Archive for the ‘Climate Personalities’ Category
Climate change talks enter ‘important moment’
COPENHAGEN — Global warming talks entered what the top United Nations climate official described as “a very distinct and important moment in the process” Tuesday, as top ministers searched for a way to ensure the commitments nations made here would stand up over time. Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters both large and small countries will have to make concessions in the coming days because “there is still an enormous amount of ground to be covered if this conference is to deliver what people around the world expect it to deliver.”
The United States and other industrialized nations are still pressing for a way to verify that China, India and other emerging economies will make the greenhouse gas emissions cuts they’ve promised to make in the context of a new agreement, while developing countries argue these rich nations have not provided the financing and ambitious climate targets that would be commensurate with their historic responsibility for global warming.
contd.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121501253.html?hpid=topnews
US and India pledge common action on climate change
Hopes of a strong deal at Copenhagen summit renewed as Obama and Singh commit to ‘significant mitigation actions’
America and India today pledged common action to fight climate change and to build a new global clean energy economy, claiming the new “green partnership” between two of the world’s biggest emitters would help produce a strong political deal at next month’s summit in Copenhagen.
Barack Obama and visiting Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, both committed to “significant mitigation actions”, ie reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
With today’s understanding, three of the world’s top emitters, China, America and India are now committed to action on emissions at Copenhagen, though they have yet to reveal the actual targets. But it does significantly boost the prospect that world leaders could commit to strong action at the UN summit, despite the rancourous atmosphere among their official negotiating teams at the last set of meetings in Barcelona this month.
“It takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in Copenhagen.” Obama said. Today’s pledge from Singh comes a day after the White House said Obama would commit to cutting emissions before the Copenhagen meeting gets underway. China’s Hu Jintao committed to reducing the future growth rate of emissions during Obama’s visit to Beijing a week ago.
India’s new commitment is to take what the White House described today as “vigorous action to combat climate change” in return for assistance from industrialised countries for its shift from coal to cleaner energy sources. Singh made it clear there would be a price for India’s cooperation. “We will do more if there is global support in terms of financial resources and technology transfer,” he told the Council of Foreign Relations yesterday.
Some of that support came through today, with the announcement of a joint research centre, with US and Indian government funds, to help speed the development of more energy efficient technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. It is thought the US government will contribute $100m a year to the centre over the next five years.
“India was a latecomer to industrialisation and as such we have contributed very little to the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that caused global warming, but we are determined to be part of the solution,” Singh said.
Although India has resisted international pressure to commit to legally binding emissions targets in negotiations, the country has over the last year embarked on a series of new greener measures.
India’s cabinet this week approved a plan to triple solar capacity to 20 gigawatts by 2022, and to give more incentives to the development of solar power.
The two countries directed their national labs to work together on expanding solar and wind energy potential. US officials have also been working with India to set up a local version of the Environmental Protection Agency, which could regulate industry and help assure supply of clean water and air.
In recent weeks, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea have all slapped down hard figures on the negotiating table. A specific target from China is expected soon and, under one scenario, China reveal it at a summit with the European Union on 30 November in Nanjing.
That would pave the way for Obama to announce the US targets soon after. But creating this domino effect requires a strong enough commitment by Beijing to convince wavering US senators that China was moving significantly beyond business as usual.
But several recent reports and recommendations on China’s likely ambition have generated fears that the carbon target will actually mark a step back from its existing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, once more placing the talks in jeopardy.
“Some of the numbers being bandied around seem worryingly low given China’s weight of economic growth. But we remain confident that China will ultimately offer us an emissions reduction target that represents a significant reduction from business as usual,” said a European diplomat.
