Cultural, Environmental, Games and Sports, International, Life as it is, Travel

Gulf of Mexico – a haven of tranquility

Planning to have a cruise in the Gulf of Mexico in September/October time, invariably the hurricane season in that part of the world, is a risky undertaking. This is because the Gulf Stream – the warm ocean current – which originates on the northern edges of the equator moves through the Caribbean Sea and then forks off to the Gulf of Mexico and the other part to the Atlantic Ocean and when the stream meets northern cold stream, it creates a vortex of hot and humid air in the atmosphere and hence cyclone. Only a couple of months ago, hurricane Dorian utterly devasted the Bahamas. But that did not deter us, as we applied our statistical insight that lightening is unlikely to strike twice at the same place!

We set off from Galveston, a dedicated port some 30 km south of Houston, Texas in a Royal Caribbean cruise ship named Liberty of the Seas on Sunday. Our cruise ship was, what is known as super-cruise ship – nearly 340 meter-long, had five dining facilities, numerous restaurants and shops, a large auditorium, a running track, three swimming pools and many more facilities in 15 decks carrying nearly 3800 guests and over 1,200 staff. It took the whole morning for the guests to board on the ship and at 16:00 we set sail.  

There was no fanfare, no gunfire; the massive ship just quietly and smoothly slipped away from the port. As we were chatting and admiring our staterooms, I noticed that the building on the shore are gradually going further and further away and then started to disappear completely. Getting to know the various facilities, particularly the dining facilities – which one is for breakfast, which one for supper etc – is quite an adventure. On top of that, my friends had to learn the naval terms like port side (left) and starboard side (right) as well as aft (back) and forward (front). I had a head start on my friends as I was a Civil Servant at the Royal Navy for a number of years.

We kept cruising along the western part of Gulf of Mexico for nearly 40 hours until 07:00 on Tuesday morning, when the ship docked at the international pier at Cozumel, Mexico’s largest island off the eastern coast of Yucatan Peninsula. As the ship was scheduled to stay there until 16:30 in the afternoon, we were given a number of options for shore excursions. The one I chose was a trip to see Mayan Ruins in Yucatan Peninsula, which entailed a ferry trip of 12 miles to Tulum from the ship. We had to come back by 16:30 when the ship will sail again.

Mayan civilisation is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations in the chronicle of civilisations of the world. It flourished nearly 2000 BC in the central American area covering Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia and Venezuela regions. Mayan progressed from pure agricultural living to sophisticated communal living in towns and cities. Around 600 BC they developed logo-syllabic writing script, astronomy, sculpture, art and mathematics. In the western world, they were the first to have developed the concept of zero (rivalling India). Their counting system was based on fours, not tens (Modern day computing algorithm is based on binary system). However, there is an enigma about Mayan civilisation – the early Mayan civilisation which lasted over two thousand years and then it disappeared – cities they developed had been abandoned, agriculture vanished etc.

And then from 250 AD to 900 AD, the civilisation surfaced again. After 900 AD it just collapsed. Subsequently, the Mayan people had been literally massacred and annihilated by the invading Spaniards in the 16th century.

Tuesday night was the Captain’s night. Although Captain could not be present in all three dining facilities that normally takes place simultaneously, his representatives were present in all dining facilities. But, more importantly, after dinner, at about 21:30 there was convivial music and dance, performed by the catering staff and any guest who felt brave enough could join in.

At 16:30 the ship sailed again from Cozumel heading eastward and reached Grand Cayman and docked at George Town the following morning (Wednesday) at 10:00. We hired a minibus to take us to the tourist spots. Although Caribbean islands won independence in the 1970s from Britain, British influence was very much in evidence – they drive on the left side of the road. We saw the Governor’s house (probably unoccupied), reminiscent of the Governor’s house in the then East Pakistan. The highlight of this visit was a trip to a village called Hell. People are welcome to Hell. If our so-called religious hell is anything like this Hell, people would be grateful to be allocated to this place by our non-existent creator!

At 18:00 we left George Town and set sail for Jamaica and docked at Falmouth, which is on the northern side of the island, at 08:00 on Thursday. Jamaica may be renowned for sprinters (Usain Bolt, the fastest man on earth), fastest cricket bowler, best basket-ball players etc, what we saw in Falmouth the artistic side of Jamaica. The whole precinct was full of artists painting, wood carving, engraving etc and there were Art Galleries, Florists etc. We had the whole day to soak up the Jamaica life in general. There were no restaurants or cafes for the obvious reason that people can pop in to the ship and have gorgeous meal at no cost and come back again to the precinct. However, coconuts and some mangoes (not very sweet) are too good to miss.

