Questioning EU policies on
greenhouse gas emissions
In short, debate and public opinion-building on climate change and Bangladesh should, amongst other things, seriously question these existing policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to be formulated and canvassed for internationally, stating that the EU move beyond the limited targets which its institutions and most Europe-based
environmental organisations have so far set, writes Peter Custers
RECENTLY, a spate of Dhaka newspaper reports have described the alarming predictions made by the team of scientists that is led by the renowned US climate scientist James Hansen. According to this team’s assessments, the dangers of rapid climate change have so far been seriously underestimated, and the rise in global seawater level alone could result in Bangladesh being eliminated from the earth within this century. Since climate catastrophe urgently needs to be averted, these American scientists advise that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere do not just need to be brought down. In fact, existing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, now estimated to be 385 parts per million, themselves need to be reduced.
Bangladesh, as even its present ‘interim’-government appears to realise, can ill-afford to ignore the views expressed by these critical scientists. Yet, what demands should be formulated towards the European Union and other ‘donors’ who are primarily responsible for the dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is the European Union leading the way in saving the planet, or are its policies lagging behind the findings and demands of climate science? Below, I would like to criticise both the targets which the European Union has so far set itself vis-à-vis European emissions of greenhouse gases, and the methodology which it applies to achieve its reductions. A discussion regarding these topics should be helpful towards formulating demands which put the future survival of Bangladesh and of life on the earth first.
First of all, there is a problem with the EU’s targets. The EU’s policy on targets is in line with the estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a rise in the world’s temperatures of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is acceptable. However, scientific evidence collected by James Hansen’s team at NASA’s Goddard Institute in the US, based on their paleoclimatic studies indicates that acceptance of a two degrees Celsius change of climate as ‘safe’ rests on dangerous illusions. Even a 1.7-degree increase in global temperatures most likely will already set in motion processes of ‘feedback’ (notably the ‘albedo flip’), which will result in a disastrous rise of water levels in the world’s oceans.
A second target of the EU that needs to be disputed with force is the target of a shift from reliance on fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources, to the extent of merely 20 per cent by 2020. Even if this shift be combined with reliance on the capture of carbon dioxide at source, which itself is a disputed methodology towards achieving emission reductions, the combined reductions will not suffice to achieve the target which conscientious scientists believe needs to be set and implemented, in order to prevent worldwide catastrophe. There is growing consensus amongst scientists and other public opinion-builders, that the world’s chief emitters of greenhouse gases need to aim at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 90 per cent in the very shortest possible time, i.e. within a few years’ time.
The next major criticism of the EU’s policies relates not to targets but to the lack of convincing or even substantial results up until now. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU was to achieve gradual and limited reductions in the level of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (8 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012). These targets were very modest, too modest no doubt if they are compared with the targets that many scientists insist are absolutely necessary. However, what is even more disturbing is that until very recently, no reduction by the worst European polluters was achieved at all. For according to newspaper reports, the level of CO2 emissions by Europe’s heavy industries as late as in 2006 registered a net increase.
Further criticisms relate to the methodologies chosen by the EU to achieve its reductions in emissions. One approach which has come in for severe criticism is the policy of the EU aimed at tapping biofuels as an alternative source of energy, i.e. as an alternative to fossil fuels. The EU has targeted a shift from fossil fuels to biofuels, to the extent of 10 percent by 2020. However, the idea of shifting to biofuels originally was not conceived in order to respond to environmental concerns, but was aimed at achieving energy security (i.e. reduced reliance on oil). Moreover, both from a social and from an environmental point of view, stimulating production of biofuels is unacceptable, since it threatens to lead to world hunger (through the shift away from food crops), and to the destruction of tropical forests (which now absorb CO2).
A second methodology which is given prime importance by the EU is reliance on the capture and storage of CO2. This is an idea which Dutch academic researchers have been working on for years, and which Dutch corporate capital intends to test pretty soon. However, the big question is whether the capture and storage of CO2 is at all responsible from an ecological (i.e. health and environmental) point of view. Past experiences with nuclear waste (which like CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a form of non-commodity waste) indicate that the storage of hazardous waste in the earth’s soil is not free from risks. One of the key worries is that such storage will ultimately affect the aquifers, resulting in the contamination of drinking water consumed by humans and by other species.