The closest the government in Beijing has come to announcing a goal was at the UN summit in September, when president Hu Jintao’s promised to reduce the carbon intensity of China’s economy by a “notable margin” between 2005 and 2020. But recent reports have suggested that China is considering a reduction in carbon intensity – emissions relative to economic growth – in the lower end of the range 40-50% in the period of 2005-2020.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-change-india-barack-obama
IPCC chief has little hope from Copenhagen climate summit
NEW DELHI: Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) RK Pachauri on Monday said he does not have much hope from next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen. “The kind of agreement that we were hoping for from the summit in Copenhagen seems to have diminished,” Pachauri, also the director general of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), a think tank based here, said on the sidelines of a conference on urban development.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier said that India is not going to accept any legally binding cuts on its greenhouse gas emissions. At a conference last week, Ramesh said: “It seems there is a long haul before we arrive at an international commitment that is legally binding and in which legally binding commitments are taken by the developed countries”. The Dec 7-18 summit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is unlikely to produce any global deal on combating global warming, because rich countries responsible for the damage have neither promised significant emission cuts nor put on the table significant money to help developing countries fight climate change.
“We should put pressure on the developed countries to tackle the phenomenon of climate change,” said Pachauri, the man who heads the IPCC which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president Al Gore for its seminal report on climate change that year.
Adding that India should do whatever it can at the domestic level to tackle climate change, Pachauri said: “The effects of climate change will put a big burden on our economy and development. So we cannot ignore it. “We should therefore focus on climate change, otherwise its effects on the coming generations will be huge.”
The right to survive – Interview with Environmental Minister
By Vindya Amaranayake | The Nation | 02.08.2009
Sri Lanka's Environment Minister - Champika Ranawaka
Among the concerns that govern global relations today, environment enjoys a pivotal position.Sri Lanka’s Environment Minister – Champika Ranawaka According to Environment Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka, the concern for environment and the consequences of climate change constitutes the main political conflict brewing across the entire world. He also says that climate change is a worse disaster than colonialism for the developing world, because it has the capability to wipe out entire civilisations, unlike in the case of colonialism, where only political freedoms were subjugated for selfish gains. In an interview with The Nation, the Minister spoke at length of the need to form a global governance system to resolve the issues that will arise due to climate change. Bringing the issue closer to home, the Minister also says, the failure to rehabilitate the garbage dumps stinking up the country, lies with the problems within the country’s legal system
Q: During the recently held session of the Asia Pacific Network (APN) for global change, you initiated a talk on the need to have a global governance system to protect the environment and the future of the Earth. Could you elaborate on that?
A: The APN mainly consists of representatives from countries in the Asia Pacific region. It is a gathering of scientists. This organisation has been there for a while, but due to lack of funds, it was defunct for a while. We managed to revive it this time. What is meant by global change is that there is a significant demographic transition taking place in the Asia Pacific region. Big cities are coming up and the internal migration towards cities is increasing. But, none of these cities can sustain the influx of the mass migration. After some time, these become ‘sick’ cities. They can be called vertical slum cities.
One of the main issues we focussed on was the coming up of these mega cities. The other was climate change. This is not caused by us – none of us in the Asia Pacific region, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and us, are responsible for climate change. However, we are ones who will have to bear the consequences of this change. The APN is about knowledge sharing between scientists from the region, and to realise possible actions that could be taken to minimise these consequences. Then, we also focussed on marine resources, including rare species of fish and other marine species. There’s massive scale biodiversity degradation taking place when it comes to marine life. We have focussed on this issue as well.
On the other hand, countries in the Asia Pacific region have now become the movers and shakers of the global economy. We are in the driving seat now. We want to avoid what has happened to Europe and North America, in their drive towards development, from happening to us. We also discussed steps that need to be taken to enable a paradigm shift towards achieving a green economy. This is where climate change comes in. When we talk in legal terms, this concept is termed as ‘environmental justice.’ When we talk about climate change, whether I’m a contributor or not, I’m affected by its consequences. Even if I’m extremely green friendly and do not cause any harm to the environment, because of the high emission rate of others, I’m affected by the climate change. For example, nearly 100,000 people died and one million displaced in Myanmar because of Cyclone Nargis. But, this is a country that burns a minimal amount of fossil oil. They make little contribution to global warming. This is the same in Bangladesh. It is believed that, within this century, about 20 million will be displaced. Then there’s a water stress in certain areas in India, Nepal and China. They obtain their drinking water from glaziers. When the glaziers in the Himalayas retreat, they’ll be pressed for fresh water. That’s why they have called for a meeting in Kathmandu to discuss the matter. This is a serious enough problem that it could cause entire civilisations in this region to disappear. But, countries such as Nepal and Bhutan have done nothing to increase global warming.
