Cultural, Disasters - natural and man-made, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political

World Population and Environmental Catastrophe

We are all aware of, indeed seriously concerned about, the climate change and global warming. The large majority of scientists – environmentalists, climatologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, geochemists, oceanographers and experts of hosts of associated disciplines – as well as overwhelming proportion of human population unanimously hold the view that significant climate change is indeed taking place and that is all due to human activities. But then a small but powerful section of the population, mostly in America, reject this contention and assign changes to just natural activities. Obviously, these people have vested interests in deflecting away human activities.

It is blatantly obvious that human activities are the root causes of climate change. Of course, nature may be reacting to adverse conditions created by human beings, but the initial cause is human activity. One may ask, why is it that earth is reacting so disastrously over the last few decades when it existed in stable conditions for millions of years? The answer is undoubtedly ‘WE ARE’, there are too many of ‘US’ – human beings on the surface of the earth demanding, exploiting and extracting earth’s resources ruthlessly without any regard to its stability and sustainability.

Some 200 years ago or even 100 years ago we were doing what we are doing now – spewing out carbon dioxide and other global warming gases into the atmosphere – but that did not change climatic conditions irreversibly, because not enough of us had been doing the abusive actions. But now more than 7,500 million of us abusing the earth and probably pushed the earth to the threshold or beyond its sustainability.

The large human population of the present day is causing the problems. The United Nations’ estimation of human population from 1050 to 2017 is shown in Figure 1, where the past numbers had been compiled from human records and best estimate values. At no time until 1850 the global human population exceeded 1.0 billion. Around 1750, when Industrial Revolution took place, the Western World started using coal and other natural resources to improve living conditions and consequently the population started to grow significantly. From that time on, not only the standards of living started to improve but also better hygiene and improved medical sciences managed to bring down the death rate and thereby help increase population growth. At the moment the global population is 7.5 billion and growing at the rate of 80 million every year and this number is also growing! Since 1970, the global population had gone up by two-fold!

In 1960s and 1970s there were intense debates about the sustainability of the world population beyond about 3.5 billion, particularly with regard to food production. As estimated at that time that in about 12 to 15 years the population would grow by more than a billion (about 30% of the prevailing population). If so, could the food production be increased by about 30% in that time scale? The global population had been going up at that rate ever since despite all the measures taken to curtail it.

As the population grows, there are extra demands for housing and other socio-economic facilities and consequent shrinkage of arable land. But human ingenuity prevailed – multiple crop production, better yielding crop, crop rotation, disease resistant seeds and now GM crop etc – had improved food production. In fact, food production had been improved so much that food supply for the population is no longer an issue. But that had created more serious problems, particularly environmental problems, which need to be tackled.

Figure 1 Human population from 1050 to 2017

The United Nations have also produced a population growth projection for the years 1950 to 2100, as shown in Figure 2. Many factors affect population growth and incorporating various assumptions in those factors produce widely varying outcomes.  The middle thick green line is the outcome based on best estimate values, whereas the top and bottom lines are those with 95% level of confidence in various assumptions. If corrective actions such as proper family planning, better education and social responsibility of the population etc. are taken, the population growth could be limited to 9.6 billion in 2100, whereas unbridled growth will show a figure of 13.6 billion! The difference between two extremes in population numbers in 2100 is about 4 billion, more than 50% of the present population! That is an alarming prospect indeed!

Figure 2 Human population projection until 2100

Population distribution is not uniform round the world, as shown in Figure 3. At the moment over 60% (4.6 billion) of world population is in Asia and Africa constitutes 1.4 billion (less than 20%). But by 2100 the Asian population may remain same or even decline, whereas African population will shoot up to 4.4 billion, more than three times of the present population. This drastic increase will place enormous burden on the continent and may even lead to violent responses, unprecedented population migration to other continents etc. This situation will arise on top of ensuing environmental deterioration – global warming, extreme weather conditions etc.

Figure 3 Population growth by continents

It is interesting to note that China’s present population of over 1.42 billion would come down to about 1.06 billion by 2100, whereas India’s population would grow from 1.35 billion to 1.46 billion in the same time scale, as shown in Figure 4.  China’s drastic reduction in population is due to lower fertility rates which arise due to older population group. China had imposed two-child policy right from its inception and gradually it is bearing fruit.

