Adaptation vs Mitigation – the Carbon Debate!
Adaptation vs Mitigation – the Carbon Debate!
A. K. Enamul Haque PhD
with Philip Shaw M.Sc.
The fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP15) of UNFCCC will be held in Copenhagen from 7-9 December 2009. Ahead of this conference the media, the NGOs, the UN organizations, the donor organizations, the Environmentalists are quite upbeat. Their enthusiasm, the festivity and the overall mood of the conference indicate that something has to be resolved at the conference. If you are still not clear about what has to be resolved there, I must say, I am also one of you.
The Kyoto Protocol on carbon emission is due to expire by 2012 and if the world needs to continue with the progress that has been achieved so far (I have doubts about it!) it must be replaced with another protocol or convention so that we, the people, can take effective measures to halt the onset of climate change. The road map was drawn in Bali and the objective is to ensure a new carbon order in the world.
Three weeks ago the Asian Development Bank in Dhaka hosted a meeting to discuss in detail how Bangladesh could “earn” millions of dollars by reducing emission of GHG and then converting them into a “credit” for the industrialized countries. The following week USAID sponsored another meeting where the “policy makers” of Bangladesh were “informed” about the opportunities they were missing by not engaging into “carbon trading”. These were part of the Kyoto protocol deal where developing countries as well as some developed countries could use their natural advantage to “store” carbon or “save” carbon and then trade them against the quota set under the Kyoto protocol.
Both events were quite informative and I was impressed with it and the opportunities, which we have already missed. However, what was not clear to me was that the program was going to be expired in another three years and so it will be very difficult for Bangladesh to engage in a meaningful trade on it. The reasons were also clear to me, we do not have as smart a people as India or China who benefitted from this and it is only natural that a least developed country like us will always fall behind versus countries who are more advanced when these type of protocols are drafted.
My problem is that in the discussion on climate change, Bangladesh’s name appears quite often – not as a big polluter, but as a possible victim of the circumstances. The problem, which is being addressed in Copenhagen, may not reduce the effect on Bangladesh at all but it is supposed to provide the courage to the millions of people who are likely to suffer from what is now a foregone conclusion. The emphasis on climate change discussion should not be around who had done it in the past and who is doing it now rather it should be around what to do if human beings are going to suffer. I understand that when the industrialized world was emitting GHGs, the science was not fully developed to predict its impact and so it was done without any ill motive. At the same time, countries like India and China, who are named as new “big” polluters are actually being accused because of its size and not because of what they are doing. Per capita emission in both of these countries are far lower than others and yet it looks like a cat and mouse game to me when Europe and America are conveniently drawing a line between them to pressurize these countries to “do more”.
At the same time, the industrialized countries have adopted a very strategic plan to lure poor countries to do more for emission reduction (using carbon trade) then reducing it by themselves in their own countries. A simple theory of convenience!
Let me explain the problem that is going to happen in Bangladesh due to climate change. First, the extreme events like cyclone, heavy downpours, and drought will affect the poorest of all because their houses are not protected. How many of them? 40% of the people of Bangladesh (out of 150 million) cannot afford more than two meals a day and we expect them to take the sufferings. Second, farming in Bangladesh, unlike in Canada, is done by the poorest of all, who lack education, training and also capital to adapt and switch crops. For example, while fishing (aquaculture) is eight times more profitable than rice farming on the same plot of land, most of the rice farmers remained engaged in rice. Why? Because they do not have any knowledge about fish farming and they cannot easily acquire it because they cannot read and write. Third, industries (95% of them are small and medium sized) are currently operating within the protection of many flood control embankments. Due to climate change, these flood control structures will become vulnerable and many may collapse. Most of these industries cannot recover from any big threat like embankment failure or waterlogging. Fourthly, salinity rise in the coastal belts of Bangladesh will make water a very scarce commodity. Cost of water will be high and so many poorer families will be compelled to use highly saline water while others are likely to switch to bottled water. You can imagine the vulnerability of the poor people. I have not finished yet. The biggest threat is what is known as sea level rise and I have not discussed it. Even without this, the social consequence of short-term impact of climate change could totally devastate Bangladesh. As such, what should be our priority? Trying to find out how to sell carbon credits? Or to take measures to ensure that millions of people can protect their health, assets and livelihood from the short-term impacts of climate change? I have not seen donor agencies taking priority in these as much as they are taking keen interest to “buying” carbon credits from Bangladesh. Hopefully, everyone would understand my pain.
