The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes in four parts, three of which are by different working groups, while the fourth integrates the findings of the three working group reports into one synthesis. The report of the second working group was released last week. It looks at the effects of climate change, the interactions between climate, ecosystems (including biodiversity) and human society; It explores the possibility of adapting to impact and examines resilience, which means the ability to survive and adapt to the effects of climate change.
The first, released ahead of the Glasgow Summit on Climate Change held on 31 October-12 November last year, outlined the science assessing the evidence on the reality of climate change and human contributions to it. The third will look at what to do about climate change and the fourth will tie all three reports together. The last one should be out by October.
Even though the report’s details about the impact of climate change may seem predictable – extreme heat events, droughts, floods and the stress it all creates – there are insights that may not be obvious to most. The report does a good job of identifying risk as a general intersection of danger (eg, more frequent and powerful storms), vulnerability (coastal areas, in particular, are more exposed, landlocked Madhya Pradesh less) and vulnerability. which varies across societies, regions and countries, and within communities (Odisha, having learned to form civil defense teams in the wake of the 1999 supercyclone, is less vulnerable than West Bengal or Bangladesh today). Towns can be planned and built to eliminate heat islands. It is an important form of adaptation in the form of identifying new crops to be planted after increasing temperatures have rendered traditional crops unsuitable.
The report, as reported by the United Nations, must be politically correct, and is big on justice, local knowledge and change. Loss and damage, which would remain beyond the scope of mitigation and adaptation, are now labeled loss and damage, perhaps with reference to some politically correct posture by some authors. While all this is excellent, the release of the report is a good opportunity to once again underline what India’s representative to the United Nations has formally put before the body: Developed countries should start producing negative emissions. , not just bring down your emissions level. to zero in the next few decades. This means capturing and removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air.
Iceland’s Orca plant, which cleans the air of CO2, began operations in September 2021. It carries the captured gas to the depths and mineralizes it. The cost of operation will be reduced if the CO2 captured can be used to make drinks fizzy – eg soda, beer. Some of the university’s experiments have succeeded in converting the captured gas into carbon fiber, a versatile and valuable material.
In any case, removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a measure that combines mitigation, climate finance and climate justice. If enough greenhouse gases are removed from the air, global warming can be stopped. This will cost money, especially at this stage where there are economical ways to convert captured CO2 into usable industrial inputs – not just carbon fiber, it can also be used as a starting block for producing any number of organic compounds. Can be used in – yet to be developed. If developed countries spend an expensive way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and carry out a variety of research and development, thereby separating carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide for use as building blocks for petrochemicals If so, that would be climate justice: all rich countries became rich after expelling millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases into the atmosphere, and they should take the primary responsibility of removing it from the atmosphere, causing them to damage can be compensated. fabricated.
Reducing emissions should be a common goal for all countries, including countries like India, which are least responsible for cumulative emissions into the atmosphere. But reducing the reserves of greenhouse gases that heat the world and change the climate should primarily be the responsibility of rich countries.
This doesn’t mean that a country like India shouldn’t do research to find ways to capture carbon dioxide from the air and use that capture gas to make value-added products. India has the capability to conduct such research and Indian industry will benefit immensely from becoming a world leader in this venture.
This agenda of carbon capture from the atmosphere, with different responsibilities for developed and developing countries, should be accepted as soon as the world starts working on adaptation and resilience. Climate justice would mean the wealthier countries, at least a good part of it, the money needed for mitigation and adaptation by the affluent countries.
India’s global initiative for resilient infrastructure. The report should inform the plans and practices of the initiative. Climate change used to be fake news for American politicians controlled by the oil and gas industry; Even American Big Oil is now working on mitigation and renewable energy. It is time for India to aim more vigorously in combating climate change, adapting to its effects and building resilience to reduce vulnerability.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
download
Our App Now!!