Two voices conversation – Climate change
1. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), climate change is “a change in Earth's overall climate. The change could be in Earth's average temperature, for example. Or it could be a change in Earth's typical precipitation patterns. Observations show that Earth's climate has been warming.” Do you agree with this definition? What does climate change represent for you?
Bhavna: I agree with this definition. Climate change is essential to sustain life. Recent global change in the earth’s temperature has observable effects on the environment. The effects can be seen in form of floods affecting the agriculture, change in the migratory pattern of the birds, increased rainfall, hurricanes, drought and shrinking of Glaciers.
The average temperature of earth has been increased by 1 degree Fahrenheit, though this increase appears very less in terms of digits, but it has already affected the earth’s atmosphere drastically.
Since Climate change can be both man-made and natural. We must need to limit human activities such as limiting the use of fossil fuels to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Riccardo: Climate change is a very broad topic. Scientifically, climate change is based on the atmosphere’s change and on atmospheric parameters. Talking about climate change also means that we have to mention the impacts in terms of weather and all the aspects that Bhavna mentioned, like precipitations or heat, but also in different fields.
Scientific climate change has indeed impacts on ethics, society, anthropology, philosophy, agriculture and many other fields. It is not only a change in the atmosphere, but a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary concept.
Bhavna: I agree with you. Climate change is a multidisciplinary concept. Its influence can be witnessed at different levels.
Riccardo: There are different definitions of climate change. There is one scientific definition which involves variation of the environment, environmental parameters, variation in temperatures and variation in the Earth’s characteristics.
Another definition could be the change of life because all these variations influence the life of human beings, animals and plants.
I started working on climate change because this phenomenon was impacting my work.
I started my career to study tropical cyclones and then I followed to studied topics related to climate changes, because I think this topic is really important. I studied tropical cyclones and volcanic eruptions because they impact atmospheric changes. Now I am also studying aerosols (both anthropogenic and natural) in the Indian region since they influence precipitation and atmospheric circulation, not only in this region, but also globally.
In all the topics of my studies and work, I am always looking at connections to climate change. Furthermore, I have initiated a new proposal on climate change involving scientists from different backgrounds and disciplines all part of MCAA.
Bhavna: Did you study India as a sub-continent?
Riccardo: Yes, the aerosols are currently affecting the global atmospheric circulation so it is an important topic.
2. Most scientists think that recent warming can't be explained by nature alone.
Riccardo: There is scientific evidence that the warming is due to the effect of natural and anthropological causes. We need to find out the proportion of each cause. We are not talking about religion! It is not a matter of agreeing or not. We are talking about science and science can demonstrate everything.
Bhavna: Of course recent phenomena can’t be explained by nature alone. Human activities are also responsible. We cannot control nature, but we can limit human activities that have an impact on nature. So I believe that human activities should be reduced in terms of greenhouse emissions and encouraged in terms of renewable energies.
3. Although there seems to be a consensus on the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, some individuals think that we are exaggerating the impact of human activities on the climate. They are called “climate-sceptic”. Do you think that these people are enriching the debate, or are they denying the evidence?
Bhavna: For example, some data show that the oceans’ water level has not increased that much. And we don’t know how high they will be in 100 years. But actually, I am not really convinced by the arguments of these climate-sceptics! There are strong facts that can’t be ignored.
We are using a lot of fossil energies. And we cannot say these won’t affect the environment and the seasons. We cannot ignore the fact that we are doing wrong.
We have also some evidence that the melting of the ice has increased. But in India, we also say that temperature is changing constantly. And these changes cannot all be related to human activities. Each theory has its opposite. My opinion is 50/50 mixed.
For example, India is a developing county. This means that we need more industry and to increase our quality of life. And India is still using less fossil energy than developed countries, for example the United States.
Countries which started firstly to use non renewable energies are more responsible than the developing countries, and these countries are economically different.
Riccardo: We should distinguish different kinds of “sceptics”. Many people are described as “sceptics” but the thing is that they only have different points of view.
On the one hand, there are people that can be defined as “believers”. What they say has no scientific basis, and they state that there is no climate change, no ice melting and of course, they shouldn’t be listened to. They encourage no discussion.
But on the other hand, there are other scientists defined as “sceptics” because they contest the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis and they say that global warming is not caused primary by anthropogenic processes. I can’t define them as “sceptics” because I think that they can contribute to the debate. They can help us understand the real process of climate change. We really don’t know everything about global warming and to which extent climate change is due to anthropogenic effects and to natural effects. Anything can be useful and produce interesting results.
