Population
growth and climate change are the big problems facing the earth in the next 50
years. But are there any solutions?
MANY
of the issues the Environment Movement has faced over the last 50 years have
been difficult, but none have been as formidable as the two challenges
confronting it over the next half century, confronting the earth — population
growth and climate change.
These
two colossal problems, it is clear now, cannot be “ solved”; they can only be
coped with, and the coping will have to be by governments. The task of the
Green Movement will be to keep the pressure on governments, and companies, and
individuals, to do what is necessary, however difficult that is.
Both
issues are controversial. Some believe the rise in human numbers, from a world
population of 7 billion to perhaps 9.3 billion in 2050 — that’s the UN’s medium
estimate — will not be a problem, and certainly there is no plan to bring the
estimated 2050 figure down.
But
finding food for an extra two billion mouths in a mere 38 years, on top of
those who are hungry today, is clearly going to be a Herculean task, and if we
disaggregate the world figure into the projections for individual nations, the
task seems more daunting still, especially with some of the “ high- growth”
countries in Asia and Africa.
Bangladesh,
with an estimated 148 million people in 2010, goes, according to the UN medium
estimate, to 194 million in 2050; Pakistan goes from 189 million to 274
million. In some of the poorer parts of sub- Saharan Africa, the projections
are quite remarkable, with doublings and even treblings expected in four
decades — Kenya goes from 40 million people in 2010 to 96 million in 2050,
while Niger, a country in the Sahel semi- desert belt where agriculture is
difficult at best, will see its population go from 15 million to 55 million.
Yet
the concern for the environment movement will be, can these extra billions be
not only fed, but brought out of poverty through economic growth, without the
planet being trashed? Can it be done without rainforests being torn down for
agriculture, without the fish stocks of the oceans being exploited, without the
atmosphere being swamped with climate- changing carbon from thousands of new
power stations? The idea that grapples with this is sustainable development and
this week the world community met in Rio de Janeiro to try to shape the first
global sustainable development goals, which would probably concern food, water
and energy, and run from 2015.
But
even if they agreed, they could be destabilised by a changing climate. A great
fear of far- sighted environmental thinkers is that global warming and its
effects will combine with population growth, in interactions which will make
things much worse. For example, Bangladesh will find it much harder to
accommodate its extra 46 million people by 2050 if, as is expected, it begins
to be affected by climate- change- induced sea level rise, with much of the
nation below sea level already.
Yet
climate change has slipped down the pubic agenda. There are three reasons for
this, one being the recession, which affects us now, while global warming is a
concern mainly of the future.
The
second is that climate change sceptics, hardly any of whom are climate
scientists, and many of whom are funded by the fossil fuel industry, have
induced a certain amount of uncertainty in the public mind about the issue.
And
this has been able to take root over the last few years because — and this is
the third reason — the warming process appears to have paused.
Noone
really knows why. A good guess is the gigantic cloud of sulphur emissions from
Chinese power stations, which doubled their output of waste gases between 1996
and 2006 — the sulphur particles have the opposite effect of the carbon
emissions, and reflect back the sun’s heat. But unless the laws of physics are
altered, those global carbon emissions, now 33 billion tons annually and rising
at six per cent a year, are going to make world temperatures rise considerably
in the coming decades with potentially disastrous consequences.
What
can the Green Movement do about this? Quite a lot, really, as was evinced by
Friends of the Earth’s ( FoE) “ Big Ask” campaign for a climate change law,
which would commit the UK Government to make legally- binding annual cuts in
its carbon emissions. It succeeded, and in the Climate Change Act, 2008,
Britain now has the toughest climate legislation in the world.
Tony
Juniper, the FoE director who oversaw the campaign, is aware that climate
change is the most difficult of all environmental problems. “ It’s bloody
huge,” he says. “ It’s about everything — aviation policy, transport, energy,
nuclear power, agriculture, recycling.
With
the other issues we can get a tactical victory without all that baggage, but
climate is different, and so is the timetable.” So he doesn’t think the Green
Movement has failed? “ No,” he says. “ It’s work in progress.” There’s going to
be an awful lot of that work needed by the greens over the next half century.
The
Independent / The Interview People
No comments:
Post a Comment