Global warming is, in fact, worse than colonialism. Although the countries in Asia and Africa were subjugated, the fundamental existence of their civilisations was not threatened. We lost our autonomy in the colonial era. But this, climate change, challenges our mere survival.
Also, every one is talking about human rights, especially civil and political rights – freedom of speech, expression, employment etc. However, our right to live is no longer a subjective condition. It is an objective condition, where no one can interfere with. Also, whether we like it or not, we are destined to die, one day. Therefore, we must bring in human rights into a broad spectrum. For example, what we are saying is that, we must try and include a person’s carbon footprint into that person’s individual rights. This is not included in the UN Human Rights Charter, but something that should be.
Apart from talking of individual rights, group rights or national rights, there has to be a system to address the rights of posterity. That is why we need a global governance system. Just as each and every individual has the right to living space, tomorrow’s generations too, have that right. This equity principle should enjoy a temporal distribution. Otherwise, there’s the danger of present generations usurping the living space of future generations. The United Nations came as a consequence of World War II, to prevent another from occurring. The requirement for a global governance system is somewhat similar to that – where the impact on the environment, in whatever action that is taken by the world authorities, is seriously considered. As an example, let’s take trade. Is it correct to manufacture a good, without considering the need, just because you have the capability to produce that good? How much carbon is spent when producing that good? This is what gave rise to the concept, ‘fair trade.’ We must not purchase goods that have consumed a large amount of carbon and fossil fuel during the process of production. What we want is to include these concepts; fair trade and equity, into a system of global governance.
Q: Has this system already been formed?
A: Not yet. What we are doing at the moment is to create a system of awareness. And we aim to amend the UN Human Rights Charter to include the carbon footprint as a human right. It is all about my right not to let others usurp my living space in this environment. There has to be a mechanism to prevent someone living in America snatching away my right to living space. We must start regarding this as a human right violation. Then we must change the UN system. We need a new governance system, within the UN system, that includes environmental concerns. It has to be something that goes beyond the Kyoto Protocol. And, it has to have an objective criterion. There are no objective criteria in the Kyoto Protocol. It needs to come after many deliberations, conflict of ideas and consensus reached, after much sharing of knowledge. It also requires greater political changes in each country.
Q: Is the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle included in this system?