Figure 4 Most populous countries

As already mentioned, population growth is multifactorial. But a very important factor is the economic condition of the country. A run away population growth stunts the economic growth of the country and at the same time a low economic growth tends to encourage higher population growth. A family tends to produce more children in a poverty-stricken country so that the children can look after the parents at their old ages. Thus, population growth and poverty form a vicious circle. Examples are Pakistan and Nigeria where large population growths are anticipated. On the other hand, Bangladesh is the country which has broken out of this vicious circle.

Let us get back to the aforementioned theme that climate change is primarily due to the presence of vast population. Coal extraction and its use by limited number of people catering for one or two billion people in the Western World in the 18th or 19th century was not that damaging to the climate. But, as deprived population of the East as well as other decolonised countries’ population are striving to improve living standards from abysmal depths, demand for natural resources like coal, gas, oil as well as minerals have gone up exponentially and environmental degradation followed the suit.

Nature has an inbuilt mechanism of correcting itself when there is any deviation or offset from the norm, which is commonly known as negative feedback. If there is an increase in temperature in the summer, more water from the sea would evaporate and subsequent rain would cool down the area. There are lots of factors acting in opposite phase to the initial condition to stabilise the natural conditions and that is the negative feedback.

But there may be situations when moderate negative feedback condition could breakdown and violent response would ensue. If due to excessive increase in global temperature, arctic and Antarctic ice caps melt, then there would be no seasonal cold stream of water, no moderation of summer temperature etc. In some areas the temperature would become so high that there would be almost spontaneous fire – as in Australia, California and even in Siberia. Condensation would be restricted to limited areas giving large increase in rainfall – as in England now – causing unprecedented floods etc.

So, either we pull ourselves back from the precipice by limiting and then reversing the damage that had already been inflicted to the nature or let nature go berserk threatening the very existence of human life or for that matter any form of life on earth.  

  • Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist    

Bangladesh, Disasters - natural and man-made, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political

Abnormal of the past becomes normal of the future in climate change age

Sandbag embankment in Khulna, Bangladesh after the cyclone, Fani in 2019

For millions of years, we were in equilibrium with our environment. Over the past 11,500 years, a period in Earth’s history called the Holocene Epoch, there had been a global climatic stability with the average surface temperature fluctuating around one degree Celsius up or down. Our civilisation emerged and progressed against this backdrop of a relatively stable climate.

Melting glaciers

But then something happened that led to the change of whole edifice for worse. The Industrial Revolution that began around 1760 had drastically changed, indeed corrupted, our environment. Today, we live on a planet whose air is polluted, whose water is contaminated and whose soil is chemically altered. Indeed, human influence is so substantial that Earth is no longer in the Holocene Epoch, but rather in a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene. For comparison, the epoch before Holocene, the Pleistocene Epoch, lasted nearly 2.5 million years.

Our insatiable appetite for energy using fossil fuel to have higher and higher living standards is placing unbearable burden on the planet. Until 1970s there had been little or no concern about the detrimental effects of extraction and use of fossil fuels on an industrial scale, particularly the amount of greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere.  The current concentration of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, is about 415 parts per million. It is the highest concentration since the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.5 million years ago.

We now live in a world where “abnormal” of yester-years have become “normal” of present day. Examples of present day normal that were abnormal some 50 years ago are Bombogenesis, Arctic Amplification, Hell Fire, Pyro-cumulonimbus Storms aka Fire Tornadoes, Heat Waves and Climate Refugees, Derecho, Sneaker Wave, Squall Line, Microburst, Frankenstorm, and so forth.

Under normal conditions, cold air mass sits above the poles in an area called the polar vortex. It is a large, low-pressure zone that exists at two levels of the atmosphere, one in the troposphere, where most of the weather-related phenomena occur, and the other a bit higher up, in the stratosphere, home of the ozone layer that protects us from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. The vortices are seasonal atmospheric phenomena.

However, scientists believe that the phenomenon of Arctic Amplification, which is the self-reinforcing process that warms the Arctic and subarctic regions much faster than rest of the world, distorts the vortex in the North Pole, thereby resulting in a sudden plunge in temperature south of the Arctic Circle. This anomaly, a consequence of global warming, was abnormal before the 1970s, but quite normal today.

