This Himalayan Glacier burst in India washing away scores of homes and climate change is to blame

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

On February 7, 2021, the inhabitants of Raini village of Chamoli district in the north Indian state of Uttarakhand bore witness to one of the most devastating flash floods in the region in recent times. A glacial lake burst with huge amounts of water gushing down into the adjoining valley. The sudden flood was caused by a piece of the Nanda Devi glacier falling into the Dhauliganga river. The floodwaters washed away several homes and two hydroelectric power projects in addition to causing severe damage to two other dams further downstream. Although disaster management forces are at work, it is estimated that almost 200 people are still unaccounted for. As disturbing as the episode was, its timing gives us more cause for worry. February is wintertime in Uttarakhand and therefore an event caused by melting ice during this season is unusual. While the exact cause has not been pinpointed yet, environmentalists are certain that climate change is the main contributing factor to such an event.

What are glacial bursts?

A GLOF or Glacial Lake Outburst Flood is an abrupt discharge of water from a lake fed by the melting of a glacier. Glaciers are in essence just giant ice cubes formed over thousands of years. Sometimes moving glaciers can leave behind deposits of soil and rock matter called moraines. Moraines can act as pseudo dam walls resulting in the formation of glacial lakes. If the size of the lake increases with time due to increase in temperatures or other causes, pressure can also increase on the dam holding it. Disintegration of the source glacier or other processes can spark waves in the lake causing the dam to fail. This failure results in an uncontrolled water expulsion and is referred to as GLOF.

According to a report by ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development), the Himalayan region is estimated to house over 25000 glacial lakes. There’s a lot yet to be understood about glacial lakes in this region. With climate change turning the area into one of the most volatile in terms of fluctuating weather patterns, it is crucial that the authorities step in to assess the dynamics of these complex systems and take necessary measures to adapt to the negative effects of global warming.

Himalayas-Rooftop of the world

Protecting the Himalayas is in mankind’s best interest. Almost 2 billion people rely on the water that emerges from the great glaciers of the Himalayas. Large communities that live in the mountainous Himalayan region depend directly on these water sources. Even rivers such as Ganga, Yangtze, Mekong and Irrawaddy which supply fresh water to a better part of Asia all originate from the Himalayas. Water shortage will affect nearby communities and agricultural systems which will in turn cause food scarcity. As showcased by the Uttarakhand disaster, instability in the glacial regions can also affect hydroelectric power generation systems. Such terrible circumstances can trigger mass migrations from the region which can then cause a chain of geo-political issues.  Letting the region dry up could very well lead to massive shocks in the environmental, social, and economic systems of nearby lands.

The levels of Himalayan glaciers have been receding by alarming rates over the past several decades. Studies show that even if the goals of the Paris agreement are met, a third of the Himalayan glaciers could still melt by the year 2100.

More melting ice

Deterioration of Hindu Kush Himalayan region will bring about horrifying consequences. But the glacial climate change story does not end there. The Thwaites glacier is a gigantic ice sheet situated in western Antarctica. In the past four decades alone, Thwaites has lost over 600 tonnes of glacial ice. Thwaites is on course to cause as much as 3 metres of sea level rise if it is allowed to degenerate at its current pace.

Thwaites is intrinsically unstable. The mammoth glacier is stabilized by its ice shelf-a large platform of ice that has formed at the periphery of the glacier meeting the ocean surface. Due to an increase in oceanic temperature, the ice shelf has been disintegrating into smaller icebergs causing large breakouts of ice. This process eventually causes an avalanche effect that leads to blowouts of even more ice cover. If the floating ice shelf breaks apart completely, the remaining edge of the glacier (which is a big ice slope) will get exposed to warmer waters further accelerating the collapse of the parent glacier.

Photo by Jay Ruzesky on Unsplash

The collapse of Thwaites could cause a runoff of a larger part of the West Antarctic ice sheet raising sea levels by almost 3 metres. Simply put, this could mean existential crises for major coastal cities in the world. It is interesting to note that the data is not a 100% sound yet. As these are projections, our calculations may be off by a few feet. That being said, no matter how one looks at it, there is no question of whether or not glacial melting will be disastrous. It is just a question of how catastrophic it will actually turn out to be.

Endnote

As global average temperature increases and sea level rises, disasters like the Uttarakhand glacial floods will be more commonplace. Along with the increased number of wildfires and rain storms we’re witnessing; glacial blasts are just another piece of the puzzle that’s taking shape before our eyes. It’s up to us to decide when we are seriously going to take charge to solve it.

