|
Young World
Cry for green space
GOUTAM GHOSH
|
Is our planet turning hostile to life? Summers are hotter now than before and the monsoon is failing. What could be the reason? Is there anything we can do about it?
|
A reputed cardiac surgeon in Chennai asked me recently, ``When did you last see sparrows?'' I was baffled, because I took them for granted and I presumed they were still around, chirping merrily. Then I realised that there weren't many more sparrows left - and they could be extinct sooner than later. ``I guess they have perished after eating pesticide-coated seeds and grains laced with artificial fertilizers,'' the surgeon said.
Our planet is turning hostile to life. Aren't the summers hotter now and haven't you noticed the monsoon failing? Aren't cyclones lashing countries round the world, and isn't Europe being drowned in floods? Haven't you noticed that nights are much hotter now than they were some years ago? The sun heats us for about 12 hours every day. The land warms faster than the sea, but after dusk, the heat absorbed by the ground is lost quickly whereas the sea retains it longer. This is why we have the landward and seaward breeze. The problem is that this heat bounces right back to earth because of a thick padding of gases, mainly carbon dioxide. These are known as greenhouse gases, and the reflected heat is the greenhouse effect - just as in a garden greenhouse where exotic plants are nurtured.
Plants use carbon dioxide to make food by photosynthesis during the day and release oxygen. Thus plants maintain the carbon dioxide-oxygen balance - as a ``sink'' to handle the carbon dioxide load. Oceans are also natural ``sinks''. But both these ``sinks'' together can manage a maximum load of 3.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. The figure is large. It is the weight of 95 million children, each weighing 40 kg.
Floods and drought...forced to cope with extremes.
When only living things existed on this planet, there was no problem because the ``sinks'' could easily absorb the carbon dioxide that the living things exhaled. Even a world population of over six billion (in addition to other living things) would be no problem if there were no other source of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, there are more ways in which carbon dioxide is generated today than before the Industrial Revolution that changed the way of life in the world.
Today we have cars, planes and trains using petroleum products to run. The problem with these fossil fuels (called so because forests which disappeared below the surface millions of years ago changed into petroleum because of temperature, pressure and other factors) is they are a non-renewable resource (it takes millions of years for buried forests to become petroleum) but they also generate carbon dioxide (in addition to other gases) when burnt.
With the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increasing rapidly, the load soon crossed the limit that the ``sinks'' could handle each year. And greenhouse gases began to accumulate, heating up the planet slowly but certainly.
The problem can be solved if every individual, every country agrees to stop using these fossil fuels. But can you imagine a life without cars, trains, and planes? And who pays for the damage already caused? That takes us to the politics of environment.
No country is willing to take the first step, because no one has found a fossil fuel substitute, except solar energy, wind energy and hydroelectric power which have limited use. The West's automobile industry is powerful and it opposes any move to find a substitute energy source. A good substitute would mean that the automobile industry would have to shift from fossil-fuel-using internal combustion engines to engines that needed no fossil fuel but generated power to move.
Why don't the developed countries pay for damage already caused? No country is willing to shoulder this burden. The World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg hopes to find a way out but no one is willing to give up on anything. No one seems to understand that unless everyone acts together and immediately, there will be disaster. The planet will heat up so much the polar ice caps will melt. The sea level will rise and wipe out parts of small and large island nations. There may come a time, when satellite images will show all countries shrunk in size like deflated balloons (because existing coastlines will have disappeared).
Because of the greenhouse gases, heat-related deaths will wipe out hundreds of thousands of people round the world, particularly in developing countries. But less population will not be a blessing to those who remain. Do the fewer sparrows today portend a bleak future for the planet?
There was a time we lived without electricity; there was a time when our forefathers never guessed what a car could look like; there was a time when travel took days and weeks. We have to wake up and strike a balance.
You have only one earth. Would you like the planet to melt after you are no more? If not, you do not have to sacrifice much - travel less; use your cars less and your bicycles more; plant trees wherever you can; and urge your parents to use solar appliances. After all, the earth is a beautiful planet. You must leave it behind for the future generations to be awed by its beauty as much as you are today.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Young World
|