In addition, there are also climate change’s “believers”, stating there is climate change and that we must do anything to reduce the temperatures’ increase and that all the changes are related to anthropogenic effects; they don’t enrich the discussion either. They don’t help solve the problems.
So in a nutshell, if we talk about scientists adding real contributions to scientific topics, I don’t define them as “climate sceptics”, to the extent that they can help solve several problems.
When we talk about climate changes we think about the production of greenhouse gases which are generating pollution, and they are not just dangerous because of climate changes, but they also generate health problems. So we have to control this pollution and greenhouse gases not only because of climate change, but also for other reasons involving health and life on Earth.
I have worked for three years in the same group of somebody who is considered as a “sceptic” by a large proportion of IPCC scientists. Someone accuses him of being paid by multinational companies to say that climate change is not entirely due to anthropogenic effects. But I know that he’s a serious scientist and I know about his research, and he’s doing really great work. He is publishing in the same journals as most of the IPCCs. He also publishes in Nature, And if his work wasn’t good, he wouldn’t publish in important journals. His contribution helps understanding of climate change.
Bhavna: What does he study?
Riccardo: He’s working on cosmic rays and solar radiation.
Bhavna: I am also thinking that climate change is putting too much pressure on Western countries and in this sense, climate sceptics can help.
4. According to NASA, “The warming climate likely will cause more floods, droughts and heat waves. The heat waves may get hotter, and hurricanes may get stronger.” Riccardo, you have been studying cyclones, is it a phenomenon that you have witnessed already?
Riccardo: Currently, there is no evidence of the intensification of tropical cyclones. Some models predict the intensification of these phenomena in the future, others don’t.
Regarding these phenomena, we have to take into account several parameters. Tropical cyclones for example are developed only over oceans, which makes them difficult to measure. Until the 1970s, we only had a few measurements, nothing really significant. Since the 1970s, the number of measurements has increased with satellite availability. But this lack of measurements until the 1970s made it difficult to extract trends. So even if the number of measurements has increased, uncertainty remains and is still very large. So answering this question is difficult.
In general, with extreme phenomena like hurricanes or storms, we must not only consider atmospheric changes, but also land use. Often, the intensity of these extremes phenomena has been evaluated in terms of impacts on the economy, society, damage. But these effects are a combination of real intensity of the extremes like winds, atmospheric parameters and land structure. Everything depends on the terms that you use to evaluate the intensity and the impact of these extremes. Scientifically, there is no evidence that the intensity of tropical cyclones increased, unless we refer to the models, but models can say everything!
Bhavna: What we can witness in India is that we need more space, more land for the population. We had also extreme phenomena like floods in the south of the country, or droughts in the northern regions. There are some changes in the climate in India, but it is difficult to say whether it is part of natural process or it a consequence of the climate change. or not. And India is a developing country so controlling the consequences of these phenomena is more difficult.
Riccardo: For example, if you talk to Italians, they will also say that rain or storms have increased. But if you check the trends, there is no real trend. Communication around these phenomena is greater than it was in the past.
Now, if there is a flood in Florence, or in the south of India, you will know about it because communication has developed. Perceptions have changed.
Bhavna: But do you think that these changes we witness are natural?
Riccardo: Floods in Italy are part of the trends, for example. There is something different in your area in India. It seems that something is really happening there.
In general, there are no real trends in extreme weather except in limited areas. If you read or watch anything on the media, your perception can be different, even though media don’t exaggerate. It is already difficult to communicate in science. And communicating something really important like climate changes to the general public is very hard!
Bhavna: This depends also on what the public perceives. But as I am not expert, I am still wondering whether all of these extreme phenomena are just part of a natural process or not.
Riccardo: Media can really influence the opinion of people. People speak about climate changes without being scientists. They are mainly “believers” or not “believers”. And this creates also some problems.
5. The Paris Climate conference (COP21) took place from 30 November to 11 December in France. Some 187 countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (governments agreed to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels). Do you consider this engagement a success, or do you think this commitment is not enough?
Riccardo: I don’t think that they really decided something concrete! When state leaders met in 1997 in Montreal and decided to ban chlorofluorocarbons to protect the ozone they did something important taking a real action. But after this, they decided nothing concrete in the framework of these meetings.