At 17:00 we got into our boat for the last leg of our journey back to Galveston. But then we had nearly 40 hours of uninterrupted cruise through the eastern side of the Gulf of Mexico. This was the opportunity to lazy around, indulge in excessive eating and breathing the freshest air one can get. The catering staff were always too keen to please us.

Altogether, Gulf of Mexico cruise was very relaxing and enjoyable. Cruising is becoming a choice holiday event for the public these days away from the hustle and bustle of big cities and towns. On top of that, because of tough competition, cruise standards are improving and prices are very competitive.       

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist

Disasters - natural and man-made, Environmental, Political, Technical

Was Gulf of Mexico oil spill world’s worst man-made disaster?

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill – variously referred to as the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, the BP oil spill, the Macondo blowout and so forth – that began on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect site had been dubbed as the world’s worst man-made environmental disaster by the frenzied American media, local, regional and national politicians and the brazenly self-interested groups. But does it stack up to the reality check?

The accident in the Macondo field (28.74 N and 88.38 W) that resulted in the fatality of 11 workers and casualty of another 17 workers and the total discharge of 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gallons) of oil was, according to tabloid press at that time, the largest environmental disaster in American history. Although BP owned the lease of the Macondo oil site, the oil rig was owned and operated by Transocean (an American company), drilling and safety assessment responsibility was vested on Halliburton (another American company) and the blowout preventer manufacturer was Cameron International.

Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico

Notwithstanding the delegation of operational and safety responsibilities on multiplicity of companies, particularly on American companies, the US District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Carl Barbier, ruled in his judgement in September 2014 that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill. In July 2015, BP had to agree to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in the United States history. Altogether, as of April 2018, the cost of clean-up, compensation to private individuals, corporate charges and other penalties on BP amounted to a staggering $65 billion. Some people from as far north as Chicago came to claim compensation in Louisiana and Texas from that oil spill (off the coast of New Orleans in Gulf of Mexica)! It was a free-for-all compensation bonanza for the American deplorables! The local press in Texas (which has a very large oil industry), as well as American national press started floating the idea that this was the opportunity to swallow up the oil company BP, which was the 6th largest oil company in the world!  

Following the accident, BP initiated a massive response to protect the beaches, wetlands and estuaries from the oil spill by commissioning skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns of oil and using oil dispersant (nearly 1.84 million of US gallons). Although there were several failed attempts to block the well head, finally on 15th July 2019 it was capped. On 19th September 2010, the well was declared totally sealed by the regulators.

Although it took 87 days to plug the well-head, the long-term effects were far less than what local media had whipped up. Within weeks of the leak being plugged, the traces of oil on the surface of the sea and adverse effects on the coastline had disappeared. Now, about nine years after that disaster, the effects had completely gone and the said disaster is all but a distant memory!

Tranquil deep blue sea (Gulf of Mexico)

On a recent cruise in the Gulf of Mexico, I found the area spectacular, virtually a haven of tranquillity, where a number of large cruise ships, each carrying 4,000 or more holiday makers, are operating nearly every day of the week! The water is crystal clear, there is no short-term or long-term effects at all. People in that part of the world are now more occupied with job prospects and worried about global warming, tropical storms and tornedos, extreme rainfall and floods than non-existent consequences from the oil spill.

Just to put this disaster in perspective, it must be pointed out that it was not the world’s largest man-made disaster; it was not even the largest oil disaster. The largest man-made oil disaster occurred in Kuwait during the Gulf war on 10 January 1991 when Iraqi forces deliberately opened the Kuwaiti oil valves as their war strategy. A total of 330 million gallons of oil was spilled, which was one and half times more than the Gulf of Mexico spill. The third largest oil spill occurred in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in June 1979 when the oil well exploded releasing 140 million gallons over a period of ten months.

Accidental release of nearly 32 tons of deadly toxic gas called methyl isocyanate (MIC) on December 3, 1984 from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, India was the world’s worst industrial disaster. The MIC is far more toxic and deadly than chlorine gas used in chemical weapons. The official estimates were that more than 3,800 people (men, women and children) died within three days of the accident and over 3,900 suffered severe and permanent disabling injury. Further afield, over 500,000 people were grievously affected by respiratory problems. Although the American Union Carbide chemical company was the major shareholder in this industrial setup, the company mendaciously managed to transfer its corporate responsibility to UCIL as a standalone entity in India and only paid $470 million (equivalent to $845 million in 2018 money) as compensation. For the death toll of nearly 350 times of Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, American company paid 75 times less compensation. That makes the life of an Indian person as 2625 less valuable than that of an American! Even now, more than 35 years later, over 30,000 people are still suffering from chronic effects – heart, lungs and digestive problems – and large areas are contaminated with toxic chemicals.

