Connect with us

Features

All hype and hot air?

Published

on

Dr. Pethiyagoda

The Colombo Climate Summit:

An interview with Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda

by Ifham Nizam

The challenge before us, as a nation, is to build national resilience to climate change, says internationally recognised Sri Lankan scientist and policy advocate, Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, in an interview with The Island. “If the West wants us to reduce emissions, they should damn well be made to pay for it. As for us, we should reduce emissions only if and when this serves our national interest, that is, when it generates sustainable growth for us.”

Excerpts:

Q: Your keynote address at the Colombo Climate Summit held earlier this month raised some eyebrows because you said that bribery and corruption were one of the biggest threats that faces Sri Lanka in its response to climate change. What did you mean by that?

A: We have to recognise the fact that recent Sri Lankan governments have been corrupt on an industrial scale. In the run up to the 2015 election, the Yahapalana Coalition claimed massive corruption on the part of the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration. However, since then, Sri Lanka has sunk four more points towards the bottom of the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. We are now in the top 35% of the world’s most corrupt countries, our worst score ever. Everything from visas to wind power is being farmed out to cronies by the government without going through a transparent competitive bidding process.

Our national response to climate change, for example, will involve preventing saltwater intrusion into our 103 rivers as sea level rises in the coming decades. It will call for massive civil engineering interventions that will dwarf even the Mahaweli Project. It will cost tens of billions of dollars. This will be a gift to politicians anxious to exploit this opportunity for personal gain. That is why corruption threatens the building of national resilience to climate change. And that is why, unless we get the system change that the youth demanded when they booted Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office in 2022, we are going to slide from bad to worse.

Q:  There have been allegations on social media that the Climate Summit was all hype and hot air, serving only to greenwash the real issues. For example, it omitted to include many environmental NGOs and even government agencies associated with climate. Your response?

A: The Summit was organised by the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC) and therefore aimed primarily at business and industry. It did not set out to formulate national policy. And the CCC did a great job, bringing in experts from across the world to lend their expertise. The challenges that climate change poses to business are very different to those that it poses to government. Businesses are concerned mainly with issues of sustainability. That is to say, how they can maximise their profitability while minimising their carbon footprints, maximising their energy efficiency, ensuring agricultural productivity, generating renewable energy, transacting climate-associated financial instruments, and so on.

The challenges before government, however, are very different. Government has to do stuff like building resilience to sea-level change, planning agriculture in a warmer world, investing in energy infrastructure, devising interventions to conserve biodiversity in a changing climate, managing urban water supply, irrigation and hydropower as rainfall regimes change, and so on. In fact, the government would do well to have its own climate summit to plan the National Response to Climate Change.

 As I pointed out in my addresses to the summit, many of the national institutions that need to be at the forefront of our response to climate change are hopelessly underfunded and inefficient. I referred especially to the moribund Department of Meteorology, which badly needs a firecracker lit under it. But agriculture research, too, is lagging badly behind. As far as I know, none of our crop research institutes are developing new cultivars of tea or rice in greenhouse conditions that model future climate regimes. We have to do these things if we are to overcome the massive challenges that a changing climate poses.

Q:President Wickremesinghe has urged that Sri Lanka takes a lead in establishing the world’s first climate university. Isn’t that a step in the right direction?

A: Frankly, I think this is a waste of time and resources. First off, the word ‘university’ derives from the Latin root ‘universitas’, meaning ‘the whole’. In other words, a place that teaches everything. You do not have universities that teach only one subject. That is called a school, a faculty or an institute. It would have been better to invest the enormous sum of money he is trying to raise for this venture in the creation of climate schools in some of our universities. In fact, universities such as Peradeniya already have excellent programmes in the associated sciences. And goodness knows our existing universities are badly underfunded.

 But the president is no fool. He knows that like ‘biodiversity’ in the 1990s, ‘terrorism’ in the 2000s, and ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ in the 2010s, ‘climate’ is the international buzzword of this decade. At a time when Sri Lanka is insolvent and at the sharp end of the UN Human Rights Commission, mooting a climate university paints him and the country in a benign light in the international community. I suspect that this was the consideration driving his rhetoric about a climate university. I would be astonished if such a university ever comes into existence in Sri Lanka. But to be fair, his rhetoric does an excellent job of glossing over our many defects in the eyes of the gullible West.

Q: You raised some eyebrows in the run-up to the Summit when you were quoted as saying “There is no climate emergency”. However, UN Secretary General António Guterres has said that every country should declare a climate emergency. Does this mean that you are a climate change denier, a climate sceptic?

A:  There is no doubt that climate is warming at an apparently unprecedented rate, and that human greenhouse gas emissions are exacerbating this warming. I fully support reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally and building national resilience to climate change. But I do not believe we require a state of emergency to do this. I should explain this.

First off, although Mr Guterres has verbally called on nations to declare emergencies, the UN itself has not declared an emergency. The UN’s procedure provides for it to declare a Level-3 emergency in such situations, but Guterres has not done that. As it happens, not even the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) has advocated for a state of emergency. Meanwhile, even as Mr Guterres sings his hypocritical song, he continues to criss-cross the world in his private jet.