It is no longer implausible to have record snowfall and record high temperature on the same day. On November 16 of last year, Anchorage in Alaska saw its high temperature top out at plus seven degrees at 2:30 a.m. (Average November temperature in Anchorage is negative five degrees.) Before midnight that day, 21 centimetres of snow fell on the ground. This oddity, as well as 20-25 degrees swing in daytime temperature within 24 hours in the winter months—abnormal few decades ago—are normal now.

Located a few feet below the soil surface in extremely cold regions, permafrost is one of the most unique kinds of soil containing more carbon and methane than any other soil on Earth and twice as much carbon as is available in the atmosphere. But as global temperatures rise, Arctic permafrost thaws and greenhouse gases trapped in ice are released. Clearly, permafrost thawing is opening up additional pathways for greenhouse gases, constituting a newly identified, powerful feedback to global warming. Besides, ancient carcasses are emerging from the melting permafrost, and with them germs from illness long thought eradicated.

Nowadays, Australia and California are ground zero for out-of-control wildfires. As cataclysmic wildfires continue to rage across Australia, the loss of life—humans and animals—has reached staggering numbers. An estimated one billion animals have been killed so far and approximately 107,000 square kilometres—roughly 70 percent the size of Bangladesh—burned on the east coast.

Climate change is making heat waves longer and more frequent. Temperatures soaring over 50 degrees in many parts of the world are becoming the norm, while nice and comfortable weather has become the exception.

Some other wild weather phenomena due to climate change that were rare or considered abnormal in the past but not anymore are Derecho—a straight-line wind storm with hurricane-force winds; Sneaker Wave—a disproportionately large wave that suddenly appears during a wave sequence; Squall Line—a line of thunderstorms preceding a cold front; Microburst—severe downdraft caused by a thunderstorm; Frankenstorm—remnants of a super storm reinvigorated by an early winter storm and a blast of Arctic air.

Rising temperatures due to climate change is driving out oxygen from our oceans, threatening many species of aquatic life. According to the International Union of Conservation of Nature, around 700 ocean sites are now suffering from low oxygen, compared with 45 in the 1960s. Lest we forget, oceans are the source of most of the oxygen we breathe.

If the seas ever do rise by even a meter, our children and grandchildren may find themselves living cramped lives with other climate refugees on shrinking continents. “Humorously speaking,” they may even try to adopt the underwater lifestyle of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants, provided ocean acidification caused by absorption of carbon dioxide has not already wiped him and his pineapple home from the bottom of the rising seas.

Few years ago, the sight of polar bears roaming the streets of a village or town would have been abnormal. Nowadays, it is normal because the land on which they live and hunt is under siege. As Arctic ice thins from melting, an occurrence linked to global warming, their habitat is shrinking and food supply is decreasing. As a result, they are moving out of their natural habitat and traveling hundreds of miles south of the Arctic region in search for food.

To tackle these and other new normals, every year since 1995, our leaders and/or their disciples have been meeting at various world capitals or cities, some of which are tourist hot spots―Bali, Cancun, Marrakech, Montreal, Paris―debating climate change in climate-controlled halls at the so-called Conference of Parties (COP). In order to feel what it is like living in one of the hottest places on Earth, maybe they should hold a future COP in halls without air conditioners in Jacobabad (Pakistan) during July when the average daytime temperature regularly surpasses 50 degrees.

The hype around these conferences is high, but expectations of the people are low because the proposals are not bold enough and interests of the developing countries are marginalised. Gone is the focus on establishing global “top down” approach for stabilising emissions of greenhouse gases that would be legally binding. On the contrary, focus is on voluntary “bottom up” commitments by individual nations to reduce emissions.

It has become clear that the much-touted Paris Agreement thrashed out at COP-21 for keeping the rise in global temperature this century to two degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even lower to 1.5 degrees is on life-support system. America under Donald Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement as Donald Trump categorises global warming as “fake news!” Subsequent summits, including COP-25 in Madrid two months ago, were stuck in a rut. There is no agreement yet and none is in sight.

The UN Secretary-General António Guterres roped in some world leaders, members of civil societies and corporate executives at a climate summit in New York on September 23, 2019 to highlight their plans to bring down greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. As expected, they “prioritised” a laundry list of Action Portfolios without any firm commitment to implement them.