A: Definitely. During the Rio Convention in 1992, all the representative countries accepted the ‘polluter pays’ principle. But nobody adhered to the conditions. I would like to present a very important example: According to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which exclusively comprises scientists from across the world, with no political agenda, it says that there has to be a carbon budget for the 21st Century. Accordingly, what each person should emit is 1,456 kT. But, even if we completely stop emitting, the temperature will continue to rise by 0.7 degrees. This, together with the 0.7 degrees increased from the pre-industrial period, will cause a 1.5 degree temperature rise by about year 2100. We can only go up to 2 degrees from the pre-industrial level. Therefore, according to scientists, the probability of humankind being wiped away in a widespread environmental disaster is 50/50. This is the situation now. According to the carbon budget, a single person can only emit 2,170 kT in 2009. A single person in Sri Lanka emits only 600 kT. In the US it is 22,000 kT, in Norway 20,000 kT, Australia 20,000 kT and Canada 21,000 kT. This is how it stands at the moment. Then Great Britain 9,800 kT, India 1,200 kT and China 3,600 kT. Then, we are below the permissible level. We can emit more than we are emitting at the moment. We have the right to do so. But, we can’t do that in actuality, because our space has been usurped by countries with high emission rates. They have reached high development levels by emitting a higher percentage of carbon. Yet, we cannot emit the same amount to reach the same development level. Hence, our right to development has been violated. This is one aspect of the environmental justice principle. Also, they have usurped our space for development without our consent. It is in this sense that we have coined the term ‘carbon debt.’ The question is, who took our remaining carbon emission right? – the amount left unused after 600 kT. It is those developed countries such as the US and Australia. Today, a tonne of carbon is sold at US$ 20. Then, for the past eight years of the new century, the US alone would have to pay us US$ 1.9 billion. This is exactly the amount we requested from the IMF. One way to ensure the prevalence of environmental justice is by paying off this carbon debt. Hillary Clinton has no right to impose conditions on us, because they have violated our rights. We work on this basis. But, what the developed countries are trying to do is trying to stop our emission. This is wrong. Global warming has intensified to the level of it becoming a cold war between the developed and developing worlds. The developing countries say they want to reach better development levels and for that, they need to burn more fossil fuels. But the developed countries object, saying there’s very little space left to emit for everyone. Today, this is the biggest political conflict brewing across the world. It is no longer the debate between liberal and communist economic system. The debate is about who should cut down on their emissions; the developed world or the developing world.
From Sri Lanka, we have presented three proposals to Copenhagen. One is, there has to be an objective criterion. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a 5% reduction from the 1990 carbon level. Nobody knows the reason behind this decision. In 1990, the individual emission rate is 4,200 kT. A reduction of 5% from this is not going to make much of a difference. It should be 50% from this level. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is no longer valid. Then, there should be historical responsibility for carbon debt. The developed countries should either pay us this debt, or compensate it for the financial debts that we owe them. The third one has to do with climate change strategies. There are two methods; mitigation and adaptation. It is the developed countries who should fund the adaptation methods across the world. If Myanmar has to face deadly cyclones and it is a direct result of the excess emissions of the US, then, it is the US that has to pay for the adaptation methods. Therefore, we say there should be an adaptation fund. And this should also be based on an objective criterion. They should assess whether the cyclone was a direct result of climate change and assess the damage and make the payment accordingly. These countries accept that there should be an adaptation fund, but they do not give a single penny to the fund. They want the World Bank to manage the fund. The World Bank is an organisation where developed countries hold majority stakes. But the adaptation fund should be instituted for the benefit of the developing world. It is strange how the consequences of climate change are skewed in a way to cause more damage to the developing countries.
When we take the Vienna and Montreal Conventions, there are no big bosses controlling the conditions. There are governing councils, and the countries that cause harm to the ozone layer, pay according to the quantity of the damage they cause. That is an objective formula. Then, we present projects to the governing council and the scientists assess whether the requests are fair and in need, the funds are released. No one can move political muscle at the Vienna Convention. That is why it is successful. Our request is to create a similar rational structure to solve this issue as well.
Q: You also concentrated on the need to control e-waste. What progress have you made in this regard?
A: As a first step, we have approached the mobile telecommunication service providers and informed them that we are ready to provide them with the infrastructure to collect e-waste including phone batteries, chargers, and other parts. I’m happy to say that Dialog Telekom PLC has agreed to this, and you can see that at every Dialog Arcade there is a facility to collect used mobile phones and accessories. However, it was only Dialog that cooperated with us in this regard. They have already established a facility in Piliyandala. We declared it open recently. We request the other mobile telecommunication service providers to follow suite. Nearly 10% of e-waste is heavy metal. This can cause severe damages to our kidneys. Then, we plan to concentrate on other e-material, particularly CDs and DVDs. This is a bigger problem than we realised. We have assessed that 72 million discs are imported into Sri Lanka per year. They ultimately accumulate in garbage dumps. We have also counted the number of personal computers, photocopy machines, washing machines and other electrical appliances in the country. We have already informed the people who import the appliances to take them back once they are no longer in use. We facilitate this through the environmental conservation levy.
