“Environmentalism” is a religion practiced by many ignorant mortals across the globe. The best part of this religion is, all u need to gain followers is to hold a high profile cosmetic summit like those at Copenhagen. Virtually every social networking website proposes going green. Words like “Global Warming”, “Melting of Glaciers”, and “High Co2 emissions” draw more attention than “poverty”, “growth”, and “literacy”. Almost half the statuses on Facebook including mine went green during the summit. Beautifully fashioning the “Aristotelian logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantiam – the fallacy of ignorance”
Unfortunately much of the climate debate today is fuelled by not what is known by earth’s climatic system but by what some people believe to be true. I remember a story I heard during my years of adolescence at nursery of a hen propagating the falling sky and the end of the world.
Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science center and professor of atmospheric science at The University of Alabama quotes “My research and that of others, suggests that we do not know as much about the climate as the public has been led to believe. There are claims, for instance, that all types of weather-related problems (droughts and floods, violent storms and so forth) are becoming more frequent and violent. Fortunately, scientists keep records of such things and a calm, systematic study of the climate history shows that while there are natural cycles there is no long-term increase in these events. The scientific numbers, for instance, show a slight decline in the number of tornadoes in the US since 1950.”
“The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.” Says Dr. Singer was Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science and global warming who is now the Director of the Science and Environmental and Policy Project.
We are, in fact, in one of the COOLEST periods in Earth's history. Earth was warmer throughout the past 500million years than it is now. It was warmer at the end of the ice age, during Bronze Age, warmer in Middle Ages, and Roman warm period. A mere 100,000 years ago (a brief period of time, geologically speaking), all of Canada and much of the U.S. was covered by a continental glacier. During recurring periods tens and hundreds of millions of years ago, the Earth was warmer and sea level was higher. Many of the topmost layers of bedrock in North America were deposited in ancient oceans, when sea level was much higher than it is now.
The question is "Do we go green?". The answer is “Sit back, relax and continue with the development”. India has started industrializing since 20 years. We have possibly done nothing to affect Mother Nature. On the other hand USA started industrialization a couple of centuries ago and so did UK. India should not fall for the sudden social impedes given as the only solution for survival by these bigger polluters.
According to Surya P Sethi, principal advisor (Energy) Planning Commission, 700 million Indian still do not have access to modern and commercial sources of energy and 220,000 villages are yet to be electrified. 35% of our population earns less than US $ 1/day and 80% of the population earns less than US $ 2/day. (A UNDP estimate)
Let us compare the energy consumption per capita per annum of India with developed and developing countries.
| Country | Energy consumption per capita per annum (kgoe/a) |
| Canada | 8300.7 |
| USA | 7794.8 |
| OECD | 4700 |
| Russia | 4423.2 |
| South Korea | 4346.5 |
| South Africa | 2596.9 |
| China | 1138.3 |
| Brazil | 1067.6 |
| India | 512.4 |
South Africa is close to European levels. It will not take China and Brazil long to join them by the current growth. Where does that leave India? India’s likely emissions by 2020 would still be 30% of current European levels.
By going green to save the world from an illusionary catastrophe India would need to cut its emission levels. Before we sign for this global movie of saving the world produced and directed in the west we need to question ourselves that by doing so are we justifying our democracy? Are we justifying 70% of the rural population who elects our government? Does nature belong only to the stratospheric society of the world? Is pure drinking water a birth right only of the rich developed nations?
India has to grow leaps and bounds to give all its population a decent opportunity to earn bread and butter, an opportunity to have equal access to pure drinking water, an opportunity to study the best technologies of the world.
To go behind a pompous hen shouting of the falling sky is being an idiot in elephantine quantities. India has all the rights to seclude itself from any binding treaties. I do not ask to increase pollution levels that are embedded in every major city of India but also there is no need to cut down projects which leads to growth.
What is the cost to Adopt futuristic technologies before it gets redundant? Green technologies like Turbine-bearing balloons, Algae fuel, Wave farms, nuclear fusion, geothermal systems, and solar satellites are futuristic tools for growth. But to adopt these efficiently we need to develop ourselves to a level close to that of the first world countries. Do we have enough funding to lift its population from poverty, illiteracy, give them proper water and simultaneously adopt these green technologies? The answer is “no”. I would always prefer spending for growth over hogwash climate prophecies.
So let us stop our obsession over global warming, climate change prophecies and instead concentrate over other important issues which require attention and quick.