The star of the summit was Greta Thunberg, the 17-year old Swedish activist, who delivered a blunt speech, excoriating world leaders for their inaction. And the shameless world leaders clapped and cheered every time she chastised them with phrases like “How dare you,” or “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.” If they had any self-respect, they should have hung their head down in shame instead of applauding. They did not do so because they are “normal” 21st century leaders.

All said and done, what is the end game? Can pre-emptively embarking on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from dependency on fossil fuels and embracing eco-friendly renewable energies save our planet? Can we avoid the risk of a catastrophic failure of our increasingly ephemeral and tightly interlinked global civilisation as we know it? The answer to the above questions is NO, because our leaders lack the collective will to take the decisive steps required to keep our planet liveable for the future generations.

Scientists believe that if we started to cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide even by one percent in 1990, tackling climate change would have been manageable. Instead, we wasted 30 years by inaction. The inertia of the climate system is such that even if we stop introducing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere right now, the ones already in the atmosphere will keep on warming the Earth for another one to two hundred years before equilibrium is reached. In other words, climate change would keep on accelerating, regardless of what measures we take to mitigate its effects.

We can, however, partially solve the seemingly unsolvable problems we have created by changing the unsustainable lifestyle of many of us. More importantly, we have to work to address the problem of the world’s ever-growing population. We are probably within a few decades of a point in time where the sheer number of people on Earth will make continuing degradation of our planet irreversible. So, it is up to us whether we choose to take actions in a direction which will reduce overall global population.

Quamrul Haider is a Professor of Physics at Fordham University, New York.

Bangladesh, Cultural, Economic, International, Life as it is, Literary, Political, Religious

Cultural and National Identity

Most of us have differed often enough with one another on what precisely constitutes culture. That is hardly surprising in view of the fact that it is common for even erudite philosophers to disagree and debate with each other on the raw definition and nuances of culture. The way we perceive culture is very much a mirror of our philosophy in life and of our view of the society we live in. It is but natural that we differ. But does it really make any material difference to a society on what exactly a culture is or on what a particular cultural guru enforces the cultural attributes of a society at a particular point in time and space?

Culture is more like the free-flowing water in a river. It takes on the colour of the alluvium soil it flows over at any particular moment. Culture of a people is anything but static; it changes, it merges, it meanders, it evolves like the life on earth.

The so-called Calcutta Book Fair fiasco had prompted certain coteries of vested interest to make mountain out of a mole hill. At the forefront was the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) which had donned the mantle of the keeper of Muslim Bengali culture. It had self-proclaimed the distinctiveness of Muslims to create a separate identity for Bangladeshi culture.

The party was founded by a freedom fighter who fought for the liberation of Bangladesh or Bangla nation. But the Kakul trained former Pakistani army officer who spoke Bangla with a distinct Urdu accent, due to his long stay in the western wing of Pakistan, ultimately took on the role of a Trojan Horse. When he assumed the charge of independent Bangladesh in the aftermath of a series of coup d’etats and assassinations (which many people claim may have been through his acquiescence), he took upon himself the task of rebuilding the nation in the model of “Pakistan.” Thereby, he failed to live up to his glorious deeds during the days of blood and thunder. The unholy coalition that he forged with the religious right had made him to rehabilitate those hated anti-Bangladeshi forces in the independent Bangladesh. It brought back the ghost of Pakistani oppression in Bangladesh.

The Bengalis in Pakistan had made sacrifices to found a modern state based on secular ideology. The Sufi tradition had deeply influenced the Islam in Bengal. Its tolerant ethos was a far cry from the religious intolerance of West Pakistan that would later spawn into Taliban movement.

The Bangladesh Liberation War was a struggle against the hard-line exclusivist tradition of West Pakistan that was trying to supplant the liberal tradition of the eastern wing and turn it effectively into a colony. Under the guidance of the Pakistani junta from the west, the Islamist parties made it their goal to eliminate religious minorities and to discard the secularist strands from the composite culture of Bangladesh. They cried “Islam is in danger.” to garner supporters for their invidious goals.

It was a national goal in certain quarters during the Pakistani era to erect a psychological barrier between West Bengal and East Bengal in the guise of championing the cause of Islam. There was a crack in that barrier for a brief period during 1971-75. But, after 1975, for the next two decades, that barrier was restructured and reinforced to mirror the prejudices and predilections of the past. The master architects of that barrier were the Pakistan trained officers of the Bangladesh army who continued to look back to the pre-liberation days towards Islamabad for political inspiration.