When you have no commitment, no real control, when you don’t force people to do something, I don’t think that you can get results. As far as I understood, they decided to decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases on a voluntary basis and not to go over the atmospheric temperature of 1.5 degrees. From my point of view, this is not a result!
Bhavna: A lot of countries were involved in this conference. A statement was made and the countries had to agree on this statement. I think that success comes when you have transparency and equality.
There were a lot of developing countries at this summit. For example, India is also a developing country. The agreement somehow indicates that a country in question must have to stop immediately the usage of non- renewable energies in order to limit the warming to 1.5°C. That means to switching to renewable sources purely, which means to revolutionise the whole business of a country and it is very difficult for the countries which are in their developing stages. This puts a lot of pressure on developing countries! We also aspire to have a high quality level of life! Our economy is low compared to developed countries. We cannot revolutionise our whole industry in a day! We have planned to replace the current state of usage of fossil fuels to by renewable energies in five years as per requested. Still, I believe that developing countries should given some flexibility in this plan as our country has 1.2 billion inhabitants and to sustain a life we need industrial powers and it’s difficult to increase our GDP if we restrain our development? This summit put huge pressure on developing countries, because we don’t have to limit our greenhouse emissions like developed countries, but we have to change everything, which is a long-term process. Let’s see how long we will need to reach the COP21 goals.
Riccardo: Italy’s politics for environment is limited. The local level is more active in general.
6. What should individuals do, at their level, to tackle climate change?
Riccardo: I think that we can do a lot but we can also do nothing at the same time. As individuals we can’t change anything at global level but we can contribute to changing minds.
We can decide to use public transportation instead of the car for example. But as individuals, we are not influencing climate changes. If we explain to people the importance of what they are doing, we can change the mind of people in the very long term.
Of course, anybody can do a lot. But I don’t think we are ready to get rid of our quality of life. I like using my computer and travelling by airplane and these behaviours are pollutant. And a lot of people behave the same way. Ethically, quality of life is the most important thing. I cannot tell people not to do what I am doing. But if everybody were behaving like me, the world would be destroyed in two days! We must think and act against climate change at a global scale. And it is not just something regarding atmosphere but also ethics and society. Ethics is fundamental.
Bhavna: I think a bit differently from you. If I knew that what I do could benefit others, I wouldn’t mind decreasing my standard of living! I agree with the fact that people should take public transport, which could be based on renewable energies (biodiesels, biofuels). We can plant trees to counter deforestation. In order to maintain high economic growth rate to raise the standard of living, my country has outlined eight national missions which addressed the use of renewable source of energies to limit the per capita green house gas emissions comparable to those of developed countries, thereby also addressing climate change issues effectively.
Riccardo: Bhavna, you are talking about politics and measures that should be taken at national level not on an individual scale. Of course, politics must change. They can force people not to waste water or planting trees.
Of course, I try to do things at my level (going by bike, turning off the tap when I brush my teeth) but it is not important!
Bhavna: Well, on your own level (individual), would you plant a tree?
Riccardo: Sure if I had the land! Several times you said that you come from a developing country and that you cannot stop your development. And this is true. This is going against ethics. We cannot tell people who live in India or Brazil to stop their development because they are polluting, whereas developed countries are polluting as well.
Individually we can do a lot. I will teach my son to go by bike or to plant trees. But we will see the consequences of these behaviours on the next generations.
Bhavna: I think both developed and underdeveloped countries are responsible for global change in the earth’s temperature and that’s why it is called Global so we must not blame on each other countries. But yes, political pressures are always more on under developing countries. In this case, do you think that politics is important?
Riccardo: Sure, if somebody forces us to adopt a responsible behaviour, we have to do it!
Bhavna: Yes, but do you consider this pressure as negative or positive?
Riccardo: It depends on your mind! If somebody forced me to plant trees, I would be happy to do it! But it could be negative for someone else. The mindset of people would need to be changed.
Bhavna I have the impression that the most of the general public is not aware about the risks related to the usage of fossil fuels or their consumption. So maybe in those cases, pressure can be important. Anyhow, a healthy pressure is must for a development of a country. For example, government pressure on general public to plant a tree on acres of land, or clean the land, would not be taken as a pressure but as a duty of every national of their country.
Riccardo: Indeed. Communication and information are essential.
Bhavna: Children are more receptive than adults as they can adapt a change very easily. We must know why it is important.
Riccardo: You have to teach but you also need to give example.
Bhavna: Yes, people need to understand why it is necessary to limit global warming.