Photo by Matt Palmer on Unsplash

What we can learn from CoVID-19 in the fight against Climate Change

A lot of parallels can be drawn from the current pandemic situation to that of climate change. The virus has singlehandedly disrupted “normal” human life like no other event has. For months, air traffic came to a complete halt and cars on the road few. Employees were forced to work from home and business conferences looked to online video calls while avoiding air travel. With climbing unemployment rates and crashes in business and tourism, the world has never witnessed a downfall of this magnitude. As disastrous as it is, there’s a lot to be learnt from the current pandemic. The situation begets a response that can potentially be extrapolated onto our global fight against climate change.

Climate Change is the big brother

No doubt, COVID-19 is a global catastrophe. The virus which emerged from Wuhan in China has killed and continues to kill several hundred thousand people. The true impact on the global economy is yet to be properly estimated. Current rates show that the total number of deaths could match that of World War 2. During a time like this we might feel the need to put off the fight against a future doom, but I don’t think that’s an option we have the luxury of taking. Climate change is real, it’s big and its coming whether or not we are in the mood to deal with it.

Just as is with COVID-19, mortality rates will rise due to global temperature rise. Deaths due to climate change could be as high as 5 times that of COVID-19. The economic cost projections don’t paint a prettier picture either. The cost of climate change will be much higher. The longer we wait to shift to cleaner practices, the more expensive the shift will turn out to be.

With rising temperatures and consequently sea levels, previously serene areas will turn uninhabitable. Islands will sink and deserts will prove impossible to survive in. Climate change can thus weaken the capacity of our planet to hold 7 billion people. This translates to loss of homes, livelihood, and food sources.

Bill Gates, who has been a forerunner in leading our fight against global warming, has opined, “If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time.”

Carbon Crash

No single event has had such a drastic impact on carbon emissions as the pandemic has. With lockdowns, limited transportation and reduced business activities, pollution rates have also plummeted. Several reports show that we will see a reduction of around 8% in carbon emissions.  The last time the earth saw a big dip in emission levels was during the oil crisis of the 70’s. Although dips have come alongside several major events, none so far has been this extreme.  

Road traffic reduced by approximately 50% and this along with reduced number of flights has been the major driver for emissions lessening.

According to the IEA report, ‘Global Energy Review 2020’ if reduced activity continues, annual energy demand will drop by as much as 6% in 2020, wiping off the last five years of demand growth. The energy industry that comes out of the pandemic will be significantly weaker financially. Only the players less susceptible to market indicators such as renewables focused corporations will emerge better off.

It is interesting to note that, if CO2 emissions continue to drop at the same rate it has in 2020, we will be well set to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement by 2050. Of course, it is not a viable option in that the reduction has come at a mighty great cost.

Government response

Across the globe, administrative bodies have taken a variety of steps to mitigate the effects of the current pandemic. Closures of schools, theatres, and public gathering arenas along with other measures like limiting public transportation, restricting movement, and imposing lockdowns all form part of sudden actions taken by the authorities to curtail the impacts. In addition, governments have been able to churn up 9 trillion dollars in fiscal support to aid in economic revival. If such immediate large-scale administrative action can be taken at will for a pandemic, the same can potentially be done to fight a bigger evil. Until last year, military spending was on a steady climb with global military spending amounting to almost 4 times the spending for climate related finance. These figures will certainly see some change.

Pandemic paving the way for massive changes in business operations

The great shake-up has affected major business operations as well. Companies have begun taking steps to modify their operations to fit a greener style. Virtual meetings and increased automation will eliminate inefficiencies at multiple stages. Industries are re-imagining themselves to fit well into a post-corona world.

Brazilian cosmetics multinational, Natura has pledged to reduce its emissions to net zero and fully adopt sustainable packaging for its products. The company, which owns The Body Shop is one among many looking for ways to come out of the pandemic to mould a different world.

Hindustan Unilever announced in June that it would be going net zero by 2039. In addition, the FMCG giant has also pledged to do more than just reduce emissions by taking up projects to regulate sustainable practices among suppliers, set a deforestation free supply chain by 2023, and scale water resilience programmes. It also pledged to invest €1 billion in ‘Climate & Nature Fund’ aimed at taking decisive action against climate change.