Q: The polythene regulation introduced a couple of years ago, failed to bear fruit. What are the new developments to strengthen plans to control the use of polythene?
A: It is like this. We wanted polythene that is less than 20 microns in thickness to be banned from use. It was done so to ease the management of waste. But we understand that this is not being properly implemented. One reason is that polythene production has now become a cottage industry. When we introduced the regulation, there were only about 300 polythene manufacturers. Now, it appears that there are about 3,000-4,000 manufacturers. Therefore, we have realised that it is difficult to control this. There’s a limit as to the number of people that could be arrested for this. Therefore, we have decided that the manufacturer should print their label on polythene packs released into the market. Otherwise, they are not allowed to continue their business.
Q: Then, is polythene, with less than 20 microns in thickness, permissible now?
A: No. That is not the case. People who produce polythene have to have their label on the packet. Then it is easy for us to identify those who produce polythene with less weight. Then we encourage the public not to buy polythene products that has no label on the pack.
Q: You once called Colombo a ‘sick city.’ It has a severe garbage issue and the drains are clogged with waste. What are the steps taken to clear up this matter?
A: In 2007, we identified three issues with regard to waste collection: The lack of funds, technology and space. We solved two of these three problems. We are ready to provide funds to any local authority, if they come to us with a sound project report on garbage disposal. We can also provide them with the necessary technology. Bloemendal, Karadiyan, Porawatte in Kalutara and Guhagoda in Kandy are the four worst garbage dumps in the country. We have already presented a paper and received the approval of Cabinet to rehabilitate them. But due to various problems, especially legal problems – and some Municipalities refused to hand us over the garbage site, such as the Kandy Municipality, we were unable to put it work. But we would like to say, we are ready to take over and rehabilitate these four major dumps and any other dump in the country, if they are handed over to us even today. They only need to hand them over to us. We would rehabilitate them and hand them back to the local authorities. We have the money and the technology. But unfortunately, due to the problems within the legal system, it is being delayed by the day. This is causing severe problems to our children’s health, which is bound to intensify, unless it is addressed immediately.
Q: The two baby tuskers taken from the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage are now faced with health problems, after being separated from their mothers. As the Minister of Environment, have you looked into what has happened?
A: The Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage does not fall under the purview of the Environment Ministry. It is under Minister Gamini Lokuge’s Sports Ministry. They presented a Cabinet paper to hand over two baby tuskers to the Malwatta and Asgiriya Temples. It was approved. I’m not aware what transpired afterwards.
Q: This issue is causing much concern among wildlife activists and enthusiasts. As the Minister of Environment, are you going to intervene to solve the matter?
A: I do not have the authority to interfere into this matter. The elephants should be held under the supervision of the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The Pinnawela Elephant Orphanage is also operating on a permit given by us. The Directors in charge of Pinnawela must take the responsibility.
Prof.Mohan Munasinghe – 2
By Vindya Amaranayake | The Nation | 04.11.2007
Sri Lankan professor Mohan Munasinghe reveals how a group of dedicated scientists put global warming on the world map by winning the Nobel Prize. 
Apart from reaching the zenith in their respective fields and the remarkable service rendered towards the betterment of humankind, exceptional people such as Albert Einstein, Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Sir Alexander Fleming, Ernest Hemingway, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, have one thing in common. They were all Nobel Prize winners. The influence and recognition of this prestigious honour need no preamble. Hence, when an organisation, headed by a Sri Lankan, is bestowed with this coveted distinction, it is a cause for much celebration. This week, The Nation met Vice Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof. Mohan Munasinghe, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, the 45th Vice President of the United States, who served under President Bill Clinton, to pay accolade for his achievement
For the first time in the history of the award, since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a Sri Lankan this year. Apart from the honour and prestige which the award carries with it, is also another remarkable achievement; it is the first time that the award primarily conferred for peace and security, has been bestowed on a group of scientists.