The balance of power in Bengal in the era of Permanent Settlement had indeed tilted disproportionately in favour of the Hindus. The 1947 partition did serve to restore the balance. But it can just as easily be argued that East Bengal got rid of the over-lordship of the local Hindu zamindars only to embrace the colonial shackles of West Pakistan. Furthermore, it was demanded by its new masters to sever all ties with “Hindu” West Bengal with which it shared many common cultural heritage and where at least a quarter of the population was Muslim.

The Bangabhumi of yore was today’s East Bengal. It had always been the core of Bengali language and culture. West Bengal was the Rarhbhumi which was part of Greater Bengal and had, till the coming of the British, looked up to East Bengal for cultural inspiration and sustenance. So, in a sense, Bengal’s cultural heritage had its root in East Bengal. The proponents of Bangladeshi nationalism had their own agenda. It was to erase West Bengal from the canvas of Greater Bengal with a view to turning Bangladesh into a puppet in the hands of Islamabad’s rulers, who would only be too happy to use Bangladesh as the cat’s paw to further their own interests.

Then there were those who had vested interests in declaring, “Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of Bangladesh are two distinct peoples; they have absolutely nothing in common” Inevitably, proponents of this delinquent ideology ignore the cultural affinities of West and East Bengal to emphasise only on religious differences. That was the only way they could erect a barrier between the two Bengals. But even that was not easy because a quarter of West Bengal’s population was Muslim. Would the religious fanatics disown Poet Nazrul Islam because he was from West Bengal?

There are some differences between the inhabitants of the two Bengals. But it is not simple to cut off West Bengal from our cultural canvas on the basis of these differences. Religion, ethnicity, dialect, and regional characteristics, all play an important role in defining our cultural ethos. It is as disingenuous as it is dishonest to try to define it in terms of religion alone.

Consider the regional component, for example. The immigrants in Calcutta from East Bengal, from long before the 1947 partition, had indulged in their regional pride by cheering for the East Bengal team on Calcutta’s football fields. And to this day they continue to do so. It pleases them no end when East Bengal defeats Mohan Bagan. The Islamists in Bangladesh
will be hard put to explain this exultation in the football fields of Calcutta in terms of their mindset of seeing everything with religious lens.

Region-based differences indeed seems far more significant than religion-based ones. A Muslim Bengali from West Bengal is likely to feel more at home with a Hindu Bengali from West Bengal than with a Muslim Bengali from Bangladesh. The age old Ghati-Bangal issue has always transcended religion to give primacy to geography instead.The cultural tradition of the subcontinent kept apart the Hindu migrants from East Bengal to India from the Hindu natives of West Bengal. Even some half a century after the partition of India, Calcutta newspapers continue to conspicuously mention the ancestral roots of prospective brides and grooms in matrimonial columns. One may attribute that to the discriminatory practices of the natives or to the exclusivist practices of the immigrants. But the fact remains that ancestral district can come in the way of tying matrimonial bonds between the Hindu natives and the Hindu immigrants in West Bengal. In fact, even among the Hindu immigrants themselves, a Baidya from Jessore or Bikrampur might find it beneath his dignity to have matrimonial ties with a Baidya from Sylhet or Comilla!

Many a nation state in the world exhibits regional variations in dialect and culture. The regional dialect and the local customs give the nation a “salad bowl” cultural milieu. Thus, Bavarians in Germany have the image of hillbillies. After the reunification of Germany, the people from the former East Germany were often perceived by their newfound compatriots as third worlders! Belgium and Switzerland have people speaking different dialects and even entirely different languages.

