Biju Dharmapalan
The recently concluded Conference of Parties (COP28) took a major decisive step to end the fossil-fuel era for the survival of humanity. Interestingly, this landmark decision was taken from the land of the powerful oil-producer group Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Conducting a climate conference in a nation heavily reliant on petroleum may seem like the start of an unfavourable joke, but there are indications that it has the potential to yield substantial advancements in addressing climate issues. Nations struck a historic deal in Dubai to work towards the transition of the global economy away from fossil fuels. For the first time, the accord established in this glamorous city precisely identifies the impact of fossil fuel emissions on rising temperatures and delineates a forthcoming reduction in the use of coal, oil, and gas. In United Nations terms, this marks a historic milestone and represents the most significant progress on climate action since the Paris Agreement 2015. Is this agreement sufficient to preserve the central objective of this COP, which is to limit the rise in temperatures to below 1.5°C over this century?
If we look at how we behave towards nature till now, it most likely won’t be possible. Even today, the common man and our political elite are not serious about environmental issues. Environmental concerns will bring adverse reactions from the public who form the vote bank for leaders. The public is concerned about how they get money to feed their family. They are not concerned about what will happen in a few years. Scientific evidence is not all taken into consideration while dealing with environmental issues. Even after science explains the harmful effects of plastic pollution, we still use it indiscriminately and pollute our environment. Even after traces of microplastics have been found in human breast milk and blood, no effective measures have been taken by our policymakers to control its menace. Humans are the only species that have destroyed the planet through their activities, harming themselves and other members of the biosphere. To date, we have failed to check the production or use of pesticides and harmful food additives, even after solid scientific evidence exists regarding their harmful effects. Even though everyone knows that Ozone depletion is primarily linked to human-made ozone-depleting substances (ODS), such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, it has not reduced the use or sale of refrigerators and air conditioners. In fact, its usage has increased over the years. When it comes to the environment, the consumer mentality of humans gets the upper hand. We think that everything on this planet is for our use, forgetting that millions of other species hold the same rights as us.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a crucial and necessary step in mitigating global warming, but it alone may not be sufficient to prevent it entirely. Global warming is driven by the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human activities. Shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation and other sectors. But even green energy sources like solar have a dark side, as evidence grows about the harmful effects of solar panel waste.
There are technologies like Carbon capture and storage (CCS) designed to mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial processes and power plants, preventing them from being released into the atmosphere and then storing or utilising the captured carbon in a way that prevents it from contributing to global warming. But these technologies are hardly used in our industries.
One of the easy ways by which we can reduce global warming is by protecting our existing forests and engaging in reforestation efforts that can act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we are not all concerned about these. Every year, we can see a reduction in forest cover in the name of developmental activities. Every so-called developmental activity comes at the cost of the environment.
It’s appreciable that countries across the globe are at least showing some concern towards the scientific facts. They realise that if temperature increases above the threshold of 1.5oC, human survival would be in dire straits. Apart from political will, we also need to bring behavioural changes in the attitude of the public. Encouraging sustainable practices, such as promoting public transportation, shifting to green energy sources, and adopting eco-friendly lifestyles, can reduce emissions. Every green technology and green practice comes with a high cost, which is unaffordable to many countries. Since the need is not for a particular country, international agencies like the U.N. have to provide necessary financial support to those in need. Also, the economic concerns of oil-producing countries need to be addressed.
Only time will reveal whether countries will strictly adhere to the decisions made at COP28. But if countries don’t take strict measures, the global temperature will increase beyond the threshold limit, and humanity may vanish. As our father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, mentioned, “There is enough for everybody’s need and not for everybody’s greed”. The present turmoil is due to our disconnect with nature, and it’s our responsibility to reduce the global temperature at any cost, for our survival.
(The author is an adjunct faculty at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