World’s worst man-made disaster was, what is now known as, the Ecocide in Vietnam when more than 20 million gallons of deadly chemicals were sprayed in the jungles of Vietnam and Laos in the 1960s and 1970s by the US military to flush out the Viet Cong guerrillas and wipe out jungles and their hiding grounds. The herbicide called Agent Orange contained dioxin, a deadly carcinogen which causes not only somatic but also genetic defects like spina bifida and other mutation illness. The Vietnamese government estimated that nearly 400,000 people had died from dioxin exposure and over 500,000 children had birth defects. No compensation of any significance or any remedial action by the US government had ever been made.

Any disaster of any sort – whether man-made or natural – is unfortunate. But when man-made disasters produced by powerful nations get away with impunity, just because the nations are powerful, that smacks at the heart of humanity. One day the perpetrators of such catastrophes could face justice of the day. 

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist

Advanced science, Environmental, International, Technical

Solar radiation management can help combat climate change

In the Environmental Physics course that I teach from time to time, a student once remarked that we really do not have to worry about the deleterious effects of climate change because technology would be able to solve all the problems we are facing. At that time, I thought this viewpoint is an extreme case of technological optimism. But today, as the likelihood of international consensus to stabilise atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases seems remote while the consequences of climate change are becoming more apparent and direr, many in the scientific community believe that the potential last-ditch effort to stave off the disastrous impacts of climate change is to appeal to technology, geoengineering in particular. Even the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers geoengineering as a necessary Plan B if global warming does not show any signs of slowing.

Geoengineering is deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. It encompasses two different approaches using a variety of cutting-edge technologies to undo the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. They are removal and sequestration of carbon dioxide to lower its concentration in the atmosphere and offsetting global warming by targeting the overall amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. The removal technologies were discussed in an op-ed piece published in this newspaper on November 29, 2018.

Some of the offsetting options scientists are exploring are reflecting part of the sunlight back into space before it reaches the Earth’s surface, allowing more of the heat trapped by the Earth’s surface to escape into space, and increasing the reflectivity of roofs, Arctic ice, glaciers, pavements, croplands and deserts. Known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), these options would slow down the rise in Earth’s temperature until carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced enough to prevent catastrophic repercussions of human-driven climate change.

The fraction of incoming sunlight that is reflected back to space could readily be changed by increasing the reflectivity of the low-level clouds. This could be achieved by spraying seawater in the air where they would evaporate to form sea salt, which would seed the clouds above the oceans making them thicker and more reflective. Several simulations have confirmed that the seeding mechanism, also known as Marine Cloud Brightening, would work with the likelihood to lower temperatures at a regional level.

Another proposed cloud-based approach involves thinning the high-altitude Cirrus clouds in the stratosphere by injecting ice nuclei into regions where the clouds are formed. These wispy clouds do not reflect much solar radiation back into space, and instead trap heat in the atmosphere by absorbing thermal radiation emitted by the Earth. While this method is not technically an example of SRM, thinning Cirrus clouds would provide more pathways for the trapped heat to escape into space, and thus, potentially cool the Earth. Currently, work in this field is limited to theoretical studies at research institutions. However, research shows that a cooling of about one degree Celsius is possible by thinning the clouds globally.

Scientists have known for a long time that volcanic eruptions could alter a planet’s climate for months on end, as millions of sunlight-reflecting minute particles (aerosols) are spread throughout the atmosphere. Indeed, the “cold and miserable” summer of 1816 in China, Europe and North America is attributed to the enormous eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815. Though the aerosol haze produced by the Tambora eruption reflected less than one percent of sunlight, it was enough to drop global temperatures by as much as two degrees by the summer of 1816.

The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the Earth by about 0.5 degrees, while the average global temperatures were as much as one degree cooler for the next five years after the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia. Furthermore, the volcanic-induced cooling of the oceans caused by Krakatoa’s eruption was enough to offset rise in the ocean temperature and sea level for a few decades.

Inspired by these eruptions and the subsequent cooling effect of their sunlight-blocking plume of sulphate particles, scientists are suggesting injecting sulphate aerosols or hydrogen sulphide in the stratosphere. The geoengineering research programme at Harvard University is currently trying to model how clouds of such particles would behave.