A third methodology which the EU uses is the mechanism of emissions trading. This is, of course, an idea which also has been developed under the Kyoto Protocol. It is based on the allocation of emission ‘rights’ to corporate capital and other polluters, and on the presumption that polluters (for instance those located in the world’s North) who exceed their quota and polluters who have an excess, i.e. unused quota, can exchange their ‘rights’. Mechanisms of calculation/measurement have been put in place, in order to promote the trading in these ‘rights’. However, the fundamental flaw in this whole system is that it transforms non-commodity waste (CO2 and other GHGs) into a form of commodity, and provides commercial rights to abuse the global commons to the world’s most notorious polluters (3).
From a Bangladeshi perspective, the critique regarding targets which the EU sets, and regarding the non-achievement of even excessively modest targets is, of course, the most essential. If climate change reaches a ‘tipping point’ such as may happen soon, according to Hansen and his team; if the so-called ‘albedo flip’ is set in motion, meaning that climate change is accelerated in view of the fact that the reflection of sun’s rays from ice back into space (‘albedo’) is suddenly reversed (‘flips‘), the rise in the level of the oceans’ water will be fast, and will have catastrophic effects for coastal areas, islands and other low-lying areas throughout the world, foremost for densely-populated coastal zones of Bangladesh.
Hence, EU targets need to be very urgently upgraded, and absolutely need to be met.
Among the methodologies for emission reductions chosen by the European Union, the choice in favour of biofuels also needs to be prominently criticised, since it directly affects the food security of Bangladesh’s poor. Although the international rises in food prices which have occurred in the first part of 2008 are due to a combination of factors (including international speculation in food crops, and neoliberal/export-oriented policies), and not to biofuels alone – the shift in production from food crops to biofuels according to both scientists and journalists has also played a role. Hence, the critique of the EU’s policy regarding biofuels needs to be incorporated in a demand programme, which addresses the interests of the population of Bangladesh.
In short, debate and public opinion-building on climate change and Bangladesh should, amongst other things, seriously question these existing policies of the European Union. Forceful demands need to be formulated and canvassed for internationally, stating that the EU move beyond the limited targets which its institutions and most Europe-based environmental organisations have so far set. Not money aimed at ‘adaptation’, but the political demand in favour of drastic policy changes should be the lead principle guiding lobbying efforts towards the European Union. Given the magnitude of the threat that looms, Bangladesh has a great interest in mobilising international opinion, aimed at radically bringing down carbon dioxide emissions, and such in the shortest possible time.
Dr Peter Custers is a lobbyist and academic, and is president of the International Committee for Democracy in Bangladesh, based in Leiden, the Netherlands
Taking responsibility is essential
to find solution
A developed society is one in which the lines of command are intact and work with precision, where responsibility is taken at the very highest level and mistakes, and certainly abuses, are discontinued. Only in such a society will citizens trust the government to solve their problems and lead them to a better future, writes Jehan Perera from Colombo
WITH reports coming in on a daily basis of military progress in the battlefields of the north and of the destruction of LTTE bases, it is to be expected that the government’s military strategy would be generally perceived as a successful one. Although concerns are sometimes expressed that the costs of this strategy are high, conclusive evidence to buttress this claim is hard to come by. The presentation of the military campaigns in the present time is in contrast to the previous phases of the war when reports of reversals and high human and military costs frequently undermined the impression of success.
Nearly all reports to be found in the media today are indicative of military success with little of the costs being incorporated into them. This is partly on account of the voice of dissent in the media being virtually silenced in the face of repeated assaults and threats of violence. In this context, the interview to the media given by army commander Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka is particularly important. He has said the Sri Lankan armed forces have effectively eliminated the LTTE’s capacity to engage in conventional warfare as they had in the past. He also said another year may be necessary for the LTTE to be made to lose the territory it now controls.
