Issue 40 Vol II, May 31, 2007

E N V I R O N M E N T

Weapons of Mass Destruction Hurting the Environment
Khushwant Toor

United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently confirmed that Global warming is an “unequivocal” issue. A number of concerns spoiling our environment and their deadly effects were raised in the report IPCC published in Feb. of this year. Every media channel in the world is carrying a report or two  on facts of Global warming, recommending steps we people posing as guardians of this beautiful earth can take to stabilize already overshot warming effect.

The oceans are increasing in volume due to heat and their imminent threat is visible almost on every beach. Famous cities such as Florida are in the crisis of gathering/shifting sand to regain its lost beach lines. Melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers have been beautifully photographed by different environmentalists. U.S. Ex Vice President Al Gore received an Oscar nomination for the remarkable work he did in making of the Inconvenient Truth. He later testified in front of the Congress to take action immediately which mobilized the U.S. government on the issue.

Every government is inclined to take action and actions are being taken. New technologies are being implanted and research grants are being inflated for the common cause. Authorities on a whole are interlinking to solve Global warming effect so far so that Ex- Presidents such as Bill Clinton and Governors of states such as Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger are going out of their territories to help other territories such as Toronto to become more Green and environmental friendly. But one common problem remains a little unaddressed; the war in different regions of the world. No one is willing to co-relate the effects of war on Global warming and hold responsible those involved in the crisis.

One wonders what are the effects of war and the weapons of mass destruction such as Nuclear warheads, similar bombs or the small sleekly bullets have on the environment other than leaving many dead. For its readers, in a series of articles SAP will try to outline the mind boggling facts just gathered from different sources over the internet on different types of weapons.

Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned. In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade (source Guardian Unlimited):. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting last year in San Francisco a member of the team from UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history.

According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict. In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles.

There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, 95% of which are held by the US and Russia. India and Pakistan could face 12m and 9m immediate deaths respectively, while an attack on the UK would cause almost 3m immediate deaths. A single nuclear blast in a major urban area would kill more than 125,000 people in the UK, injuring a further 100,000.

In the 100 warhead scenario, more than 5m tonnes of sooty black smoke would spew from the resulting firestorms. This smoke would float to the upper atmosphere, get heated by the sun and end up being carried around the world.

The particles would absorb sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface, which would result in a rapid cooling of the Earth by an average of 1.25C. "This would be colder than the little ice age, the largest climate change in human history," said Prof Robock a member of the same research team.

Scary it does sound. Preventing a nuclear war is an agenda far bigger than Global Warming.

To be continued…..

BACK

Conservation and GM Technology
Umendra Dutt

IT is twenty years since the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] first proposed an intergovernmental convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It came into existence in 1993, yet crises of biodiversity remains a global concern as it is a local problem. Also, there are concerns as well protests against large-scale bio trade and "biopiracy".

190 countries, including India are members of the CBD. They have pledged to conserve biological resources, promote sustainable use and protect people’s knowledge, innovation and practices.

India singed the CBD in 1994, but its Biological Diversity Act to implement its commitments came into being only in 2002, followed by the executive rules in 2004. A National Biodiversity Authority has been set up at Chennai and State Biodiversity Boards are being set up in different states. At the local level the Act requires that Biodiversity Management Committees be established by all panchayats and municipalities. Peoples concerns are that the law is more an "access" legislation facilitating trade in biological resources and screening applications on related traditional knowledge. The law and its implementation do not address or reverse in any way the wave of privatisation and corporate control over people's resources.

Loss of biodiversity due to senseless l development allowed by the government is contributing to the planet's climate crisis. The government is not seriously addressing the issue of climate change to ensure people's access to resources and knowledge. There ids a grave threat due to increasing corporate control in its most perverse forms. The government with the private sector is also encouraging untested technologies such as genetic engineering in agriculture which also poses unprecedented danger of genetic pollution. At the same time development projects, like large dams and mining activities are leading to the destruction of huge habitats which are repositories of biodiversity.

India is one of 17 centres of mega diversity in the world. This means that many plants have their centre of origin in India, exist in the wild and have been domesticated from wild species over a long period of thousands of years of cultivation by our farmers. This is why India needs to exercise particular caution with GM crops. The threat to her biodiversity from contamination by GM crops is as serious as Climate Change requiring   urgent attention from Parliament, the Judiciary and Civil Society. Field trials of rice in Chhatisgarh in 2006, which is located in the corridor that forms the Centre of Origin of rice, perhaps typify as nothing else, the blatant support of the GE Industry by the Government and the mortgage of India’s sovereign interests.

Concerns of Biological diversity in Punjab

In Punjab, the State Biodiversity Board was notified in December 2004. Two expert committees (on identification of Biodiversity Heritage Sites and for identification of commercially imported flora and fauna) have already been constituted. The Board has also constituted committees in villages and creating an online database for biological resources. Whether this effort is a move to protect traditional knowledge and bio-resources for the communities or for the corporates is a question for local groups to reckon with. 500 hectare of land in Shivalik has been declared as Protected Area and there is talk of setting up of a Gene Bank at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. In the official meeting of the NBA organised for the Northern region in December 2006, Amritsar found special mention as a centre of bio trade of medicinal plants and rare species. The challenge is the implementation of the Act not only as a function of the Biodiversity Board, but to put in practice the principle of conservation bio-resources. Agro biodiversity needs special attention in Punjab.

In a State where both the small farmers and the living world is reeling from the after effects of monoculture promotion and chemical pollution under the "Green Revolution", working to restore the ecological balance and give biodiversity a chance would imply that there also be a check on bio hazardous technologies like transgenic which could cause irrevocable genetic pollution. If this can be achieved, Punjab could stand out as a model for the entire North.

It is also an irony that the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology is nodal agency for biodiversity issues in Punjab and the same council is also promoting GM crops under bio-safety programme. It is unacceptable to the environmental concerns of Punjab.

Professors of Guru Nanak Dev, University, Amritsar, Dr. A. S. Soodan Dr Adarsh Pal Vig find biodiversity threatened by climate change. They have urged  for ugent safety actions are: The conservation of habitats can reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Currently deforestation is estimated to be responsible for 20% of human-induced CO2 emissions. Conserving certain species such as mangroves and drought resistant crops can reduce the disastrous impacts of climate change effects such as flooding and famine.

The conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity can strengthen ecosystem resilience, improving the ability of ecosystems to provide critical services in the face of increasing climatic pressures. Prof. A K Thukral and Dr Renu Bhardwaj from the Environmental Sciences, GNDU, Amritsar pointed out that it was crucial to conserve biodiversity especially sensitive to climate change, preserve habitats so as to facilitate the long-term adaptation of biodiversity, improve our understanding of climate change and biodiversity linkages, and fully integrate biodiversity considerations into mitigation and adaptation plans.

BACK