‘Everyone wants to do something with climate change’
‘Everyone wants to do something with climate change’
Dr Ainun Nishat, country representative, IUCN, the World Conservation Union talks to Faizul Khan Tanim on the results of the SAARC Summit and whether Bangladesh will go under water
Climate change featured strongly during the recently held SAARC summit. Have there been any fruitful results from that?
As a member of the government delegation in the SAARC Environment Ministers Meeting focusing on climate change, I would say it was a very successful and positive meeting. All the eight countries are very serious on issues related to climate change and how to manage the future impacts.
After the Bali Conference of Parties of December 15 2007 and meetings of the heads of governments of UN on September 24, 2007, the activities, adaptation, and mitigation to climate change are moving very fast. Mitigation to climate change has now become obligation to all nations, which was previously a compulsion for only the developing countries.
In SAARC a number of bold decisions were taken. One – all the countries agreed upon sharing meteorological data on real-time basis so that effective forecast could be given.
Secondly, it was decided that for adaptation, we would need funds immediately and the SAARC ministers requested to the SAARC secretariats to raise money from developing countries.
The third point, which was agreed is that the immediate focus should be on adaptation and since Bangladesh has a huge experience on disaster management; they could take lead on this issue and could support other countries.
There is a popular perception that Bangladesh will drown because of climate change. What is your take on the theory?
When Woodson Research Institute first pointed out about sea level rise in 1983 or 1984, they projected that Bangladesh would have a water level rise of five meters. Slowly, when IPCC 3 report came out, it was one meter and in the IPCC 4 report, it was decimal eight meters (79 cm). Recently there have been problems regarding calculations by the NASA scientist professor James Hansen. I have visited his webpage and downloaded his original paper and he did not mention anywhere that Bangladesh would go down by 25 meters. He said IPCC’s estimate of point eight meters is wrong and it will be at least two meters. So let us develop our preparation for two meters in the next 100 years.
The coastal belt would come near Narayanganj and if its one meter, it would come near Chandpur. The coastal belt would become salinated. But we already have five meter high embankments, so we are protected. What we will suffer from are the storm surges, for example, with heights of four meters. So four meters plus a two meters sea level rise is six meters. Now, the result would be uncertain coastal areas with storm surges, salinated coastal areas, and rice production would come down, but I do not see people drowning because they are protected.
Last year, when we experienced a three-fold flood and flash flood followed by Sidr, you were one of the experts who cited the weather disturbances as a cause of climate change. This year, however, so far, we have not experienced the extremities in weather- would you stick to your opinion? How do you see this now?
Yes, I stick to my opinion. Let’s understand what climate change is doing. It is not raining when expected to rain, sea temperature is warmer, ocean currents changed with more frequent cyclonic weather, and we have noticed that in 2007 and 2008 that the Bay of Bengal is continuously rough with warning number three at regular intervals.
When this happens, fishermen are asked to come back to shore and they lose their livelihood. This certainly did not happen 50 years back. This year, we did not have enough rainfall.
We should take note that something uncertain is happening.
Although the IPCC and other research bodies have declared that global warming is happening at an accelerated rate, it remains true that from 1998 onwards there has not been a sharp rise as shown by satellite and balloon radiosondes. What is your take on that?
These facts are not correct. The hottest ten years of last century came during last ten to 15 years. NASA is publishing the global average temperature every year and if anyone follows the IPCC4 report, it is evident how temperature is rising every year.
There is even the question of whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are truly responsible for climate change. Some scientists say that it is likely that increased carbon dioxide levels might ‘green’ the planet and make food supplies increase simultaneously. Is that true?
This is not exactly true. Let’s presume that carbon dioxide is increasing, but the trees have a certain capacity to absorb, which is called carbon sequestration. If there is more carbon dioxide and more heat, it would help in photosynthesis and certain plants like rice and wheat would possibly benefit, but not all plants. Now, rice might benefit until a certain temperature, but if that temperature increases further, rice production will fall.