Prof. Munasinghe took time off from a busy schedule to tell The Nation, his reactions on receiving the award, and comment on his work. “Normally, the award is given for political work. So it is very significant that it was awarded for scientific work. It recognises clearly that science has a role to play in peace and security,” Prof. Munasinghe explained.
With a smile of humility he added, “Of course we are a little bit stunned, but also very pleased with the result.” It was his tireless efforts spanning across decades, in the arena of sustainable development and climate change, that earned him this honour. He says, his work, especially at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had enabled him to disseminate knowledge on climate change and lay out the measures required to counteract such change.
Comprising some of the world’s leading experts on climate change, IPCC can be termed as a, ‘think tank,’ and was created by World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environmental Programme. Prof. Munasinghe was responsible for having made a significant contribution to the four major reports prepared by the IPCC in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.
Commenting on the importance of winning the coveted Prize, he emphasised on the main outcomes.
The most important aspect of the Prize, he says, is the recognition it has given to the work that he and his fellow scientists have been involved in. “Here is a bunch of scientists who are relatively unknown. With the award, their work has been recognised. I’m very happy for my colleagues who have put in so much effort”.
Prof. Munasinghe noted that there are people who are quite sceptical about the work of scientists saying that this global warming is nonsense and insignificant: “We have been a very credible body in the past, and I must say, 99% of the scientists agree with the position of the IPCC. Despite that, winning the Nobel Prize gives us that additional credibility, particularly with the public, so that we can send out our message more effectively.”
He, also emphasised the impact the award would have on influencing policy makers, in the future: “As scientists, we are not in the business of giving recommendations to politicians. We lay out the facts. Now we have greater influence in telling the general public and decision makers about the status of climate change today, and, most importantly, urge them to act quickly.”
Voicing his expert opinion on the climate change from a global perspective, Prof. Munasinghe said the news was not good. From a historical point of view, he said, carbon dioxide emission has been accumulating since the inception of industrialisation, 200 years ago. “It acts as a blanket and is basically trapping the sun’s heat and warming up the earth. We predict that if we go along this path, by the end of this century we can expect something like a 3oC average increase in temperature and 0.4 metres of sea level rise, which is quite a significant amount. There will be a change in rain fall variation, mainly for the worse, because the dry zones will be drier so you have more desert areas, while wet areas will get wetter, resulting in more floods.”
Bringing the subject closer home, Prof. Munasinghe explained how climate change will affect the future of Sri Lanka. “Climate has a significant impact on sustainable development in our country. Our water resources, coastal areas and health are the vulnerable areas that will be affected by this.”
Referring to the lifeline of the country, paddy cultivation, which depends entirely on monsoonal and inter-monsoonal showers, he explained that with the changes in rainfall, the dry zones will get drier and the wet zones will get wetter. “ The Dry zone will be seriously affected. Within the next 25 years we will see the rice output falling by 10-15%. This is significant because people living in those areas are poor farmers who are at the bottom of the social fabric,” he said.
Meanwhile, in the wet zone the things will improve a little: “You will have more rainfall, plus, when the temperature goes up the area will become warmer. It is good for tea crops. However, you will have more floods and landslides,” he noted.
“People in the dry zone are poor. On the other hand, in the wet zone are the larger tea estates. Hence, while the poor will lose, the rich will get richer. Resulting from this, there will be a significant demographic change where people will start moving out of the dry areas, and also from the coastal areas,” the Professor added.
The memories of the 2004 tsunami still ring in the ears of the entire country. With the climate change, the sea level will increase and the coastal areas will be faced with the threat of being submerged by the sea.
Prof. Munasinghe also mentioned that there will be a serious threat of mosquito borne diseases
One of the most significant documents laying down the need to introduce immediate measures to arrest the situation of climate change, is the Kyoto Protocol, which is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
In December this year, there will be another world summit on climate change, which could be termed as post-Kyoto Protocol to assess the current situation: “This is a major meeting on climate negotiation, which will take place in Bali, Indonesia. It will be an occasion where ministers of environment will be gathering. Since our influence has been greatly increased for the good, with the Nobel Prize win, we can push for early action in this area,” Prof. Munasinghe said optimistically.