The mission of the Sri Lankan military appears to be to recapture the territory controlled by the LTTE and to dismantle their administrative and political apparatus, as was accomplished in the east. Unable to face the onslaught by the Sri Lankan military, this territory is already much less than what the LTTE controlled two years ago, having lost the entirety of the east, and some parts of the north. However, it is also significant that the army commander gave a warning that the LTTE could continue as a guerrilla force of a thousand cadres for another two decades, and that the armed conflict might even last forever, though in a different form.
In his interview General Fonseka said, ‘There are people who believe in Tamil nationalism. The LTTE might survive another even two decades with about 1,000 cadres. But we will not be fighting in the same manner. It might continue as an insurgency forever.’ Implicit in this responsible observation is the acknowledgement of an ethnic conflict between the forces of competing nationalisms that requires a political solution. The experience of conflicts in other parts of the world suggests that military solutions cannot suppress the nationalistic impulses of people.
Tamil nightmare
It is nationalism, or love of one’s own people and their history and culture, that leads people to make immense sacrifices, even of laying down their lives for the cause of their nation. This suggests that if a lasting solution to the problem of nationalism is to be found, it cannot be limited to one that is imposed by force. There is only one alternative to a military solution and that is a negotiated solution. But the problem in Sri Lanka is that so long as the LTTE is determined to wage war against the government, the government will respond in kind. The nature of government is to wield the monopoly of armed force, which is vested in it by both international law and dominant concepts of state sovereignty.
There is a large school of thought at the present time in Sri Lanka that those who call on the government to negotiate a political solution with the LTTE are being unrealistic at best and traitors at worst. This school of thought has grown in strength after the failure of the peace process of 2002-2005. During that period, the two governments, one headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and after his dismissal the one headed by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, went farther than any other previous government to avoid war as the path to a solution. But the LTTE rejected those efforts as insufficient, and finally acted with inflexible determination to provoke the return to war.
As a result, there is today an increasingly nightmarish situation in the country, especially as it affects the Tamil people. Supporters of Tamil nationalism and the LTTE need to rethink their stances if they wish to ease the sufferings of the Tamil people whose basic rights they must surely wish to uphold. The counter-productiveness of supporting a war that is destroying the Tamil people needs to be considered. Heightened security measures have meant that thousands of Tamils living in Colombo were recently forced out of their homes in the early hours of the morning, along with their aged, infirm and children, to be interrogated, investigated and video filmed. Disappearance and abductions are also reportedly taking place, although the government denies this, and says most have either been legally arrested or are absconding from their homes.
In the north, Tamil people flee from the LTTE-controlled areas, either to escape the remorseless forced recruitment of the LTTE or to escape the bombardments of the military engagements that are taking place. It is reported that the LTTE does not give permission to people living within the areas they control to leave those areas, and keep them as virtual human shields and pools for recruitment. It is also reported that those who do succeed in fleeing, often at risk to their lives, end up in welfare camps in government-controlled areas, where they are virtually confined without being given the freedom of further movement. This is on account of the government’s fears that LTTE cadre may also have sought to infiltrate in with them.
Some of the especially stringent security precautions being taken by the government at this time could be on account of the SAARC summit that is to be held at the end of the month in Colombo. This summit will bring together the heads of all the eight South Asian countries, and is major public relations exercise for the government which looks to these countries for friendship, military assistance and economic partnership. The LTTE may be planning for terror attacks, but needs to realise that these attacks have not dissuaded the Sri Lankan government from going ahead with its own military strategy, as outlined by the army commander. Terror attacks by the LTTE only convince the people and the international community, that the LTTE is part of the problem to be eliminated, rather than a party that is fit to be made a part of the
solution.
Responsible governance
Unfortunately, the government’s present approach to the ethnic conflict, and in particular to the challenge posed by the LTTE, is also not solution oriented either. The government’s democratic credentials are being constantly eroded by the reports of ongoing human rights violations and violations of the constitution such as the 17th amendment. The government appears to be engaged in an effort to forcibly impose its own version of a solution on the multi-ethnic and plural society of Sri Lanka, in which competing forces of nationalism have the upper hand, and are being further fuelled by government actions.