One of the more practical SRM techniques that can be implemented easily is whitening surfaces like roofs, croplands and pavements to reflect more sunlight back into space. By absorbing less sunlight, they would negate some of the warming effect from greenhouse gas emissions. This is what greenhouse owners do with whitewash and blinds.

The small island of Bermuda in the North Atlantic is leading the way with white roof houses that not only reflect sunlight, but also keep the homes cooler during the hotter months. A study at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California indicates that a 1,000 square foot of white rooftop has about the same one-time impact on global warming as reducing ten tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Ice sheets are responsible for reflecting lots of sunlight into space. So less ice in the Arctic due to melting means less heat leaving the planet. Hence, scientists want to spread tiny glass beads around the Arctic in the hopes of making the polar ice more reflective and less prone to melting. Another idea is to cover deserts and glaciers with reflective sheets.

Perhaps the most challenging concept to control solar radiation entails deploying an array of reflecting mirrors at strategic points between the Sun and the Earth—just as we all do with sunscreens and sunblocks. Calculations by space scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California indicate that a mirror roughly the size of Greenland would be able to block one to two percent of solar radiation from reaching the Earth. The idea of a sunscreen is still on the drawing board.

Finally, as we transition into a new era in which human activity is shaping the Earth more than the natural forces, technology could be seen as a way of humans reshaping the planet by limiting the adverse effects of climate change. Also, because international political efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions have been slow in coming, solar radiation management is a possible measure to be used if climate change trends become disruptive enough to warrant extreme and risky measures.

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

Advanced science, Bangladesh, Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political, Technical

We are hurtling towards a disastrous Climate Change (Part II)

In Part I, it was shown unambiguously that human activities from the period of industrial revolution (1720 – 1800) had been the root cause for the rise of global temperature by over 1ºC due to emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As industrial activities became more and more widespread, the greenhouse gas emission and its accumulation in atmosphere increased correspondingly and the global temperature went up even higher.

Climatologists, Geoscientists, Atmospheric Scientists and so forth had been warning the world leaders of signs of increase in global temperature over and above the natural increase right from the early 1970s. As time passed, their warning became louder and louder, but the leaders of industrialised countries deliberately ignored them or rejected their scientific evidence. United States of America is, in particular, the champion of such denial right from the beginning – presidents like Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, George W Bush and recently Donald Trump are all rejectionists of man-made global climate change.

Despite incontrovertible scientific principle and evidence that increase in carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and other gases in atmosphere traps energy i.e. heat within earth’s atmosphere and thereby increase global temperature, the deniers reject all these arguments. Their short-sightedness and the damage they are inflicting on Earth are simply inexcusable.

The consequences of global increase in temperature are given below:

When air temperature increases, land surface temperature increases more than the sea temperature, as heat capacity of water is more than that of soil. What it means is that for the same amount of heat, water temperature will increase less (due to its high heat absorbing capacity) than that of soil. Similarly, when air temperature drops, land temperature drop would be more than sea temperature. Thus, sea temperature does not move up or down as much as the adjoining land mass temperature and that is why we get the moderating effect of sea.

This land-sea temperature differential is also the cause of rain, storm, snowfall etc. In the summer, land temperature increases substantially causing air to rise to high altitude and sea air being relatively cooler and heavier but laden with moisture moves towards land and gives rain. A higher temperature difference would give higher amount of rain, higher wind velocity (storm, tornado etc). Reciprocally, in the winter there would be severe snowfall, extreme cold spell etc. So, the climate change would exacerbate the nascent conditions.   

Melting of inland glaciers around the world, which would then be followed by Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting would cause sea-level to rise significantly. It is not only the extra volume of water from melting ice but also the thermal expansion of water due to rise in temperature that would cause sea-levels to rise and inundate large areas of land mass. It is estimated by the Inter-governmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that by the end of this century, the sea-level is likely to rise by at least 6ft (or even higher), if no remedial action is taken now i.e. if life continues as ‘business-as-usual’. But if action is taken urgently now to limit temperature rise to 1.50C, the sea-level rise may be contained within 3ft to 6ft.

