mero soch

i m thoroughly impresssed

Dear Vaibhav Duggar,
I read your comments on batti bandh. I think that “batti bandh” is a gimmick by urban youth to avoid taking relly hard decisions about their lifestyle. See below
JS
_____________________
Can gimmicks reduce global warming?
J.Srinivasan
Divecha Centre for Climate Change
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
The issue of global warming has suddenly captured the imagination of the media. During December 2007, some urban youth in Mumbai tried to create awareness among the people by organizing a “lights-off” at night in Mumbai. This attempt by the urban youth to create awareness about global warming is laudable. They may, however, be unaware of the complexity and subtle challenges inherent in any attempt to reduce global warming. The urban lifestyle leads to a more intensive use of fossil-fuels than a rural lifestyle. Instead of organizing a “lights-off” the urban youth should have gone for more concrete steps such as forsaking the motorcycle or the air-conditioner. The new “Mall-culture” in urban India represents a wasteful use of energy. If the urban youth are serious about reducing global warming they should boycott the Malls which promote an unsustainable lifestyle.
In the 20th century most countries in the world became addicted to fossil fuels. Any attempt to wean these countries away from their addiction to fossil fuels will not be easy. The rapid economic growth of developing countries has been fuelled by indiscriminate and inefficient use of fossil fuels. These economies will develop unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if fossil fuels become expensive or unavailable. The transition from a fossil fuel based economy to one based on renewal energy sources will not be easy. Hence the policy makers are reluctant to make drastic changes unless there is irrefutable proof that global warming is harmful and primarily on account of burning of fossil fuels by human beings. Do we have an irrefutable proof that rapid increase in temperature that has occurred in the last 50 years is on account of global warming?
The increase in temperature that we have witnessed in the last 50 years is primarily on account of the increase in carbon-dioxide and methane. These gases are transparent to the incoming solar radiation but absorb almost all the radiation emitted by the earth’s surface. The glass roof of a greenhouse is transparent to solar radiation but absorbs all the radiation emitted by the plants in the greenhouse. Hence gases like carbon-dioxide and methane which behave like the glass in the greenhouse are called greenhouse gases. The trapping of the earth’s radiation by these minor gases is the primary reason for the large warming of the earth’s surface during the past 50 years. Could this increase have occurred on account of natural causes such as an increase in radiation emitted by the sun? Solar radiation does vary in an eleven year cycle but this cyclic variation is small and cannot explain the steady increase in surface temperature during the last 50 years.
The amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by around 20 % during the past 50 years. How do we know that this increase is on account of burning of fossil fuels by human beings? We can estimate quite accurately the amount of fossil fuels (i.e., coal, oil and gas) used by human beings every year. Since we know the carbon content of these fuels we can calculate the amount of carbon-dioxide released by burning of fossil fuels. These calculations indicate that the carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere should have increased by 40 % during the past 50 years. The actual increase was much less because about half the carbon-dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning of fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans, trees and other vegetation.
The global negotiations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is looked upon as a battle between developed countries, which are mainly responsible for the past and present emissions of carbon-dioxide , and developing countries which will be the major contributor for the future emissions. At present, the developed world and China are responsible for about 66% of the total greenhouse gas emissions while India contributes to less than 5% to the total global emissions. Hence we can argue that Indians need not do anything to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The rich urban citizens of India must realize that they are also a part of the problem and gimmicks such as switching of the lights for an hour is not going to the solve the problem. The real divide in this world is not between the high per capita emission in developed world and the low per capita emission in the developing world. The true divide is between the high per capita emissions of carbon-dioxide by the rich (mostly urban) versus the low per capita emission by the poor in the rural areas of the world. The urban lifestyle requires higher consumption of materials, energy and water than a rural lifestyle. In a recent article in Frontline (6 April 2007), the correspondent, R. Ramachandran, has highlighted the survey on carbon dioxide emissions conducted by Greenpeace. This survey showed that carbon dioxide emission per capita by the rich in India (those with monthly income above Rs.30,000) was almost 5 times larger than the per capita emissions of the poor in India ( those with monthly income below Rs.3000 per month). Any attempt by India to curb carbon dioxide emission must begin by trying to control the large carbon dioxide released through energy intensive activities of the rich in India.
In India, the human needs for a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle can be met by the direct use of solar energy. India does not have abundant resources of fossil or nuclear fuels but has abundant supply of solar energy. This will, however, be more expensive then the use of fossil fuels. Hence the transition from a fossil fuel based economy to a solar energy based economy will be slow. Most people think of solar cells as the best way to convert solar radiation to electricity. The solar cells have, however, turned out to be expensive and hence their use has been restricted to niche applications. The conversion of solar radiation to heat and generation of steam is a more economical option at present. World’s largest solar power plants are those that convert solar radiation to steam and use this steam to generate electricity. In the state of California in USA, there are many such plants (each with a capacity of 30 MW) with a total capacity of 350 MW of electrical power. They have been working for more than 10 years. If the size of these plants is increased to 200 MW it is estimated that cost of electrical power will reduce below Rs. 5 per kWh. This is still more expensive than what we now pay for electricity but this is a price worth paying in order to reduce the future threat of global warming,
The real challenge in India is to find a substitute for petrol and Diesel used in the transport sector. The use of bio-fuel in the transport industry is a viable option. The bio-fuel can come from non- edible oil seeds and hence bypass the conflict between agricultural land for food and fuel. If bio-fuel is obtained from oil seeds produced by trees that grow in waste lands, there will no threat to food production. This approach has been advocated by Prof. Udipi Shrinivasa ( Indian Institute of Science) during the past 10 years. The planting of Honge ( Pongamia Pinnata) trees in waste land will generate new employment in rural sector and alleviate the problem of rural unemployment.
The large publicity given to global warming is harmful because it fails to recognize serious problems created by air pollution in urban areas. Most of the particulate pollution in urban areas is created by buses and trucks that use Diesel. This has serious impact on the health of citizens in urban areas. The emission of un-burnt hydrocarbons and nitric oxide by vehicles in urban areas increases the concentration of surface ozone. If this ozone is transported to adjacent rural areas they can have adverse impact on grain production. This impact will be immediate and more serious than the impact of global warming on food production in the future. This issue has been totally ignored by the urban youth and the media.
The global warming issue cannot be tackled easily in a democracy because the future generations, that will bear the brunt of the adverse impact of global warming, have no voting rights. Hence this issue demands political leaders with vision who do not merely react to the needs of the current electorate but recognize the need to be concerned about the long term health of the planet. The urban youth can make a big impact if they convince the politicians that they need to take tough and difficult decisions now in order to prevent a catastrophe in the future. The major transformations in the roads of urban India (e.g., flyover and tunnels) have been driven by the needs of car and motorcycle owners. The rights of pedestrians and cyclists have been totally ignored. The urban youth should fight for the rights of the poor who do not contribute to global warming and not look for soft options such as switching off the lights for one hour.

_________________________________