Lessons

The key takeaway is that the pandemic has showed us how it’s possible to lead a different society. It has shown vividly the consequences of inaction. Countries which were quick in taking strict action are the ones relatively better off as compared to the nations which dealt the coronavirus apathy card. Right now, efforts are underway globally to produce an effective vaccine that can inoculate billions. The world has come together in its struggle against the pandemic. This does shed some positive light on our fight to preserve the environment. Actions show that we are capable of change. Over the past months, we have witnessed massive changes in lifestyle choices, spending and general priorities. Even from an economic perspective, just as we have raised funds to fight the virus, it’s possible to invest in efforts to fight climate change. It has become clear that we can take measures however drastic in the face of danger. The first step in the right direction would be to identify that climate change is the bigger evil we need to fight together.  

The ludicrous disparity between military and climate spending

The number one issue put forth by politicians and other climate change skeptics is that of the economic impact that the climate fight will entail. They are right. Adopting climate friendly practices on a global scale will be a massively expensive undertaking. To pour a great amount of resources on to a matter whose consequences we won’t even notice for decades feels like a ridiculous operation.  Aside from the obvious holes in this line of argument, it is interesting to note that we already do spend such exorbitant amounts of resources on what can only be categorized as less crucial missions.  Global military spending amounted to 1.9 trillion dollars last year (the highest it has been since 1988) while global spending on climate related finance totaled not over 579 billion according to Climate Policy Initiative, a climate focused think-tank. The absurdity of this distinction is only emphasized by the fact that climate change financing usually brings with it jobs and improved technology whereas military spending helps us better fight amongst one another. Of course, the military prefers to refer to this “fight money” as the ‘cost of security’. Use any form of euphemism you want but it wont drive us away from the real demon that is climate change.

Disparities

The current figures associated with climate finance are much higher than previous levels but still fall far short of what is needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Climate finance provided by governments totaled a paltry amount of 37 billion dollars in 2017/2018. The bulk of climate spending still comes from private finance which totaled 326 billion USD in 2017/18.  In 2019, the 5 countries that spent the most on military were USA, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.  The US military budget was 732 billion dollars. This figure which in itself was higher than that of the remaining 4 countries combined was also bigger than global climate spending. The US alone spends on military what the rest of the world together spend on fighting climate change.  

Causes for spikes in expenditure

The increase in military expense can perhaps be attributed to the emergence of China as a world superpower in a way that reminds us of the Soviet era. As a precautionary measure against Chinese supremacy, several nations have ramped up their defense quotas. Volatility amongst African states is another trigger for increased spending in the sub-Saharan region. While the US likes to blame China for its increased military spending, the relative allocation of budgets by these countries must also be compared to get a better understanding of what’s at play. The Chinese spend almost half of their defense spending on climate while the Trump administration’s proposal for 2021 showcased steep cuts in the budgets of EPA and Department of Energy.

Hogwash reasoning

The prime goal of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. The war budget is hence warranted. This is the key claptrap argument used to justify the colossal defense expenditure. The senseless notion falls flat on its face when you consider the true cost of the global climate problem. With increase in greenhouse gases and subsequently global temperatures, polar ice will melt, and sea levels will rise. These effects will further cause a variety of climatic anomalies like massive floods, hurricanes, and droughts. Such trends will then impact economic systems. The effects always trickle down to the common citizen.

The military will be helping itself by going green

Analysis of general military spending patterns shows that more money is being spent on developing infrastructure resilience to climate change. This involves efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change by building structures that can withstand tropical storms, raising piers, strengthening sea walls, and increasing the robustness of systems in coastal regions. It is evident that the Department of Defense recognizes the consequences of extreme weather caused by climate change and continues to take steps to fight the effects.

It is in the military’s best interest to uphold the move to sustainability. A stable environment can potentially correlate to decreased political unrest. Series of unfortunate weather-related events will only have a detrimental impact on the defense system’s ability to maintain political stability. Even if you choose to ignore the macroscopic effects and focus on the ability to fight hostile attacks, green technology will only help in that regard. For instance, green EVs if used in the army might require less refueling and hence provide less downtime in unwelcoming regions. Such innovations can only spark positive outcomes even with respect to immediate welfare.

