THE world’s worst polluters–the oil, coal, automobiles, chemicals, cement and steel industries–and their climate change-denying supporters must feel elated at many recent developments, including disclosures about flaws in scientific assessments of the severity of climate change.
Their greatest joy must come from the failure of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference at Copenhagen to produce a legally-binding agreement which imposes deep emissions-cut obligations on the industrialised countries.
The outcome was the so-called Copenhagen Accord–an ineffective, non-binding agreement between less than 30 countries among the 193 present. This undermines many gains made in the UNFCCC process, including the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) and the Kyoto Protocol.
The world needs an agreement to peak greenhouse emissions by 2020 and then reduce them sharply to limit global warming to 1.5° to 2° C. But the Accord absolves the major polluters of their climate-related obligations and will probably lead to a 3.5° to 4° C temperature rise and runaway climate change.
Melting Glaciers
Now, errors have been detected in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The FAR draws on research by 4,000 scientists worldwide. All assertions must be supported by rigorously-scrutinised references to papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
However, one of the FAR’s statements, on Himalayan glacier melting, it turns out, is unsupported by robust evidence. It says there’s a ‘very high’ likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “… disappearing by the year 2035 …”. This was drawn from a report by the advocacy group WWF, which based it on a British popular-science magazine New Scientist report of 1999.
This quoted Indian glaciologist SI Hasnain as the source for the year 2035. But he says he told the New Scientist that glaciers are melting rapidly, but didn’t mention the year 2035–which is ‘speculation’. The magazine stands by its story.
Whatever the truth, Prof Hasnain didn’t until now contradict the magazine report. He even cited it in recent presentations. Second, the ‘speculation’ originates in a Russian scientist’s conjecture that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2350. The figure was transposed as 2035. Third, the IPCC didn’t cross-check the source. Finally, the FAR says the Himalayan glaciers occupy an area of 500,000 sq km–16 times higher than the scientifically-accepted figure.
The IPCC has issued a retraction. But the damage is done. These errors are significant, even if they’re the only ones in the 3,000-page FAR. The IPCC must tighten peer-review norms.
Of all the methods used to study glaciers’ behaviour, estimating their mass balance is the most reliable, more so than visual imagery or remote-sensing. But it has been applied to very few Himalayan sites. So, scientists can’t predict the precise death-date of even some of the Himalayas’ 12,000-15,000 glaciers.
Yet, there’s strong evidence that most glaciers are shrinking. A study of 1,317 glaciers documents a 16 per cent area loss since 1962. Important glaciers, including Pindari, Gangotri and Dokriani, are annually retreating by between 5 and 49 metres. Their mass balance has decreased.
In the Himalayas, warming is two to four times higher than in the plains. As glaciers shrink, black rock is exposed. This reflects back only 5 per cent of sunlight, compared to 80 per cent for snow/ice. This accelerates melting.
The Himalayas are the world’s Third Pole and Asia’s Water Tower. They feed seven great river systems, including the Ganga, Indus and Brahmaputra. Himalayan glacier melting will have dire consequences.
Black Carbon
One cause of the melting is the incomplete combustion of diesel, coal and biomass, which generates Black Carbon or soot. It accounts for one-third to one-half of glacier recession, according to an estimate.
In South Asia, cookstoves burning fuelwood, twigs, vegetable residues and cowdung are a major Black Carbon source, and create respiratory problems for women working in unventilated kitchens. This annually kills an estimated 400,000.
Most of our rural households use primitive biomass-based cookstoves because they can’t afford clean fuel like liquefied petroleum gas. They must be helped to shift to efficient cookstoves–by redeploying the existing subsidy on kerosene (Rs 30,000 crore in India) to provide LPG to villages. Simultaneously, kerosene lamps must be displaced by solar home-lighting. In India, this is cheaper than extending the grid to the 1-lakh-plus un-electrified villages (of a 6-lakh total).
Blame Games
However, instead of doing this, Indian policy-makers are playing blame games. Environment Minister, Mr Jairam Ramesh claims that the IPCC’s retraction ‘fully vindicates’ his position.
However, he has not one, but three positions on the issues. One, they aren’t melting at all–it’s all Western propaganda; two, some glaciers are retreating, but some are expanding, so there’s no clear trend; and three, the glaciers aren’t retreating, but they are in ‘poor health’.
Science runs against the first two propositions and doesn’t vindicate the third. ‘Poor health’ is related to glacier recession.
Mr Ramesh has a mixed record, including negotiating the Copenhagen Accord with the US and other leaders of BASIC (Brazil, South Africa and China). BASIC has since decided to reaffirm CBDR and the Kyoto Protocol and demanded deep, binding cuts from the developed North. This means rescinding the Accord. But the US is unlikely to do that.
India blundered in Copenhagen by yielding to the US and its own myopic anxiety to avoid climate-related commitments.
India should see the glacier issue not as a Western conspiracy, but a reality whose worst victims will be India’s own poor. It should quickly take remedial action.
IPCC chairman and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) director, Mr Rajendra Pachauri has been charged by two major British newspapers with abusing the IPCC to get favours for TERI and himself. One paper is sympathetic to climate change-deniers. Britain’s Department for International Development, which makes grants to TERI, wants to investigate this.
Transparency, and the spirit of scientific inquiry, which the IPCC should uphold, demands that Dr Pachauri disclose all the relevant information.
Meanwhile, the Himalayan glaciers badly need healing. We can fail them at our own people’s peril.