources are equally important - consider that greenhouse gas emissions per person are ten times higher in the US than in India, and five times higher in Europe.
Population growth will also make it harder to cope with the impacts of climate change - for example on food security and water availability.
The question is what to do about it. The determinants of population growth are hugely complex and, as you've said, population policies have a controversial history and individual choice should be paramount. We should be doing those things - such as educating women, providing access to better family planning etc - that are good for development anyway, and will bring added benefits in terms of climate change.
Last week I met Rainer Sauerborn of Heidelberg and Umea Universities (who is apparently the world's first Professor of Climate Change and Health!) who talked of the need to bring voluntary birth control firmly back into focus.
In India, DFID is supporting the Indian government's plan to improve family planning and reproductive health through the National Rural Health Mission.
I wasn't planning to Tweet - this is my first foray into the blogosphere so one step at a time. Would you recommend it?
Shan
Comment by John Morrison posted on
Shan,
You are responsible for me losing my blog virginity. I have been very reluctant to enter the blogoshpere but can now see how uaseful it can be for professionals to exchange views and ideas.
I thought your piece was really first-class. I won't add any comments since I have little to add to the debate that you and others in the field would find in the least useful. I look forward though to following the debate amongst you and your colleagues.
Look forward to seeing you soon.
Best wishes,
John
Comment by debasish mahapatro posted on
Hey Shan, ve been meaning to write here for a while.
While there is piecemeal research on how gas guzzling cars contribute or how airconditioners worsen GHG emissions, no one seems to contemplate more fundamental issues like what are we using for construction material. Will take up 1 issue per post ur patience permitting.
Portland Cement is a 19th century invention but it is the default binding material today. Reinforced Concrete is actually late 19th century in provenance, but is the sole option for the uninitiated. However they both have godawful carbon footprints.
But it is not as if our forefathers lived in the open air. For that matter the oldest standing houses today (mostly non-concrete and non-synthetic cement) are the ones that probably are least susceptible to collapse. Bear in mind that RCC has a limited life as the steel is bound to corrode at some point of time.
Why this obsession with all things synthetic. Methinks it is because we have been preached to in Goebbels like intensity about the beauty of cement and concrete by a horde of profit seekers. More power to them but while doing that why cant we look at simpler alternatives which are staring us in the eye.
Mud and wood are amongst the simplest construction materials. Why not use more of that. Take wood. Now the theory against that is it would lead to indiscriminate felling of forests. Come on. Smell the coffee!!!!
If wood would be sought after construction material, markets would ensure that we keep replenishing reserves of timber through plantation. It is simple economics which would work rather than inefficient interventionist programmes with limited sums of cash.
Give this a thought!
More on this topic soon.
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Debasish:
An interesting point, and one that I have not come across before. There are several studies that attempt to map out lower carbon pathways for major sectors of the economy, Many of these cover the cement industry which as you point out has a particularly high carbon footprint. However, all those I have seen focus on reducing the carbon intensity of cement production rather than completely substituting other construction materials like those you mention.
I'm afraid I am not qualified to give an expert view on the merits of mud and wood compared with cement, but will forward to colleagues who may be able to give an engineering viewpoint. If you are right, it would be interesting to open a debate on the issue with the construction industry as well as policymakers.
On your last point however, I'm not sure that the "simple economics" is enough to ensure that a high value of timber in the construction industry would result in sustainable logging. Ensuring that, for example, timber traded internationally is genuinely sustainable has not proven straightforward in practice. This suggests that market incentives do exist to cut down trees without replanting.
Thanks for your comment - I look forward to continuing the debate!
regards,
Shan
Comment by debasish posted on
I might have appeared a little unidimensional in my last essay, but let me rearticulate the viewpoint. There are obvious greys in my scenario but they are inevitable. The issue here is economics works even in constrained models.
Like the paper industry. It has carved out a sustainable plantation and logging programme (with govt. regulation of course). Why cant the same be duplicated here?
The way construction costs have zoomed upwards, especially in India, it makes sense to have cheaper alternatives, especially sustainably cheaper ones.
I am not getting into engineering of mud houses as it is beyond my ken too. However the facts are in front of us. The oldest standing houses anywhere around are mud based (take the forts in Delhi for instance). The oldest concrete bridges have lifespans (defined by engineers as 70 years). If that is not a giveaway, what is?
The usual human tendency is to accept what is in front without questioning. However if we dig deeper, we find the simplest solutions are the ones we have tended to move away from!
Pls forgive the armchair philosophy!!!
Now for some more rabble rousing (jeez I seem to be hung up on construction puns! or should it be constructing puns.....!) whatever....
I read about talk of agri practices in Asia being water-intensive and methane generating. A particularly impish friend of mine was touched to the quick when he heard the Westerners run this Asian practice down.
His response.
Toilet paper use consumes about 10 kgs of paper per person per year. That is a total of 10 million tons of paper (if we assume 1 billion toilet paper users) per year.
Paper has a carbon footprint of 6 tons per ton (Someone out there pls check the numbers)
Maan, we got a greenhouse gas gusher out there! 60 million tons of CO2 equivalent and all because of cultural habits which are non-Asian.