Cyclones, hurricanes and other such natural phenomena were not accurately recorded before the use of satellites. Knowledge of a hurricane could only occur if it hit the seashore or a vessel at sea. So is it not presumptuous to state that the number of hurricanes and cyclones are on the increase and have become more intense?
What the IPCC4 has said that there is no conclusive evidence that the frequency of extreme cyclonic events would increase but general frequency of climatic and cyclonic events would increase, which is evident from the frequent warning number three in the Bay of Bengal during the last three to four years especially when we take data of last 25 years in to consideration.
Secondly, if the temperature of the sea surface is 80 degree Fahrenheit or more and if there is a depression, that depression gains energy. The frequency of oceanic disturbances has increased, for example, the fishes moved from their natural habitat to some other place and this is alarming indeed.
It is not necessarily true that a rise in sea levels will mean the end of the world. Although climate change refugees will suffer heavy losses, ultimately global warming will make frozen lands such as Siberia fertile and liveable; the melting glaciers might even someday be habitable?
There is something called a food chain and then there is a term called evolution. If this change takes place over a period of 10,000 years, then we would have enough time to adapt but since it will be so fast, oxygen will not increase in the pace living creatures need it.
The increased salinity in river water is nowadays being attributed to climate change by a number of climate change advocates. Wasn’t the Farakka Barrage once accused of the same thing? Who is really to blame?
Definitely, the salinity in Khulna area increased due to Farakka and not climate change. All of a sudden, there are too many climate change experts in Bangladesh. The rise in salinity in the southwestern region is principally due to anthropogenic effect, that is Farakka and climate change may have contributed but anyone trying to link up rise in salinity with climate change as the major cause is very wrong.
Do you feel the climate change issue, like many other campaigns may end up in the wrong hands and become a business?
It is imperative that Bangladesh government acts effectively and the NGOs and civil society can act as pressure groups and guide the government in the right direction. We need strong monitoring from the government to stop the already existing business that is going on especially with funds. Everyone wants to do something with climate change not clearly knowing what aspect of climate change he or she is to focus on.
Dr Ainun Nishat, country representative, IUCN, the World Conservation Union talks to Faizul Khan Tanim on the results of the SAARC Summit and whether Bangladesh will go under water
Climate change featured strongly during the recently held SAARC summit. Have there been any fruitful results from that?
As a member of the government delegation in the SAARC Environment Ministers Meeting focusing on climate change, I would say it was a very successful and positive meeting. All the eight countries are very serious on issues related to climate change and how to manage the future impacts.
After the Bali Conference of Parties of December 15 2007 and meetings of the heads of governments of UN on September 24, 2007, the activities, adaptation, and mitigation to climate change are moving very fast. Mitigation to climate change has now become obligation to all nations, which was previously a compulsion for only the developing countries.
In SAARC a number of bold decisions were taken. One – all the countries agreed upon sharing meteorological data on real-time basis so that effective forecast could be given.
Secondly, it was decided that for adaptation, we would need funds immediately and the SAARC ministers requested to the SAARC secretariats to raise money from developing countries.
The third point, which was agreed is that the immediate focus should be on adaptation and since Bangladesh has a huge experience on disaster management; they could take lead on this issue and could support other countries.
There is a popular perception that Bangladesh will drown because of climate change. What is your take on the theory?
When Woodson Research Institute first pointed out about sea level rise in 1983 or 1984, they projected that Bangladesh would have a water level rise of five meters. Slowly, when IPCC 3 report came out, it was one meter and in the IPCC 4 report, it was decimal eight meters (79 cm). Recently there have been problems regarding calculations by the NASA scientist professor James Hansen. I have visited his webpage and downloaded his original paper and he did not mention anywhere that Bangladesh would go down by 25 meters. He said IPCC’s estimate of point eight meters is wrong and it will be at least two meters. So let us develop our preparation for two meters in the next 100 years.