In USA, the Mecca of multi-culturalism, people speak of the East Coast, the Mid West or of the deep South with very specific cultural connotations. Let me narrate a personal anecdote. I took a speech course in an American college. During a discussion session, one student was frank enough to admit to her cultural bias based on regional accent. She told the class that Jamal has a non-American accent which is okay with her. But if she hears somebody with a southern accent, she seems to struggle with the thought that the person is of inferior intellect!Most religionists in Bangladesh take a victimological stance to justify their prejudices. They blame the arrogance of the Hindus from West Bengal or of the Hindu zamindar of yore from his own East Bengal for their antagonism toward all Hindus. But if they were honest enough, they would have readily admitted that there could be just as much a tradition of arrogance among the Muslims of Bangladesh. For many years, educated Bengali Muslims inhabiting the central part to the north western part of Bangladesh were extremely reluctant to enter into matrimonial ties with people from Noakhali, Chittagong and Sylhet. Similarly, many
Chittagongians and Sylhetees never could harbour the thought of marrying “foreigners.” I know of people from Noakhali who feel ashamed to disclose their roots. Many of them feigned to be from Comilla or Chittagong to get accepted by the Dhaka-centric “Bhadrolok” culture.

I was still a school kid when my father got transferred to Chittagong. It was a big cultural shock for me. I was afraid that I would never master the Chittagonian dialect, which is significantly different from the standard Bengali language. To my relief, I finally learnt to not only understand the local dialect but even speak in it after a fashion. A few years later, my father was transferred to Sylhet where I stoically withstood the scorn of my classmates who called me a “Bangal.” Needless to say, it was a pejorative. It was then that I learnt that the Sylhetees considered themselves to be from Assam. They were telling me that they did not think I was worthy of being a friend because I was nothing better than a “Bangal.”

I am sure I will have far less of a cultural shock if I visit Nadia in West Bengal. If I visit the Calcutta metropolis, I may cross path with some Bengalis (Hindus and Muslims alike) who may turn out to be somewhat different. But I doubt they will find me as different as I was found by my Chittagongian and Sylheti classmates. But then I have to bear in mind an
important aspect of social anthropology – many a person I will befriend in this old city have had the advantage of a college education and of urban living for many more than a generation or two. So, there is bound to be some difference between them and those I had encountered in Chittagong and Sylhet who were of rural background and may have belonged to the first generation in the quest of college education.


Jamal Hasan writes from Washington DC. The original article was published on March 19, 1999 in NEWS FROM BANGLADESH in its Commentary Section.

Cultural, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political

Are these the dying days of the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in existential crisis. It is not so much because of external threats, although there are definitely such threats all the time, but because of an implosion from within. It is unfortunately the perennial story of great powers or civilisations decaying or withering out due to internal conflict, political dogma, economic decline or social instability. It is no different in the case of the United Kingdom.

It is a historical fact that Great Britain used to rule the waves of the seven seas, the sun would never set in British Empire – from New Zealand at the south-east corner of the Earth through Australia, Malaysia, India, Middle-East, the large swathes of Africa and South America to Canada and beyond. The Empire was truly mind-bogglingly vast. Historians and political analysts were musing how a small country like Great Britain could colonise and control an Empire more than 100 times larger in size and more than 50 times bigger in population? But it did and probably that was how it acquired the lofty title of ‘Great Britain’.

There was a time at the early part of the 20th century when a country or even a collection of countries could hardly contemplate going against the wishes of Great Britain and if they did, they would have to prepare for all eventualities. The regional conflict that started in the Balkans in the year 1914 somehow dragged Britain into it and escalated regional war into World War I. The Allied Powers comprising Britain and its colonies, France, Russia, Italy fought tooth and nail against the Central powers of Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire. But Allied victory was only sealed when America eventually put its weight behind the Allied forces. That was the beginning of the end of the myth of British Empire’s invincibility in military might and America started taking full advantage of it.

The World War II which started only 20 years after the end of WW I by Germany due to its grievances of blatant unfair treatment in the peace treaty of WW I could be regarded as the nail in the coffin of the British Empire.  America after staying neutral for a couple of years of this war and selling arms and ammunition to both the sides at vast profits joined the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. Although eventually the Allied Forces did win the war, the vulnerability of the British Empire was exposed again and America, taking the high moral ground, pressed Britain to dismantle the Empire – the colonies must be set free and given independence. Within two years India, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, as well as New Zealand got independence and within the next decade or so, large parts of Africa also got independence. Without the colonies, Britain is no more than a hollow shell. The sources that nourished the Empire had disappeared leaving only sore memory and wild dreams of revival.

However, Britain did manage to adjust itself and survive in the post-colonial era by pragmatic politicians. The statesmen like Sir Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson and so forth did realise that Britain can only survive in the modern era by joining together with European countries in the Common Market and its follow up European Union (EU).