The militaristic perspective considers its expenses necessary to maintain order in the world. It does not seek to fix the world we live in. We need to recognize that taking care of the planet is our priority. In doing so we will only be taking care of ourselves. Senator Bernie Sanders had proposed a 16.3 trillion USD blueprint to fight climate change before dropping out of the US presidential race. He intended to fund the mission by cutting military funding among other things. Although not much can be said about that plan now, it is clear that more needs to be done in the search for global warming solutions. Climate spending has definitely been on the rise in recent years, though the rate of growth is far from optimum. We need to witness rapid increase in climate spending in order to limit the harmful effects of global warming. Climate is a far bigger threat than any terrorist.

Is carbon offsetting a distraction in dealing with climate change?

Recently, I had to ship a parcel through UPS overseas. While filling up my shipment details, I came across an option to convert my shipment into a green one. On paying a nominal fee, UPS would ensure that the net effect of my shipment would be carbon neutral. How do they achieve this feat? Without converting their entire fleets into clean energy, companies like UPS can realize this goal by utilizing the concept of carbon offsetting. The idea is fairly simple. Reducing emissions to zero might not be possible in every industry. In such a case the producer of emissions can pay a fee to purchase ‘carbon offsets’ that equate to the amount of CO2 equivalent produced. A carbon offset corresponds to 1 tonne of CO2 emissions. Another party (not necessarily located in the same geographic region) can sell carbon offsets for undertaking a project that would reduce greenhouse emissions. Thus, even though the producer still emits his share, essentially, he is able to contribute to the funding of other clean projects that will in a way ‘offset’ his carbon footprint.

Corporate policy and adoption

A number of corporations have opened up to the idea of carbon offsetting. It’s a comparatively easy way of nullifying your greenhouse gas emissions without having to do any of the dirty work. Multiple airlines now offer options to negate the carbon footprint of a particular flight. Just like UPS, other shipping enterprises like Maersk have entered the carbon neutral market. Amazon has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2040. With the growing unpopularity of high emission figures, companies are looking for easier ways to call themselves ‘net zero’.

Arguments for

Fact is that achieving a net carbon neutral stance isn’t easy. Several institutions have established methods of doing business that can’t be changed outright in a short time. As a starting step, carbon offsetting is definitely a strong solution for this dilemma. Data also shows that most companies that get involved in carbon offsetting programs also take active steps to reduce their own impact on global warming. It’s just that converting manufacturing processing and the likes to clean methods will take time and innovation. In the cement industry for instance, its theoretically possible to derive the heat required for the manufacturing process from clean sources, but the very nature of the chemical process involved will lead to emission of carbon dioxide. To get cement, you have to separate the Calcium from limestone which releases CO2 and that’s just a by-product of the process. For such industries especially, apart from carbon capture methods, carbon offsets can play a significant role in reducing adverse climate impact.

Arguments against

The key point put forward by opponents of the concept is the potential abuse of carbon offsets. While carbon offsets are meant to act as a buffer until organizations turn fully green, some companies consider this a free pass to evade the issue. For some of them, the practice is not too different from paying off your adversaries to shut them up.  Carbon offsets can be misused by corporations to buy themselves a ‘green badge’. Companies can announce that they are going completely carbon neutral while still pumping out insane amounts of carbon. Another point of concern is malpractice from the entities that sell carbon offsets. Buyers of carbon credits can pay a fee and be content that they’ve made a difference. The sellers may achieve the savings in carbon emissions in any way they seem fit. Of course, there are guidelines to be followed and benchmarks like ‘Gold Standard’ which aim to keep such green projects in check. Howbeit, there’s no central authority to oversee or control such activities and this may pose a threat to the authenticity of developments. Yet another way in which the system can be cheated is one that involves entities who see carbon credits as an extra cow they can milk. Organizations that are green by their very nature may choose to make some money off selling carbon credits owing to their green practices. It is not difficult to see that this practice is counterproductive in that it does not promote any novel development activity. The burden of emissions gets lifted off the producer without actually creating a new carbon negative project. If carbon credits go to green projects that would’ve happened anyway regardless of ‘offset funding’, the underlying philosophy of the concept itself is violated. Activities of this sort can be a huge detriment to our fight for progress.

Inaccurate pricing of carbon is another issue. Recently, several organizations in the airline and shipping industries have begun offering ‘carbon neutral’ options for a minimal charge. These schemes almost always severely undercut real carbon trading values. Customers genuinely believe that their meager contributions erase their emissions and are free to go on splurging sprees without guilt. Falling for such marketing ploys is equivalent to ordering ‘diet soda’ along with a triple cheeseburger to ‘offset the calories’.

