The federal government's proposal to set up ten coal-fired power plants across the country to produce over 4000 megawatt electricity has been the subject of a misplaced focus during the recent days. Media reports have been spotlighting the high cost of transporting imported coal from the seaports to plant locations in Punjab which would render coal-based power generation too expensive. The cost of course has to be an important consideration. But we should also worry about the environmental impact of CO2 emissions these plants are notorious for.
Scientist have long been pointing out that aside from being the primary cause of global warming coal burning produces smog, coal ash, and acid rain damaging forests, water bodies; and emits toxic particles that can damage lungs, cause asthma and heart disease. In its latest report released last Sunday, UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that time is running out to limit global warming, saying the current trends in carbon emissions herald disaster. Scientific case for prioritising action on climate change, said IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, is clearer than ever... "we have little time before the window of opportunity to stay within 2C of warming closes." The scientific evidence is convincing enough for all polluters to try and bring the warming to 2C of the pre-industrial revolution level. Which is a subject of the talks the UN is to host next month at Lima to work towards a pact at next year's climate change conference in Paris.
For now the issue is between the major polluters: the industrialised nations responsible for 80 percent of the world greenhouse gas emissions and the developing countries led by China and India. Like the US and other industrialized nations before them, China - now having overtaken the US as the world's chief polluter - and India also owe their rapid economic growth to fossil fuels. These countries have wasted a lot of time haggling over emission cuts. Hopefully, the climate conference in Paris will finally yield an effective treaty.
Pakistan with its too small a carbon footprint would not be affected by any of the reduction cuts imposed by an international treaty. But we need not insist on the old argument of developing countries to acquire coal based plants: that we should not have to compensate for the damage the advanced countries have done to the environment. We have a right too to follow the same path as them to progress and prosperity. Indeed, fossil fuels powered economic growth of industrialized countries. Until recently, half of the US' electricity came from coal-fired plants. Two important points urge serious thought, however. One, those countries did what they did unaware of the harm scientific evidence now suggests coal plants do to the environment. (That though does not mean the countries responsible for 80 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions should not make proportional cuts in their current emissions.) Since we now know the risks we need to be careful.
Second, laws of nature do not recognise man-made geographical boundaries. Nor do they distinguish between developed and developing countries. The industrial activity in our two neighbouring countries, China and India, is believed to be damaging the Himalayan glaciers feeding our river system. If we start making our own contribution to this environmental degradation, the results will be disastrous. Scientists have been predicting that global warming threatens melting of the Himalayan glaciers leading first to alternating spells of floods and droughts, playing havoc with this country's agrarian economy, and then acute water scarcity rendering vast tracts of land uncultivable.
The IPCC's report carries a general warning that if current trends continue "warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to very high risks of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally." Even though the report does not specify the areas likely to be worst affected, Pakistan surely is included. It paints a scary picture of potential impacts: Worse food security with impacts on grain harvests and fish catches; accelerating species extinction and damage to ecosystems on which humankind depends; migration caused by climate related economic damage and loss of land from rising seas and storm surges; greater water stress, especially in sub-tropical regions; and risk of conflict over scarce resources as well as health dangers from heat waves and spread of mosquito-borne disease. One can almost see all these lurking dangers in our part of the world. This country is already beginning to experience shifting weather patterns, and heavy floods.
Ignoring the science is no longer an option. But we do have the option to avoid known risks, especially at a time the government is still in the process of marshalling new sources of energy generation. It makes little sense to go for coal-based plants while many advanced countries are gradually moving away from them. The wise thing for this government to do would be to learn from the experience of others and to devise an energy policy with a hallmark preference for cleaner and renewable energy projects, harnessing wind and solar power in a big way. Instead of waiting for the ever problematic mega hydel projects to become implementable it should consider constructing a number of small hydel power projects at points already identified by experts. This may take time, but longer term energy security depends on green, preferably renewable projects.
Considering that our policymakers are not in the habit of planning for the longer term, the plan to acquire dirty and disastrous coal fired plants is not going to stop, unless civil society puts sufficient pressure. People in Sahiwal, where one of the proposed coal power projects is to be set up, are showing the way by resisting acquisition of land through public protests.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.