The continuing assault on journalists, especially those who have been defence correspondents, is a serious indictment on the government. The most recent such attack that caused injury to a journalist working for the Sri Lanka Press Institute got international coverage, largely on account of the presence in the victim’s vehicle of a local staff member of the British High Commission, who also got assaulted. It is likely that the latter victim was an inadvertent target of the attackers. But this incident, which took place in the heart of Colombo, serves as a warning of how abuse of power, if left unchecked, can spill over and claim more groups of victims.
The response of the government to this attack, as well as to previous ones, has been disappointing. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, alleged that the government was the victim of a conspiracy to discredit it. Other senior government officials made claims that these attacks may be staged, as journalists benefit from them by being granted asylum in foreign countries. Ironically, some of these attacks have taken place in high security zones. The reluctance to take responsibility suggests that the government is prepared to countenance further such attacks.
An extreme example in the opposite direction comes from France. The army commander there recently resigned following an incident in which a soldier fired live bullets instead of blank ones at an exhibition. A developed society is one in which the lines of command are intact and work with precision, where responsibility is taken at the very highest level and mistakes, and certainly abuses, are discontinued. Only in such a society will citizens trust the government to solve their problems and lead them to a better future. It is democratic processes, a sense of honour and universal values that alone can restore the government’s credibility with its multiethnic and plural population.
Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. jehanpc@sltnet.lk
The new anti-terrorism law
The laws are formulated, enacted and enforced in a country to guarantee a fair justice delivery system to the people, to protect them from injustice and to ensure the maximum welfare of the people. But, the newly enforced draconian anti-terrorism law has posed a serious threat to the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the people. The several provisions of the new law are seriously objectionable and will pave the way for malfeasance of legal power by the sate authorities to intimidate and suppress the dissidents and political adversaries.
We urge the government to repeal forthwith the act that restricts people’s rights.
Alamin Al Azad,
Zahurul Haque Hall, Dhaka University
Landslide
People getting killed in landslide are not only tragic but it also exposes the unconcern of the authorities towards human life. Hundreds of people died in landslide last year. How can such tragedies recur this year? What did the government do all these time? As the residents of foothills are to poor to afford houses in town areas, they are reluctant to leave their dwelling places even though it’s extremely risky. But what did the government not rehabilitate these people?
Nazir Sabri
Kachkura, Uttarkhan, Dhaka
Local election
This is in reference to the comment ‘BNP, allies won’t contest local elections: Accuse AL of entente with govt’.
This accusation against the Awami League by the BNP reminds us of that culture of dirty politics practised prior to 1/11 — blaming each other and doing exactly the opposite to what the other does. The attitude of our politicians doesn’t seem to have changed thus far.
There’s a reasonable fear that local elections may be an attempt on the part of the incumbent government to place their own people at the grassroots level in order to prolong its tenure. Nevertheless, it is also a test for caretaker government with regards to their credibility and capability of conducting a free, fair and credible election by the end of this year. The Awami League has taken a sagacious decision and the BNP policymakers should get rid of blame game and be perspicacious in their decision making.
Divide and dissent among political parties will only exacerbate the looming crisis and hinder our return to democracy.
Ahmad Ferdous Bin Alam
Dhaka
* * *
People want change, their empowerment is at stake. People’s empowerment has been neglected for the last 37 years to serve party, group and family interests. We urge the major political parties to move away from their negative stance against holding local polls ahead of national polls. The perception that the parliamentary elections would be delayed or hampered if the upazila elections were held first is not right. There is no logic behind it.
Gopal Sengupta
Canada
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. Ban on trade unionism to go partially (New Age, July 7)
b. No one during appeal against EPR conviction can contest polls: Sakhawat (New Age, July 7)
c. Emergency to put polls credibility in doubt: UK envoy (New Age, July 7)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