Global Warming: The Canadian Arctic Versus the Bangladeshi Sundarbans
By Philip Shaw M.Sc.
Where I live in Canada it is very close to the American border. For instance, I think when Enamul came to Canada he could have never imagined traveling to the United States as often as he did. Living and working here means I listen and am bombarded with American media every day.
That’s significant for me because our American friends have been the last to get on the global warming bandwagon. For the longest time, President George Bush didn’t accept the conventional wisdom that the world might be warming. President Obama has changed that paradigm, but the belief that global warming is some liberal, far left conspiracy to make Americans poorer still lives in the United States. I hear it almost everyday on specific media outlets coming out of the United States.
As a Canadian that’s a bit hard to take. Every Canadian grows up learning about the North West passage through the Arctic Archipelago. Specifically, we learned how the Northwest Passage is “ours” and anybody who questioned that was wrong. Despite such prejudice, every Canadian knows there is a problem in the Arctic. The ice is melting, remote Canadian communities in the Arctic are documenting that, and our fabled “north west” passage is getting more and more visitors from foreign countries. In Canada, if you don’t believe in global warming, you just have to look north. Our country is changing and for some Canadians it is apocalyptic.
I find myself typical among westerners. Global warming is an issue, but I have no problem with my fridge fully stocked with food and my three automobiles lined up beside my barn with my four tractors and combine. Meanwhile, my Bangladeshi colleagues, many of who live on two meals a day, do everything by hand and don’t generate a sliver of carbon. So who’s the problem and what should be done about it?
I found Enamul’s explanations about the current global warming debate in Bangladesh to be quite telling. For instance, 40% of 150 million people exist on two meals a day and will have to endure more suffering because of global warming. Of coarse Enamul was talking about this in the context of Bangladesh being able to earn credits in the global greenhouse gas game. It doesn’t make much sense to be engaging in a “war of credits” when we should be looking at alleviating the short-term suffering of the vast majority of poor people who are going to take the brunt of global warming.
I have visited Bangladesh four times. In 2003 I took a trip to the Sundarban mangrove forest, the largest mangrove forest in the world. It spans the southern regions of Bangladesh and parts of India and of course is the home of the Royal Bengal Tiger. It is one of the most delicate ecosystems in the world and is being threatened because of the increased salinity in the water of that region. Plant life is changing and of course the Royal Bengal Tiger is retreating inland and the millions of people who live there are at risk. Seeing that firsthand gave me a real appreciation for how global warming is affecting people’s lives in the Third World.
Compare that with the problems that we are having in the Canadian Arctic and it would seem that we’re talking about two very different concerns regarding global warming. There is an old joke in Canadian farm country that sometimes it’s so cold out there, we could use a little bit of global warming. Make no mistake, despite the evidence of global warming in the Canadian Arctic melting much of the snow and ice, it’s still very cold up there. As Canadians we are concerned because that’s our territory up there and we are concerned because increased international commerce might affect our sovereignty over the region. In our iPod throwaway society I think our concerns here are much more “corporate “then some of my Bangladeshi friends who I met in the Sundarban Forest.
So Enamul asks when musing about Bangladesh, what should be our priority? Trying to find out how to sell carbon credits? Or to take measures to ensure that millions of people can protect their health, assets and livelihood from the short-term impacts of climate change?” Interesting comments for sure. While we debate “carbon credits “at big conferences people’s lives especially in the developing world are being sideswiped and taking short-term practical action might make much more sense than big global agreements nobody is going to keep.
So when the world gets to Copenhagen in December, we’ll see what happens. Already western leaders are lowering expectations. Passing the buck looks to be in the cards. However, Enamul, yes, I do feel your pain. For the people doing the suffering, global warming is real. Finding tangible, practical solutions to help them in the short term needs to be the priority.