The coastal belt would come near Narayanganj and if its one meter, it would come near Chandpur. The coastal belt would become salinated. But we already have five meter high embankments, so we are protected. What we will suffer from are the storm surges, for example, with heights of four meters. So four meters plus a two meters sea level rise is six meters. Now, the result would be uncertain coastal areas with storm surges, salinated coastal areas, and rice production would come down, but I do not see people drowning because they are protected.
Last year, when we experienced a three-fold flood and flash flood followed by Sidr, you were one of the experts who cited the weather disturbances as a cause of climate change. This year, however, so far, we have not experienced the extremities in weather- would you stick to your opinion? How do you see this now?
Yes, I stick to my opinion. Let’s understand what climate change is doing. It is not raining when expected to rain, sea temperature is warmer, ocean currents changed with more frequent cyclonic weather, and we have noticed that in 2007 and 2008 that the Bay of Bengal is continuously rough with warning number three at regular intervals.
When this happens, fishermen are asked to come back to shore and they lose their livelihood. This certainly did not happen 50 years back. This year, we did not have enough rainfall.
We should take note that something uncertain is happening.
Although the IPCC and other research bodies have declared that global warming is happening at an accelerated rate, it remains true that from 1998 onwards there has not been a sharp rise as shown by satellite and balloon radiosondes. What is your take on that?
These facts are not correct. The hottest ten years of last century came during last ten to 15 years. NASA is publishing the global average temperature every year and if anyone follows the IPCC4 report, it is evident how temperature is rising every year.
There is even the question of whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are truly responsible for climate change. Some scientists say that it is likely that increased carbon dioxide levels might ‘green’ the planet and make food supplies increase simultaneously. Is that true?
This is not exactly true. Let’s presume that carbon dioxide is increasing, but the trees have a certain capacity to absorb, which is called carbon sequestration. If there is more carbon dioxide and more heat, it would help in photosynthesis and certain plants like rice and wheat would possibly benefit, but not all plants. Now, rice might benefit until a certain temperature, but if that temperature increases further, rice production will fall.
Cyclones, hurricanes and other such natural phenomena were not accurately recorded before the use of satellites. Knowledge of a hurricane could only occur if it hit the seashore or a vessel at sea. So is it not presumptuous to state that the number of hurricanes and cyclones are on the increase and have become more intense?
What the IPCC4 has said that there is no conclusive evidence that the frequency of extreme cyclonic events would increase but general frequency of climatic and cyclonic events would increase, which is evident from the frequent warning number three in the Bay of Bengal during the last three to four years especially when we take data of last 25 years in to consideration.
Secondly, if the temperature of the sea surface is 80 degree Fahrenheit or more and if there is a depression, that depression gains energy. The frequency of oceanic disturbances has increased, for example, the fishes moved from their natural habitat to some other place and this is alarming indeed.
It is not necessarily true that a rise in sea levels will mean the end of the world. Although climate change refugees will suffer heavy losses, ultimately global warming will make frozen lands such as Siberia fertile and liveable; the melting glaciers might even someday be habitable?
There is something called a food chain and then there is a term called evolution. If this change takes place over a period of 10,000 years, then we would have enough time to adapt but since it will be so fast, oxygen will not increase in the pace living creatures need it.
The increased salinity in river water is nowadays being attributed to climate change by a number of climate change advocates. Wasn’t the Farakka Barrage once accused of the same thing? Who is really to blame?
Definitely, the salinity in Khulna area increased due to Farakka and not climate change. All of a sudden, there are too many climate change experts in Bangladesh. The rise in salinity in the southwestern region is principally due to anthropogenic effect, that is Farakka and climate change may have contributed but anyone trying to link up rise in salinity with climate change as the major cause is very wrong.
Do you feel the climate change issue, like many other campaigns may end up in the wrong hands and become a business?
It is imperative that Bangladesh government acts effectively and the NGOs and civil society can act as pressure groups and guide the government in the right direction. We need strong monitoring from the government to stop the already existing business that is going on especially with funds. Everyone wants to do something with climate change not clearly knowing what aspect of climate change he or she is to focus on.
Comments