This is one which is not going to go down easily. LOL!!!!!
Comment by Mike Morrison posted on
Well, here in the UK we're experiencing the coldest winter weather for decades.
So much for Global Warming eh?
Comment by Dr. Susan Sharma posted on
Global warming also means Extreme weather conditions, I suppose. The worst cold and the hottest summer.
There was a headline in yesterday's newspapers that the Indian Govt is planning to bring out a single paper bill for all service bills like electricity, water, telephone etc etc.. Should be possible once the Unique ID project takes off. I think if that is implemented, it will be a great step to mitigate climate change.
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Mike:
The recent cold weather across Europe is entirely consistent with the scientific evidence that climate change is real. There are basically two reasons for this. Firstly, short-term weather is different from long-term climate. Secondly, the term “global warming” refers to global average temperatures. Within this, global climate models predict large variations between regions and a general increase in extreme weather events – cold as well as extreme heat, excessive rainfall as well as droughts. For this reason “climate change” is a more accurate term than “global warming”.
For more on this I would refer you to the attached article from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics. If Mr Monbiot's tone offends you, then check out the website of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre – one of the world’s leading climate research centres – for a more sober guide to the science of climate change: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/.
By the way, one of the possible long term scenarios for the UK is that freshwater from rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet could shut down the Gulf Stream, with the result that the UK’s climate would become much colder, akin to a Scandinavian climate.
On that note, here’s wishing you a Happy New Year.
Comment by John posted on
A interesting article. Being in the timber trade all my life and family going back to 1853 I am always interested in comment regarding deforestation. Many joinery companies like ourselves are held to blaim by our demand for timber. we purchase all our materials from managed sources and feel strong that illegal loggers should be strongly dealt with. We all know that timber used wisely is a very user friendly material. When purchased from the correct companies that have a replanting program we then have an ever sustainable product that will carry on for a life time.
I feel even more stonly that the authorities who just bring out new regulations on a yearly basis regarding logging just seem to jump onto the band wagon to line there own pockets. We need strong action from all governments to look after our planet. Less talk and more action and dont just blaim the small industries who purchase their materials from properly managed timber and are just fighting to make a living
Comment by safa posted on
Very interesting and surprisingly in depth comment for a blog really, usually it doesnt stretch more than couple of sentences, i am looking forward to reading more, i am still sitting on a fence when it comes to climate change. especially now i am paying extra tax, which makes me more suspicious about the governments attitude.
Comment by Toby posted on
Have to say I'm in the same boat as John - as a timber importer, importig from sustainable sources in Europe, although we are credited by the FSC, I still get the comment 'isn't that bad for the planet'.
Well yes and no. If the timber was from land clearance and not from sustainable forests, then certainly that would be a negative input. But since the land is re-forested, and therefore absorbs further C02, it can be argued that, as long as the timber is used for construction which is built to last (and, hopefully reused again and again) and NOT burned upon demolition, this is a positive input for the atmosphere.
On a side note, theres an awesome article in a recent New Scientist debating the pros and cons of meat eating and global warming. As a committed vegetarian, I was please to note that a major decrease in meat eating WILL help pthe planet...
Comment by Scott posted on
As a environmental supporter i found this blog very interesting and as i think someone else mentioed already i wont add my unuseful views on it but rather keep a close eye on some of your coming articles shan, many thanks
Comment by Chris posted on
Hi Shan
Very informative blog. Looks like the Indian government has set up its own climate change body as it doesn't trust the UN:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html
Comment by Patrick Hathaway posted on
Great blog. The problem as I see it is convincing individuals that they themselves must make the effort, so that as a whole we make a difference. The amount of people that have the attitude 'I won't affect climate change on my own so why bother?' Surely this aspect if half the battle?
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Patrick:
Thanks - you are spot on, changing the behaviour of individuals (and companies) is crucial. I think awareness is increasing, but people's behaviour isn't changing fast enough to tackle the problem in the timescale needed. Probably the only way to bring this about is much more widespread action by governments to change incentives, through measures such as regulation and putting a realistic price on carbon.
All the best.
Comment by Daniel Britton posted on
Very interesting blog, especially with the touch on timber supplies. I am an OU student that has had a small insight into climate change. I can not claim to be an expert however, I am concerned that it appears new woodland is being artificially developed in countries that did not have much in the way of forestation to begin with. The concern is the further interuption to mother nature. Surely there is a reason for a rainforest in Eg. South America and not Uganda. 'We' could be creating sustainable woodland in areas that by pure Nature will kill the Earth.
Therefore, it appears that as much good 'we' believe 'we' are doing could actually be detrimental to the long term plan.
In the short term, i am employed by a long term vehicle hire company that is attempting to go 'green' by changing its fleet to the new Hyundai i30's. Emmisions are so low they are on a £0.00 rate road fund tax. I believe they meet the Euro cat 5 standard.
Can you shed some light on my concern with the forestation please?
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Hi Daniel:
Thanks for your comment. I've consulted a colleague who is a forestry specialist about the issue you raised and his view is as follows.