Figure 1. Mangrove areas of Sundarbans in Bangladesh at present

In addition to that, worsening storm surge, frequent tropical storm and concentrated rainfall will affect large coastal areas and even inlands of a country, islands and low-lying areas. Bangladesh, a low-lying country, would be badly affected by sea-level rise. The average landmass there is only about 5ft above the sea level. Figure 1 shows the mangrove areas of Sundarbans in the southern part of the country at present and Figure 2 when sea level rises by the smallest estimated margin of about 3ft.  It can be seen that large areas have been inundated by the rising sea level. It is estimated that 1.3 billion people world-wide would be affected, which may require their permanent relocation or even mass migration.

Figure 2. Mangrove areas of Sundarbans in Bangladesh anticipated to be around 2050 AD.

It may be pointed out that sea-level rise does not just cause submersion of landmass, which might have been habitable area previously, but also damages arable land. Ingress of saline water precludes cultivation of crops, vegetation etc even in surrounding areas which are not inundated. 

Thawing permafrost speed up global warming, as permafrost is basically soil that stays below freezing (00C) for at least two years. Plants capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere by photosynthesis process and then this carbon is released when wood (in roots) decays in the soil or carbon is compressed in the natural process to form coal. In Arctic areas, wood decay or decomposition is very slow and hence these areas are regarded as carbon sink. However, decomposition increases as temperature increases causing enhanced carbon emission. The inventory of frozen carbon in permafrost is 1.5 trillion tons, which is nearly twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere now!

Wildfires are caused due to global warming and these then contribute to further global warming. Wildfire thus has a positive (destructive) feedback effect. Trees and vegetation absorb CO2 and convert it to oxygen (O2), thus acting as sinks. Tropical forests in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and in other parts of the world play a vital role in carbon sequestration. However, wildfires effectively convert the sink of carbon straight into source of carbon! The forest fires that are razing in the Amazon rain forest now, which is regarded as the lungs of the planet Earth, are extremely damaging. These forest fires are not natural wildfires; these are deliberate man-made fires to clear forest areas for agricultural use (deforestation). Man is making the planet uninhabitable. 

The effect of all these changes is causing severe disruption to the climate. Where there were moderate rainfalls, now there are severe rainfalls causing flash flood, bursting of dams, landslides etc. In 2018, there were devastating floods in Japan, North Korea and India. In 2019, bridges in North Yorkshire, England collapsed when full month’s rain fell in just four hours.

While some parts of the world were having tremendous amount of rainfall in short spell of time, others were baking in heat waves. France’s capital Paris experienced this summer (June 2019) the highest temperature of 46ºC and India experienced 50ºC. Pakistan experienced a deadly heat wave where highest recorded temperature was 54ºC!

There were unprecedented wildfires in Greece and Australia. Wildfires in the forest area called Paradise in California are devastating and becoming a regular event. Northern Finland (in Arctic Circle) and Siberia were used to be considered so cold that wildfires were thought to be incredible, but not anymore. Last year as well as this year, wildfires in those areas devastated large land mass.

In the year 2017, hurricane Irna, a category 5 storm, was the most powerful Atlantic storm in a decade to strike the Caribbean and Southern US. In addition, hurricane Harvey in Texas and hurricane Maria in Dominican Republic wrought havoc. Monsoon floods in Bangladesh and mudslides in Sierra Leone are devastating natural disasters in 2017.

The frequency and severity of these natural disasters are breaking all previous records. A natural disaster, which only 10 or 15 years ago would have been considered once in 100 years event, is now happening once or twice a decade and if runaway conditions are allowed to continue, those events may become regular events!

Donald Trump not only denies man-made climate change but also encourages activities which cause climate change. He and his right-wing coterie of extremist Republicans in America hold and promote the view that climate change is due to natural phenomenon. There is an Institute in America, called the Heartland Institute (which Trump endorses and supports) which claims to be one of the world’s “leading free market think-tanks” and promotes “free market solutions to social, economic and environmental problems”. It disputes scientific observations and knowledge on climate change (as is usual with right-wing cliques to denigrate scientific knowledge), criticises climate mitigation activities and promotes use of fossil fuels. 

When confronted with increased severity and more frequent incidences of droughts, forest and bush fires, floods, storms, tropical cyclones, cold spells etc, these climate change deniers assert these are just natural phenomena; nothing to do with human activities. Their denial is either based on sheer ignorance or moral depravity.

Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist

  

Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political

Do world leaders understand the consequences of the climate crisis?

School children playing on melting ice in Yukon Delta in Alaska

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have created a hodgepodge of human systems that are at odds with natural systems that support them. In the process, we are pushing billions of people into a dystopian future by bequeathing them with a climate crisis.