Taking eyes away from the problem?

The omnipresent dilemma of treating cause vs symptom exists here as well. It can be argued that by selling carbon offsets, we are putting away the search for alternate solutions. We are simply transferring the onus from one party to another without actively seeking ways to go clean altogether. In doing so, we achieve pseudo-elimination of the ‘delayed gratification’ problem that comes with every green venture. Common notion says that for every tree that is cut, 10 trees must be planted. Fact is that 10 saplings will not eat up the same amount of carbon that a fully grown tree does; not for several decades probably. An enormous tree owes its mass to the carbon that it pulled out of the atmosphere during its lifetime. This is the essence of carbon sequestration. The same cannot be replicated by a baby sapling in its first week. While buying carbon offsets, we are conditioned to believe that all our ‘carbon sins’ are immediately undone, but nothing could be further from the truth.

End-note

Acceptance is key. We need to realize that climate change isn’t a simple problem that will go away with a small fee. We cannot entirely do away with offsetting either as it provides a plain way of funding and promoting green projects. Carbon offsetting should only be seen as the first step in transitioning to a net zero future for it is not a sustainable solution. The solution lies in amending our ways. Countries need to look away from carbon offsetting as a means of meeting their Paris Agreement goals. Individuals need to understand that ticking the ‘offset’ checkbox does not ensure that their activities suddenly become clean. Businesses must rethink their activities from scratch.  Adopt pollution free processes and convert to clean energy.  Of course, achieving net zero can be a tedious task especially if your business practices depend on emission intensive processes. It can be easier for some than it is for others which isn’t really fair. But how do you explain that to the planet?

How India is undoing progress with privatization of coal mining

“The auction process is a win-win situation for all”- Narendra Modi

Perhaps not for the environment and since we are all intertwined with eco-system, ultimately it won’t be a win for us either.

On June 18, 2020, the Indian government initiated the process of auctioning off coal blocks to private entities with the aim of boosting industrial development and apparently achieving self sufficiency in meeting our energy demands. The step comes as a part of India’s stimulus package to revive the economy and attain “Atma Nirbhar Bharat”. Coal mining which, until now has been a monopoly of Coal India Limited, India’s coal mining PSU will now be open to the private players to exploit and rejoice. What the decision entails regarding our move towards clean energy is yet to be answered.

The amendments made to the The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, clearly provide that businesses which do not hold any prior mining experience can participate in the coal block auctions. The ease in restrictions is expected to increase foreign investment, but at what cost?

For a surfeit of reasons already presented by climatologists time and again, the world has been in a shift away from fossil fuels. The prices of solar panels are at their ever lowest, with ‘net-zero’ being the motto of a green future. One cannot help but question the hidden agendas behind such a decision when India herself has questioned the ‘developed economies’ of the world when it comes to achieving the goals of the ‘Paris Agreement’. India is the third largest producer of CO2 emissions behind only China and USA. It is only clear that the Modi government is using the pandemic as a means to accomplish some of its ulterior motives.

During its term, the government has relaxed environmental constraints on washeries (plants that treat coal to make it more environment friendly and better in quality). Pollution Control Boards even allow the function of washeries which hold highly polluting operations and increased water usage. New regulations allow thermal power plants to use low-grade coal for power production, lifting earlier restrictions. These moves form part of a scheme to make it simpler for industries to avoid environmental accountability.  

Clean Coal is a misnomer

‘With the launch of commercial mining, the ministry said India has unlocked the coal sector with opportunities in clean coal’

The term “clean coal” is something strategically devised to shift focus away from the dirty characteristics of coal as a fuel. Being the most carbon intensive fossil fuel, coal emits more CO2 on burning than oil, natural gas or any other fossilized hydrocarbon. Furthermore, coal burning also results in the release of other pollutants such as soot, NOx, sulphur, mercury, and fly ash. There is only so much we can do to mitigate the ill effects of coal. Coal scrubbers, carbon capture systems, catalytic converters, and more form the list of technologies developed to offset some of these consequences. But what is dirty to begin with cannot be made a hundred percent clean with a bit of polishing.

To make matters worse, fact is that the major share of Indian coal has high ash content and low calorific value. Abundance of low-grade coal indicates that scaling up mining practices will not lead to a linear increase in energy production. India’s low-grade supply of coal has always been a matter of dispute, with power users such as National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) constantly doubting the overall quality.