The selection of appropriate areas for creation of new woodlands in important. Firstly tenurial rights on the degraded and non-forest areas need to be ascertained. Your concern on creating new woodlands is certainly valid in areas where the new woodland is displacing open scrub or grassland vegetation which has distinct natural biodiversity and also supports livelihoods of marginal local communities (like migrants/pastoralists).
Planting new forest in areas previously unforested is not necessarily harmful and can bring environmental benefits including carbon sequestration. But it needs to take account of alternative landuse and the species selected need to be appropriate for the area. Uganda which you mention may not have as much rainforest as Brazil, but has other forest types.
However in areas where the natural landscape has been altered by heavy anthropogenic pressure on forest resources for timber and other needs, there is need to arrest deforestation/degradation through creation of new and sustainable woodlands.
Good to hear about the initiative of your company, and that they are deriving some financial benefit as an added incentive.
Comment by Daniel Britton posted on
Thank you for reply and welcoming me to the blog. As I said previously I am no expert at this, however, the concept of climate change, deforestation etc and so forth is an extremley real issue. With reference to the previous posts 11/12/13, I am currently sitting in my office deciding whether to continue hiring vehicles or to stop hiring with the view of social responsibility. ie limiting our vehicles being involved in incidents and putting pressure on the emergency services. However, after experiencing blizzard snow conditions and biting temperatures, within seconds the temperature has raised and the snow is melting. (needless say i am disappointed as had the snow continued I could have left work early).
How is the drastic weather change possible? Is it possible the long term global climate effects are actually valid within the short term? Is what we are experiencing now, what we should expect in the future?
Thank you for comment re my company. If you have any advise for us regarding supporting the establishment of Forestation or the Voluntary Contraception in India initiative we would be grateful.
Comment by Shantanu Mitra posted on
Daniel:
Apologies for the delay - just back from Christmas holiday. Northern India is also experience colder than usual weather for this time of year - although not quite comparable with Europe and the US. In the current cold spell it's easy to lose sight of the fact that 2010 is on course to be one of the 3 hottest years on record globally. The short answer is both of these facts can be explained by climate change - as explained for example in a recent article in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1.
Climate models predict greater variability and extremes of heat, cold and precipitation, as well as an increase in global average temperatures. Both of these phenomena are already in evidence, and yes we should expect more of it in future.
Re. your company's plans in India, feel free to contact me directly at S-Mitra@dfid.gov.uk and I'd be happy to offer any advice I can.
Comment by Paul James posted on
Hello
Excellent point raised with regards population growth, as it is indeed an important factor in future climate change, especially with the population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050.
The population growth will make it hard for us all, especially to deal with the impacts of climate change and food security.
Thanks
Paul
Comment by Louisa posted on
The issue of population growth and 'food security' is one that must be treated with caution. While the increasing population will certainly continue to stretch resources, the fact is that there is enough for everyone, but the problem is that it is not fairly distributed.
Certain academics and others have agreed with the Malthusian idea that there is a fixed 'carrying capacity' of the earth, but in fact as I said it is all to do with how it is distributed, and how resources are used. Certainly if everybody lived as most of the north of the earth, we would not have enough resources. We need to dramatically change the way we consume energy, grow crops and farm.
For instance one field that might be used for farming livestock to satisfy the hunger for meat that seems to correlate with increasing wealth, could be used much more efficiently for growing grains or other crops. Similarly rapeseed oil crops to satisfy growing use of fuel consumption could also be used to feed the hungry.
Shantanu - I applaud your recognition that tackling climate change is intrinsically linked to tackling poverty, particularly as it is the poor who are (already) going to suffer most from the effects of climate change - something which seems to be not properly understood by many people in the uk who, perhaps due to all the conflicting information on climate change, can't see how it's going to affect them and therefore aren't that bothered about it.
Thanks and keep up the good work, I look forward to reading more of your posts!
Louisa
Comment by Jess A. posted on
The concern is the further interuption to mother nature. Surely there is a reason for a rainforest in Eg. South America and not Uganda. 'We' could be creating sustainable woodland in areas that by pure Nature will kill the Earth.
Therefore, it appears that as much good 'we' believe 'we' are doing could actually be detrimental to the long term plan.
Comment by John Leigh posted on
From the number and length of the comments this post by Shantanu Mitra has generated, shows that the importance and relevance of this subject and the impact it is creating on people around the world lives. The need is obvious to do some thing to minimize the effect of climate change, an overall co-operation by all governments is needed whether this is feasible is very doubtful.
Comment by Emily posted on
I never really considered the link between poverty and pollution - it's a lot to think about. Thanks for the post!
Comment by Tissa posted on
Interesting discussion. One small ray of hope I see is in the development of greater use of fastest growing timber variety - Bamboo. I attended a presentation by a UN expert Lionel Jayanetti and he showed what a veratile material it is. Such materials can both improve housing at a low cost and mop up CO2 from the atmosphere. I learnt another fact from poorer villagers of Bihar in visit toIndia more than a decade ago. That is the use of dried cow dung to cook food and for warming the hearth in the winter. Again a solid good sense - no douubt eficiencies of these processes can be increase many times with science just like the use of bicycle over walking.