Oped»
We can do it
JUN 20 -
In South Asia, almost 15,000 Himalayan glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers such as the Indus, the Ganga and the Brahmaputra that are the lifeline of millions of people. Hence, it was a source of major dismay for policymakers in the region when the International Panel From Climate Change (IPCC) released its report in 2007 stating, “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
Since then, glaciologists who have directly challenged the validity of the data have said that such arguments are less plausible because even though the glaciers are melting, it is hard to imagine that they will all disappear in the next 25 years. Even though the precise date is debatable, we are certain of the relation between climate change and the melting of the glaciers and the implication it will have on biodiversity, people’s livelihood, energy generation and water shortage. It can create havoc in a country such as Nepal which primarily relies on mountain water and the monsoon for irrigation and hydroelectricity.
Moreover, further industrialisation of our neighbours China and India may present us economic opportunities that may come with the worst environmental consequences and stifling political bargain, leading us to compromise on a deal that may suit India’s and China’s national interests. At this juncture where international cooperation has not yet taken concrete shape when it comes to carving suitable financial and environmental policy guidelines on the issue, as shown at the Copenhagen conference or the recent conference on climate in Bonn, Nepal primarily needs to promote global environmental policies that serves its national interests, and in the meantime, promote national and local policies to tackle climate change.
Nepal should vehemently support the idea of cap and trade as a viable energy trading scheme (ETS). In this mechanism, carbon emission trading should occur between countries when one emits more than allowed by an international body, meaning a polluter can buy polluting rights from a country that pollutes less. Such a scheme, which is practiced in the European Union, will directly help poor countries such as Nepal that emit less that 0.1 percent of the total emissions in the world but are highly affected to get capital from regional polluters such as India and China (China emits 21.5 percent and India emits 5.5 percent of the total carbon emissions). Even though trading of environmental assets may seem immoral, it is important for a country such as Nepal which needs capital to prevent itself from an environmental crisis and develop itself in a sustainable manner.
However, garnering global support for such a scheme is a big problem. In the case of countries such as the US, China and India, placing a cap on carbon emissions could be interpreted as restricting the ability of the nation’s economic growth, making it politically untenable. Politicians and policymakers often relate such issues of efficiency and futurity with sovereignty and equity making it impossible to expand coverage of the ETS globally. Moreover, the ETS is a difficult task, and making it free of asymmetric information, corruption and lobbying may require proper monitoring and evaluation at both global and national levels. Henceforth, the role of governments and policymakers is to improve the design of the scheme by addressing practical issues such as how to monitor the programme rules, reconcile certain geographical administration with political boundaries, record and broker such trading schemes, create awareness among the public, and address issues of environmental justice.
Getting global consensus for the ETS is an uphill task, therefore, Nepal should keep a strong focus on its national policies in order to boost its image as an eco-friendly country. So far, industrial pollution in Nepal has been significantly low; but it does not mean that we do not push for environmental regulation for these industries. Our reflex often tends to blame big scale industries as the primary polluter, but we also need to acknowledge that individuals and households as consumers do share responsibility for pollutant release and environmental harm. However, regulating the behaviour of individuals is even trickier than that of a factory because monitoring of individuals is extremely difficult.
The influences on individual behaviour, when it comes to climate change, are mainly due to inadequate information, cognitive limitations and social influences. If information on the importance and implications of reducing climate change is provided to individuals in a clear and usable form, it can make people more knowledgeable and ready to change. Using pamphlets, handouts or even holding trainings at different levels, where individuals in Nepal are trained to monitor their use of plastics, emissions from their motorcycles and cars and promote participation in forest conservation, can make them more conscious of their personal role. The use of plastics and old vehicles that spew out carbon dioxide and deforestation, common problems in Nepal, may not look good for our image if we are fighting to secure millions of dollars from possible ETS deals or donors to fight climate change.
An increase in information may lead people to try to change their habits. They may seek to ride a bicycle to work or even walk instead of driving. However, if this new habit is to be made permanent, additional measures are required to ensure that the new ways of doing things are actually useful or attractive. The government may need to build better bicycle lanes or replace old vehicles or private use of vehicles with energy efficient public transportation. Michael Vanderbergh, an assistant professor of law at Vanderbilt University, argues that in the case of environment behaviour, people are likely to avoid information that would make them feel bad about themselves or their actions. If they are told that their actions are environmentally unsound, rather than weighing the costs and benefits of their actions, they may try to reduce dissonance by adding consonant cognitions. If we encourage these individuals to attend to the circumstances of their choices, they may be more willing to consider more information which may lead to a change in their habits. For example, exposing Nepalis to respiratory problems due to pollution in Kathmandu may make them careful about unnecessary driving and encourage them to walk more often.
One of the roles of an individual is to be more open about receiving new information and trying to implement it. The task here is to provide persuasive public information through campaigns. Creating social influences can be a remarkable way of influencing individual behaviour towards environmental responsibility. Since we all have different habits in life, the best way to exert influence is providing information on the consequences of their habits and how they can benefit if they gave up those habits. One of my neighbours carries a cotton bag when she goes shopping so that she can avoid piling plastic bags in her kitchen. In other cases, switching on the power saver button of your laptop or desktop computer may help you to reduce your electricity bill and possibly reduce the power shortage hours. Even though it is a small thing, if enough people do it, we may be on the right path of making Nepali lifestyles more climate friendly.
Posted on: 2010-06-21 08:30
Headlines
Advertisements