Coal production in the past

India’s affinity towards coal began during our colonial past when the East India Company began mining activities in the Raniganj coal field situated alongside river Damodar in the 1770s. The industry boomed with the onset of steam locomotives in the year 1853. India’s independence in 1947 only led to a further increase in coal production. Through a set of provisions that came about after the oil crisis of the 1970s, the government began nationalizing this sector. As a result, Coal India Limited (CIL), was formed in 1975 with the aim of regulating the coal sector with efficient practices and improved standards.

A long history of coal utilization brings us to today when over 70% of the nation’s electricity is produced by coal-fired plants.

Competition from renewables

Inefficiencies in power generation and outdated mining technologies, in addition to the innate ‘dirty’ nature of the fuel have rendered the coal sector prone to environmental challenges. According to Carbon Tracker, an institution that puts out financial data on climate and related industries, 41% of global coal fleet could have been cashflow negative in 2019. New investments in renewables are proving to be cheaper than investments in coal in almost all major markets.

Solar and wind power are currently the cheapest sources of electricity in over 66% of the world population. The tariff for solar power generated in the world’s largest solar park in Bhadla, Rajasthan is only ₹2.44/unit. Technologies have improved and equipment costs have lessened. The runway extends even further with untapped innovations in the pipeline. The coming decade will bear witness to a revolution in the energy sector. We will have massive reforms in the way energy is generated and distributed. With more technological advances, the costs of renewable energy are set to plummet.

According to the EIA, more energy was consumed from renewable sources than from coal in 2019 by USA. Coal was considered the cheapest option for power generation but that is no longer the truth. By 2030, it could be cheaper to construct renewables than to run coal.

The real winners

The decision to commercialize coal is not one that was taken thoughtlessly during the ‘Covid-19’ pandemic. The idea for commercial auctions has been looming around since quite a while back This time around however, the ministry has placed no restrictions on pricing or ownership criteria.

In light of recent events, the move comes perhaps aiming to pour capital into what seems like underutilized assets. Needless to say, this is an unsustainable measure. Numerous factors have caused a drop in demand for the resource. In a market where supply trumps demand, the economic feasibility of privatized coal is still in question. Investors will have to take into account aspects such as environmental clearances, operational costs, infrastructure development limitations, land acquisitions, rehabilitation, etc.

The utilization of coal based thermal plants for power generation has been declining for the past 3-4 years. With the graph pointing down, only time will tell if this endeavor will pass the true litmus test of the market.

It seems highly unlikely that we will witness a worldwide race for procuring the privatized mines of India, especially at a time when global giants in the sector are beginning to reduce production or close shop. The only beneficiaries in this deal are possibly the domestic industrialists who can spike their power units.

Chart courtesy of Energy Statistics India 2018

India’s green future

Coal has enabled the rapid growth of our nation, fueling our energy needs and that is a fact not trivial. However, continuing along the same route will yield no good. There’s a limit to how much coal quality can be improved. We are at the threshold of moving completely into clean energy. The Government of India has set a target of installing of installing 175 GW of renewable energy capacity by the year 2022, which includes 100 GW from solar, 60 GW from wind, 10 GW from bio-power and 5 GW from small hydro-power. As of today, renewable energy holds a share of 24% out of the total installed capacity in the nation. Studies show that gradual shifts to sustainable energy sources will not do enough to limit global temperatures from rising over 2 degrees Celsius. The move must come quick. It is precisely during this moment that India is politically marching ahead in the opposite direction.

The world’s largest solar park-Bhadla,Rajasthan

Switching the lights off will not save the planet

“Every little bit counts” is perhaps the biggest fallacy we hold as common folk in the fight against climate change. No, I am not saying that you should leave all the lights on in your home or office. I am not saying that leaving your phone charger plugged in when not in use is an eco-friendly move. You just need to understand the size of the dent you make in this fight by fixating on trivial matters. It is not that these are not savings, they are but not ones that are sizable enough to make a change. The amount of emissions you avoid by compulsively unplugging a phone charger over your lifetime can be offset by simple choosing to walk instead of driving to a nearby store once! As David JC MacKay says in his book ‘Sustainable Energy-without the hot air’, “Obsessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is”.