While this development in the overall survival strategy was going on, there was an under-current of die-hard nationalism among the Conservatives that was driving them to resuscitate the second era of British Imperialism. For years these dreamers viewed Europe vas an impediment to British greatness. When in 2016, the then Tory prime minister David Cameron conceded to have a referendum on whether Britain should stay in or out of Europe, the Tory right-wing xenophobic elements came out in strength with the slogan “Take back control”. The implication was that taking back control from Brussels would help Britain restart a second era of British Imperialism!

Boris Johnson, the present Tory prime minister, most egregiously run a battle bus in the 2016 referendum campaign with the depiction, “We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave”. Such mendacious claims abounded in the referendum. Liam Fox, a Tory leader and an ardent Brexiteer, claimed, “The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.” Michael Gove, another Tory Brexiteer, when faced with predictions of adverse economic consequences of exit from the EU produced by the economic experts of the Bank of England, IMF, OECD and so forth, thundered, “The experts were wrong before and they are wrong again now.”  Such imbeciles proliferated the Tory leadership then (and now) and persuaded the common people to vote “No” to Europe in the referendum.

Now in the forthcoming national election on 12 December 2019 the Tories, who had been peddling lies and deceits, are clearly in the lead and may win the election. Their aim, as repeated umpteen times by their leader Boris Johnson, is to “get Brexit done”. What it means nobody can fathom. If it means getting out of the EU with or without a deal, then that would be the biggest act of self-harm by any nation in the modern history.

Let us look realistically the consequence of Britain leaving the EU. First of all, this act of withdrawal will put tremendous pressure on the Good-Friday agreement of Northern Ireland. If the fragile peace treaty breaks down, and there are signs it will, the old days of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and the violence spilling over the mainland Britain will return. Death and destruction will become everyday affair! Only way that can possibly be stopped is by allowing Northern Ireland to be subsumed by the Republic of Ireland.

Scotland under the leadership of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) is making no bones about their aspiration to go independent of the United Kingdom (effectively England) and join the EU. They have a valid point. As the Scottish Kingdom, they had voted to remain in the EU (56% overall) and their view was completely disregarded by the so-called ‘will of the people’ (people of England’s deprived and dysfunctional areas). Plaid Cymru of Wales is also going the same way as the SNP. The demise of this country and the civilisation it enshrined over the centuries will be utterly diminished by the misguided delusional imperialist bigots dreaming of another colonial era of the past centuries.

If Scotland, in the near future and Wales somewhat later, manage to secede, the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be nothing but totally hollow, only suitable for a place in the history book.

It is not for nothing that John Major, ex-Tory prime minister, had been pleading ardently with the voters to vote for a Remain party like Lib Dems or ‘Remainers’ in other parties, not Boris Johnson, the arch delusional Brexiteer and his party which happens to be the Tory party now. Similar messages had been put forward by Tony Blair, another ex-prime minister of the Labour party as well as from Michael Haseltine, ex-deputy prime minister from Tory party. These leaders from yester-years of the main political parties have national interests at their hearts, unlike the present misogynist, racist political opportunist prime minister of the Tory party. Can these past leaders along with the sensible pragmatic voters of today save the United Kingdom against the xenophobic delusional imperialist tide led by the incumbent prime minister?

(Updated on 15 December 2019: (The national election on 12 December 2019 produced overwhelming majority – 80 seat majority – for the Tory party of Boris Johnson! It only shows that Boris Johnson can now do whatever he likes with regard to his Brexit agenda and Scotland and Northern Ireland may be in direct conflict with British government. The future of Great Britain is truly bleak.)  

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist

Advanced science, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is

Blue energy: Can it power a sustainable future?

Statkraft osmotic power prototype is the world’s first osmotic power plant

Ever since global warming became a hot button issue, our leaders have told us umpteen times that “climate change is the greatest environmental threat and the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced.” Yet, they are not “bold enough to do enough” to pull us out of the climate change conundrum soon enough.

In the meantime, impacts of climate change are being felt in communities across the world. Average global temperatures have risen every decade since the 1970s, and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. If the trend continues unchecked, very soon we will be living on a planet with unbearable heat, unbreathable air, inundated coastal areas, widespread drought and wilder weather. Indeed, an Australian think tank warns that climate change could bring about the end of civilisation, as we know it, within three decades.