He then explained the worst case scenario that could occur, if world leaders failed to recognise their responsibility to take the necessary action: “The worst case scenario is that we have an outcome called the ‘barbarisation’, not only because of climate change, but also because poverty and terrorism and the battle between the haves and have- nots.”
He described the scenario thus: “Where the rich will live in fortified enclavements, the poor will live in a chaotic world. This, of course, is an exaggeration. It need not happen. This ‘fortress world’ mentality has already begun where there is a need to keep the other people out. This can be seen in Sri Lanka too. Luxury apartments where guards are patrolling the premises, is an example of the phenomenon of polarisation and segmentation. This should stop.”
The future, he said, however could be made rosy too, but it requires a paradigm shift in the values and attitudes of the people. At the moment we are still looking at the issues from a monetary perspective, thinking that giving money to the poor will solve the issue. “This is necessary, but only in the short term. People are trying to adopt western values. Instead of flashy consumption patterns, the fundamental driving force should be on technology,” the professor emphasised.
Only if those values were fundamentally changed will there be a rosy future, he observed, adding that this was something that can be done.
“Climate change is only the part of the problem. Yet, if our attitude can be changed, a better future can be achieved. It can be done,” he reiterated.
****
Lanka’s first Nobel Prize winner wears many hats
Prof. Mohan Munasinghe who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change, was born in Sri Lanka. He has earned post-graduate degrees in engineering, physics and development economics from Cambridge University (UK), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA), McGill University, and Concordia University (Canada). He has also received several honorary doctorates (honoris causa). Currently, he is Chairman, Munasinghe Inst. of Development (MIND); Vice Chair, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva; Colombo; Honorary Senior Advisor to the Sri Lanka Govt., and Visiting Professor, United Nations University, Tokyo.
During 35 years of distinguished public service, he has served as Senior Energy Advisor to the President of Sri Lanka, Advisor to the United States Presidents Council on Environmental Quality, and Senior Advisor/Director, World Bank. He was Visiting Professor at a number of leading universities worldwide. He has won many international prizes and medals for his research and its applications. Most notably, as Vice Chairman of the IPCC, he shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (with other IPCC colleagues and AI Gore). He has authored 90 books and over three hundred technical papers on economics, sustainable development, climate change, power, energy, water resources, transport, environment, disasters, and information technology. He is a Fellow of several internationally recognised Academies of Science, and serves on the editorial boards of a dozen of academic journals.
****
Al Gore’s Prize a vindication for failed dream
After his year 2000 Presidential Election defeat against George W. Bush, former US Vice President Al Gore has dedicated his life to environment and climate change.
The Nobel Prize win for Gore is popularly regarded as a vindication for his failed dream of being the President of the United States. It is believed that his documentary on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, which won the 2007 Academy Award for best documentary, despite conservatives in the United States denouncing it as’ alarmist and exaggerated’, had been responsible for his having won the Nobel prize.
Gore has in a statement said he was, “deeply honoured . We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
“His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change,” the Nobel citation said. “He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.”
Prof.Mohan Munasinghe
Prof.Munasinge with Nobel Prize
By Malaka Rodrigo | SundayTime | 23.12.2007
“Devo Vassatu kalena Prof.Munasinghe with the Nobel Prize
Sassa sampatti hetu ca,
Phito bhavatu loko ca
Raja bhavatu dhammiko”
“May the rains come in time,
May the harvests be bountiful –
May the people be happy and contented
May the king be righteous…”
“As this ancient Pali blessing portrays, a favourable environment, economic prosperity, social stability and good governance are the key factors for making development more sustainable. It is rightly the challenges we face in the present day fight against climate change,” Prof. Mohan Munasinghe said at a felicitation ceremony held last week.