It is a lifestyle choice

The issue of climate change now is not something that a handful of ‘chicken little’ scientists keep reporting ad nauseum. The general public is now aware more than ever and the youth is coming forward to take conscious steps to tackle the problem. These are good signs. But awareness isn’t everything. We are late. We are too late to even take action. ‘Action’ in the sense that it’s not a one step solution. What is required of us in this fight is commitment. There is no single thing you can do to fix global warming. Would have been great if there were, but unfortunately there isn’t. The only way to collectively beat this crisis is to adopt sustainable living as a lifestyle. In this era when social media is king, we are all but slaves to being ‘fashionably green’. To be fashionably green is to post images of your new ‘Bamboo toothbrush’, with the #sustainableliving, whilst driving a gas guzzling monstrosity (This playfully creative metaphor is courtesy of ‘Marshall Eriksen’ from ‘How I Met Your Mother’) to work every day. The same ‘green fashionista’ will fly back and forth between cities for the silliest of reasons, all the while being pleased with the impact, she has made with her Bamboo toothbrush.  

In the article titled ‘We Can't Tackle Climate Change Without You’, by Mary Heglar, she talks about the importance of taking a stand collectively. One person alone cannot make a difference. But as a group, we can. It is more so true that that is the only way. So far, getting people interested in climate change has been difficult because people are not interested in delayed gratification. Nobody wants to do something now so that they can enjoy the fruits of it way in the future, let alone do something such that someone else might bear the fruits in the future. But the truth is that this future is not far off. We are already suffering the consequences of climate change. According to IPCC’s special report ’Global Warming of 1.5 ºC’, Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. Man-induced global warming has already triggered several perceivable changes in our eco system. Both land and ocean temperatures have risen, and the frequency of heatwaves has increased. Increasing temperature is forcing species wide migration patterns. The entirety of the ecological system rides on a delicate balance. It is that balance which has been shaken.

How collective action can be taken

Humanity uniting for a cause is not unheard of. When we feel passionate about something, we stand up for it. Environmental action must be given emotional value. For when we have emotions tied to anything, we are willing to give our lives for it. That has been ‘the way’ and it will be. Environmentalists need to find a different tone to paint their pictures. Yelling out “We are all going to die!”, will not get people interested. It is time to educate people and get them emotionally hooked to this cause.

There are a number of things you can do as an individual to take a stance:

• Break the silence!

  Stop staying mum about the ordeal that is about to go down. Talk to your friends, family, colleagues, anyone, and everyone. Getting people talking and building social momentum can have a profound impact.

• Vote!

Use the power of your democratic system to alter policy decisions. As regular citizens, we direct policy making by electing members who promise to do right by us. Make yourself heard and important policy changes will be a part of the agenda. Corruption and vested interests aside, political leaders eventually have to stand by the emotion of the public.

• Eat green

This can hurt the sentiments of many. I like meat as much as the next person but there’s no argument to the catastrophic effects of the meat industry on the planet. You don’t have to go vegan tomorrow, but as a first step you can work on reducing red meat and dairy from your diet. Try to slowly shift towards lower carbon meats or plant-based proteins. If anything, it’s also healthier so that’s just a plus. With the best interest in mind, please be aware that you need to focus on the big picture. Things are not always as they seem, for a locally sourced quail egg may actually be a greener than an Avocado that has flown halfway around the world from Mexico to take part in your breakfast toast ballet. Make informed choices.

• Put your money where your mouth is

I mean this quite literally. Move your stock investments away from fossil fuels. Try to invest a part of your portfolio in companies that take action against climate change

• Adopt clean energy

This means going green at the source and making sure the energy you use produces no emissions to begin with. Depending on your geographic and economic positions you may face unique challenges to this proposition. If you have a villa of your own in an area blessed with sunlight, going fully solar is a feasible option with today’s ever lowest rates for solar panels. Opt for a solar water heater in place of a regular one. You can even go the extra mile and move any other energy use to source from renewable means.

•   Be frugal with your energy use

This is a habit that can have effects multifold. Saving energy correlates to direct savings in expenses. It is much easier to save 1kWh of energy than to produce an additional 1kWh of clean energy. Of course, this means minimizing unnecessary flights and road trips among other energy expenditures. Try to walk short distances. Pool trips if that is an option. Invest in energy saving appliances. And switch off that light bulb!

There is a plethora of things you can do to help reverse climate change. Step one is to quit denial and accept that there’s a problem and that you are a part of it. Get the conversation going. Accept the green lifestyle. Make conscious, informed decisions. Appreciate the significance of collective action and realize that one bamboo toothbrush will not save the planet, but a billion might!