Indeed, nuclear weapons and climate change are the gravest risks to society today. It's encouraging that the Peace Foundation is focused on these threats. But their voices must be heard across the planet
New Zealand, which is one of the most peaceful nations in the world, hosts a unique not for profit organisation called the Peace Foundation. Those who work in this foundation are a dedicated team, who engage with people of all ages to inculcate a spirit devoted to peace among not only the citizens of New Zealand, but increasingly by reaching out overseas to persons in other countries as well. In their plans for 2018, this organisation has focused on what they consider as the two greatest threats facing the world today, namely, nuclear weapons and climate change.
As though a reminder was necessary, the developments of the past few days have clearly given us signals that these two are indeed the gravest risks that human society and all forms of life on this planet face today. The floods in Texas as well as in Bangladesh and all of South Asia — which have hardly received adequate media coverage, despite their scale and severity — are a clear reminder of the growing impacts of climate change. At the same time, the nuclear test conducted by North Korea, reportedly detonating a hydrogen bomb, and firing a missile over the northern part of Japan, are grave reminders of how close we may be to nuclear catastrophe.
While scientifically, no single event can be attributed to human-induced climate change, it needs to be kept in mind that the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly projected an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events. One of the observations of the IPCC AR5 stated, “However, it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970”.
In a special report entitled. ‘Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)’, the IPCC had clearly projected, “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy rainfalls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are likely to increase with continued warming induced by enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases in total precipitation.”
Yet, the leadership of a powerful country like the US treats climate change as a hoax, even while quite apart from the IPCC — whose reports are approved through critical scrutiny by all the Governments of the world, including the US — President Trump chooses to ignore his own scientific bodies and academies.
Every major scientific study by the most prestigious bodies in the US finds incontrovertible evidence of the influence of human actions on the earth’s climate. Particularly baffling is the economic myopia inherent in closing one’s eyes to the huge economic loss associated with the impacts of climate change, and refusing to allocate even a small fraction of resources to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
As a result, we are exposing the global community — including the people of the US — to human misery, widespread destruction and huge economic loss. It would actually make sense even in economic terms to invest in higher levels of energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources of energy.
The equity dimensions of the problem have been cleverly subverted in the debate on climate change in recent years in which the media and NGOs in the developed world have had a major hand. Media coverage and analysis on this subject are dominated by pointing to China and, to a lesser extent, India, as countries which will account for the largest share of increase in consumption of energy in the future. The reality is that what we are seeing is the effect of increases in the concentration of GHGs, in which the share of developing countries has been meager.
This increase in concentration levels is the result of cumulative emissions of GHGs since the beginning of industrialisation, for which developed countries carry an overwhelming share of responsibility. And if we look at per capita emissions even today, the developing countries are way below levels existing in the industrialised countries. The human influence on climate change is a function of increase in the concentration of GHGs.
Of course, to limit this, we need a sharp decrease in emissions now and in the future. This leads to another challenge in respect of which countries are to cut how much of their current emissions. Clearly, the developed countries, with their high levels of energy consumption per capita and historically high emissions, must assume major responsibility for reductions.
Another inequitable aspect of climate change and its impacts is the devastation caused in poor societies, which generally lack early warning systems and infrastructure to facilitate relief and rescue in times of crisis. Yet, developing countries are doing their best to deal with the challenges they face. Bangladesh, which suffers from recurrent floods, is having to provide food and other assistance to about 2.8 million people this year. South Asia has witnessed and suffered serious floods across the region, often in periods when high levels of precipitation are generally not expected.
It would be difficult to forget that day in 2005, when within a space of 24 hours the city of Mumbai received almost a metre of rainfall, paralysing the
whole metropolis and leading to loss of life. Unfortunately, cities and urban areas are generally not equipped yet to deal with disasters and climate related extreme events.
It was former US President, George W Bush, who declared in the context of climate change, that the American way of life was not up for negotiation. But with greater awareness of the problem now, would US society really begin a debate on the scientific reality of climate change given the occurrence of hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey and now the ominous advance of IrmaIJ
And would the global community come to grips with serious efforts at nuclear disarmamentIJ It is perhaps just a matter of time before some terrorist group comes up with crude nuclear weapons, which North Korea may be willing to provide knowhow for in return for cash or other considerations.
It is time that the voice of the Peace Foundation in New Zealand is heard across the length and breadth of this planet. The alternative would be “fire and fury like the world has never seen”, very different from President Trump’s threat.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