The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN’s scientific lobby in the fight against Climate Change, shared the Nobel Peace Prize recently with former US Vice President Al Gore for building up and disseminating greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and how to counteract it. Prof. Munasinghe, Vice-Chairman of the IPCC was felicitated at a ceremony held at the Government Information Department auditorium last week.
Prof. Munasinghe with the Nobel Peace Prize
The United Nations adopted the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mitigation, but this was not supported by some of the industrialized nations. This month, world nations again gathered in Bali, Indonesia to discuss the road map after the expiration of Kyoto Protocol in 2012 to continue mitigation. The Bali road map is a good starting point for the second round in the fight against climate change. “An agreement has been made to establish the Adaptation Fund to finance concrete adaptation projects in developing countries. This fund will assist developing nations like Sri Lanka to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, such as drought, floods and crop failure,” Prof. Munasinghe explained.
“Delegates in Bali also agreed on a framework that could allow richer nations and companies to earn “Carbon Credits” by paying for forest protection in developing countries and thereby contributing to mitigate global warming. This is widely acknowledged as the cheapest single way of curbing climate change, and brings benefits in other environmental areas such as biodiversity and fresh water conservation,” he said.
It is predicted that Sri Lanka’s Dry Zone will be badly hit by climate change. The slight increase of temperature will result in severe droughts and the scarcity of water, already a problem, will badly affect paddy farming. Unfortunately, as the small scale paddy farmer is already poverty-stricken, it stands to become a socio-economic problem.
On the other hand, the wet zone might experience more rains, resulting in floods and landslides. This change might however have a positive impact for crops like tea.“Sri Lanka will have to face more extreme weather events as a result. Our data already shows there is a change in the distribution of rainfall. The annual rainfall doesn’t show a major difference, but areas are starting to get heavy rainfall in the course of shorter periods. This results in extreme weather patterns and we fear it may worsen,” commented Director General of the Meteorology Department, G.H.P. Dharmaratna.
A separate unit – the Centre for Climate Change Studies- has been set up to analyze any adverse climatic changes happening in Sri Lanka under the Department of Meteorology. “The unit is keeping a close eye on shifting patterns,” the DG said. The Global Affairs and Environmental Economics Unit of Ministry of Environment will also start compiling their report on climate change effects in Sri Lanka from next January. This has been an obligation by all the countries in coalition and Anura Jayathilake, Director of Global Affairs and Environmental Economics believes the three-year study will capture negative as well as positive effects.
Going forward, Sri Lanka will have to develop a strategy at international level by engaging actively and constructively in international negotiations and make greater efforts to seek funds and technical assistance for adaptations and vulnerability reduction. It is also necessary to explore and learn about Clean Development Mechanism and carbon trading prospects.
According to the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries should commit themselves to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to the agreed levels. Developing countries that have no legal commitments under the protocol can assist developed countries to reduce GHG missions and charge a price for their emission reduction. This is called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or the International Carbon Market. In order for Sri Lanka to capture a considerable share of the international Carbon Market, the country should act fast and adopt a proactive strategy. The Finance Ministry has proposed establishing the new Carbon Fund for Sri Lanka, which has been approved by the recent Budget.
Sri Lanka is still in the initial stage of CDM project implementation compared to neighbouring India and many other developing countries. Five CDM projects from Sri Lanka have already been registered out of a total of 315 projects worldwide. Sri Lankan projects have already marketed 134,000 tons of CO2. A few more projects are in the pipeline mainly from the power generation sector but attempts by the private sector to initiate CDM projects have failed due to various constraints.
One of the weaknesses in the campaign maybe the inability of scientists to translate their jargon into language that is understood by everyone, including politicians. However, this gap is being bridged. “Civil Society can play a vital role in forcing the policymakers to take environmentally favourable decisions,” Prof. Munasinghe said.
Kalagune's Blog on Climate Change 