While schoolchildren worldwide are on the streets protesting government inaction and millions are displaced by climate-induced disasters, the laissez-faire attitude of our leaders, save a few, sends the message that the current upward trajectory of the crisis does not seem to be a pressing problem. Instead, those who resist the powerful that are savaging our ecosystems and driving people off their land face death and fear, according to the latest annual report from Global Witness.

At various conventions and Conference of Parties (COP), discussions on climate change resemble the tale of a group of blind men touching various parts of an elephant, each arriving at a very different conclusion of what it is like. To one it is like a tree, to another a snake, to a third a wall, to the fourth a spear, so on and so forth. A wise man tells the group that an elephant has all the features they mentioned, but they are missing the big picture. The moral of the parable is that we have a tendency to project our partial experiences as the whole truth, contrary to what reality is. Thus, just like the blind men, politicians and world leaders are missing the “big picture” of human-induced climate change.

Scientists have been warning since the 1980s that to limit the most damaging impacts of climate change, strong policies are needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Ignoring their warnings, politicians allowed greenhouse gases to build up to potentially dangerous levels in the atmosphere. The reason: most likely their lack of knowledge about climatology—a multidisciplinary subject requiring insights from astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, cosmology, economics, geology, history, oceanography, palaeontology, physics and statistics, among other disciplines. One wonders, how many of them or their advisors have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines.

Eventually, in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by the United Nations Environmental Programme and World Meteorological Organization to play a leadership role in tackling climate change. That said, instead of setting the agenda on global climate, IPCC has become a political body controlled by a few powerful nations that are also the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. Other nations that claim to be victims of climate change, yet emit carbon dioxide in copious amounts or build coal-fired power plants near huge carbon sinks or open up rainforests for mining, are third world and developing countries lacking a government strong enough to enforce any measures.

Failing to find a one-size-fits-all solution to counter climate change has prompted IPCC to water down the global climate target in the hope of getting some sort of an agreement. Consequently, it is no longer pushing for binding commitments to reduce emissions, whether for developed or for developing countries. Furthermore, the widely publicised pledge of giving developing countries billions of dollars to cope with the effects of climate change is essentially relabelling foreign aid already going to those countries. Besides, in countries where corruption is endemic, how much of the money, though laughably inadequate, is used for adaptation is questionable.

One could argue that the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement hammered out at COP21 was the first step towards solving the problems resulting from climate change. Regrettably, that first step has so far been Captain Ahab’s “Moby Dick”, the elusive white whale. Hence, there are ample reasons to believe that the agreement is not going to effect any meaningful change in global warming.

So far this year, more than dozen conferences and symposia on global climate change were held in different countries. These conferences, including COP24 last year, dealt with adaptation measures only, which are needed to respond to climate change that has already occurred. However, are there any plan(s) for the future when our planet might become close to uninhabitable? Can we expect an answer from the “political climate pundits” when they will meet in New York and Santiago (Chile) later this year?

While we are waiting for an answer, global emissions of carbon dioxide are at a record high, with no signs of slowing. The atmosphere is warming, glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing and seas are rising. Extreme weather is bringing floods, storms, droughts and other disasters to every region of the world. Moreover, climate change is creating problems in almost every aspect of our life, from public health to food security, from water availability to the economy, and much more.

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked, repercussions of climate change are going to be profound in the future. They would destabilise governments, produce waves of refugees, flood most of the world’s coastal cities and most importantly would make continuing degradation of the Earth irreversible.

Clearly, because of inaction by our leaders, we will be handing over to our future generations a planet that will be close to unliveable. As for themselves and their descendants, they would probably buy their way out of the worst effects of climate change while the rest of us drown or choke to death. This is “climate apartheid,” already practised by the perversely wealthy and powerful.

Today, we are seemingly transitioning to a new geologic epoch, Holocene to Anthropocene, where the climate is very different from the one our ancestors knew. Confronting realities of the new epoch requires courage which many of our leaders lack. Also, their myopic vision does not allow them to think beyond the next election. In fact, a group called Extinction Rebellion claims that their failure in addressing the climate crisis makes them guilty of “criminal inactivity.” It is, therefore, obvious that to keep our planet inhabitable, we need leaders with fortitude, wisdom and acumen, leaders who are not beholden to “corporations financing the injustice of climate change,” and more importantly leaders with vision to guide us through what, by all accounts, will be some challenging decades ahead.

Suffice it to say, should we falter in dealing with the challenges of climate change head-on, not only will the universal goal of peace and happiness for humankind slip out of our grasp, but man’s struggle for mere survival will also be jeopardised.

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