So, what should we do to tackle the disastrous effects of climate change? Since human activity is responsible for climate change, human activity can also mitigate it. To that end, we have to force our national governments to stop using the suicidal fossil fuels without any further delay. In other words, we need a carbon negative economy, or at the least, a zero-carbon economy.

We already have the potential to produce everything we need with no or very little greenhouse gas emissions. It is “green” energy solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, nuclear that provides an alternative, sustainable and cleaner source of energy. Promising new green technologies, such as tidal, wave and ocean’s thermal energy, are also on the horizon.

There is a third type of energy many of us are not familiar with—another alternative, sustainable source of energy that could be the next frontier in clean-energy technology. It is energy released during controlled mixing of a stream of saltwater and a stream of less saline water and can, therefore, be found in abundance anywhere a river meets the sea. Since energy at the river-sea nexus is produced in naturally occurring waterbodies, which are blue, it is called “blue” energy.

Blue energy exploits the phenomenon of osmosis, which is the spontaneous movement of molecules of a solvent through a semi-permeable membrane from the side of lower concentration into the side of higher concentration until the concentration becomes equal on both sides. In the process, energy is released which could be used to generate electricity. That is why it is also called “osmotic power,” or “salinity gradient power”.

The energy output would depend on the salinity and temperature difference between the river and seawater and properties of the specific membrane. The greater the salinity difference, more energy would be produced. In fact, based on average ocean salinity and global river discharges, it has been estimated that if blue energy plants were to be built at all river estuaries, they could produce about 1,370 terawatts of power each year, according to the Norway Center for Renewable Energy (a tera is a trillion.)

The concept of blue energy is not new. It was first proposed in 1954 by a British engineer named RE Pattle, although it was not possible to implement his idea for power generation until the 1970s, when a practical method of harnessing it was outlined.

The first osmotic power plant was built in 2009 in Tofte, Norway. It produced only four kilowatts of power, which was not enough to offset the cost of construction, operation and maintenance. Consequently, it was shut down in 2013.

Since then, improved technologies to tap blue energy have been developed at various laboratories, primarily in the Netherlands and Norway. Using these technologies and the difference in salt concentration in the surface water on each side of the Afsluitdijk dam, the Dutch built a power plant in 2014 generating enough electricity to meet the energy requirements of about 500,000 homes.

Blue energy is not limited to mixing of river and seawater because osmosis works with any concentration difference of dissolved substances. It may thus be possible to generate electricity from dissolved carbon dioxide, which could be captured from fossil-fuel power plants. Researchers believe that worldwide, the flue gases of fossil fuel power plants contain enough carbon dioxide to make around 850 terawatts of blue power. Hard to believe that the villain of climate change could be part of the solution after all.

In a paper published in July 2019 in ACS Omega, one of the journals of the American Chemical Society, researchers of Stanford University claim to have made a battery that runs on electricity generated by harvesting blue energy from wastewater effluent from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and seawater collected from Half Moon Bay. Their work clearly demonstrates that blue energy could make coastal wastewater treatment plants energy-independent and carbon neutral.

An advantage of blue energy technology is that it does not depend on external factors like wind or sun. Another advantage is that a commercial plant would be modest in size, but still produce a significant amount of energy. Moreover, compared with, for instance, wind and solar energy, implementing a blue energy power plant would have a smaller impact on landscape, and it requires less land usage. Besides, once fully developed and deployed, the technology would be able to generate energy continuously and would not emit greenhouse gases. Hence, it would ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all.

There are some drawbacks of blue energy though. Power plants exploiting blue energy may have an effect on the marine life, hydrological systems and water management rules of the region. The main drawback, however, is the cost. Compared to a conventional power plant using fossil fuels, the cost of construction of a blue energy power plant would be several times higher because artificial membrane is very difficult and expensive to make. Nevertheless, once built, the expectation is that blue energy would succeed in generating power at a much cheaper rate than solar and wind.

Finally, blue energy is potentially one of the best sustainable energy resources we have at our disposal. The raw material is free and inexhaustible. “Blue” could be the “green” of the future. And the blue-green combination can match the urgency of the climate change crisis.

Quamrul Haider is a professor of physics at Fordham University, New York.