 Second, as Sri Lankans know only too well, a state of emergency is a terrible thing. It suspends normal laws, it gives unlimited power to government, it sets aside human rights and freedoms, and it puts mature, thoughtful planning to one side and engenders ill-conceived knee-jerk reactions by government. We all saw all this play out in Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s disastrous management of the covid emergency, overriding the Health Ministry’s Public and Community Health professionals and turning over management of the pandemic to the army. People were arrested and even abducted for having covid, houses were raided, Muslims were prevented from burying their dead, and billions were spent on procuring covid test kits from cronies without a transparent procurement process. Previous governments used emergencies to incarcerate, torture and murder thousands of youths. We should have learned by now that emergencies are not things you can trust Sri Lankan politicians with.

Finally, you need to recognise that our response to climate change is going to take decades: certainly, beyond the end of this century. Do people seriously intend to have a state of emergency for the next 70 or 100 years? Only a very ignorant person would say so.

Q: But don’t we have a responsibility to be good global citizens? Should we not do everything we can to reduce emissions?

A:  Look, for the past two centuries, the West industrialised at the cost of the global environment. The 50% increase we have seen in atmospheric carbon dioxide over that period is almost in its entirety caused by the West. They enriched themselves at the cost of the global environment with the one hand while suppressing us through colonialism with the other. And now they have the cheek to tell us, the developing world, that it is our job to be good global citizens? Look at it this way. Say that a cake was made for the whole world to share. Then, the West elbows its way to the table, gobbles up 90% of it and fattens itself. Having done that, it tells us “Now there’s only 10% left. Please be good global citizens and share this 10% equitably among yourselves and with us.” My answer is No. The developing world should simply tell the developed world to fly a kite. They caused this mess, and they should pay to clean it up, not us.

The challenge before us, as a nation, is to build national resilience to climate change. If the West wants us to reduce emissions, they should damn well be made to pay for it. As for us, we should reduce emissions only if and when this serves our national interest, that is, when it generates sustainable growth for us. But then, even when wind power, for example, has become dirt cheap worldwide, we are paying three times the world price for it here in Sri Lanka because corrupt people are lining their pockets with loot.

In my view, Sri Lanka should even consider withdrawing from the UN’s COP (Conference of Parties) process. Now we are at the 29th COP, which if nothing else, shows that the first 28 COPs were failures. They have done nothing to attenuate climate change. These COP meetings involve thousands of officials flying to global tourism hotspots every year, cramming into five-star hotels and returning home with papers full of promises and platitudes. None of that ever gets turned into so-called climate action. It is a waste of time, and we should have the courage to say so and refuse to dance to the West’s tune. Of course, they will try to cut so-called aid to us. But if we state our case clearly to the citizens of the West, showing that their governments’ demands that we mitigate climate change are just an extension of the colonial enterprise, I think we will win the day. We need to call out the West’s hypocrisy.

Q: That’s a strong word. Can you seriously make such a claim?

A: What, hypocrisy? Of course, I can. Just take the UK. Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions are now 50% lower than they were in 1990. The UK is the poster child of the developed world. Three cheers! But how did they do it? First, they exported a lot of their emissions by turning from a high-carbon manufacturing economy into a low-carbon service economy. Goods for the UK market are now increasingly manufactured overseas, so the exporting countries’, principally China, are doing the emitting on the UK’s behalf. The UK has also been replacing high-CO2 coal as a source of energy with ‘renewable’ wood-pellets imported from North America. Millions of tons of wood pellets. Its argument is that this is sustainable because the CO2 that wood combustion emits will be reabsorbed when those American forests are replanted. But they claim the emissions reduction now, even though the trees will not grow back for decades from now. Such examples, to my mind, are indicative of the lowest form of hypocrisy and we should call them out on it. But the UK may not be the worst offender: Germany is not far behind. So yes, I am serious when I call these countries hypocrites. Sadly, most of their citizens are unaware of the true facts, and I don’t blame them. They too, are misled by their governments.

Q:     You make everything sound pretty hopeless…

A: Ah, but I am optimistic. I think governments like the UK’s and Germany’s have been stampeded by activists into making promises that they simply cannot keep. But globally, humans have been wonderful innovators. Our hallmark as a species is innovating. I have no doubt that we will innovate our way out of global warming too. This is a long journey, and we are only at the beginning. If we keep our nerve and stay the course like responsible adults should, we’re going to come out of this just fine. But by then there will be new problems that call for yet more innovations. That’s the human predicament, the human story.

Q:     Are there examples of innovations in Sri Lanka that help address climate threats?

A: There are many. Colombo Port City is a fine example of the kind of engineering we need to reclaim land that lies below sea level. Industry has been becoming more sustainable, too. Star Garments’ 35,000-square foot facility in Katunayake is South Asia’s first certified ‘Passive House’ factory: It uses 70% less energy than other buildings of comparable size. And if you think about it, the thousands of tanks and reservoirs scattered across the dry zone were built by Sri Lankan kings over the past 2000 years as a response to a climate threat, namely drought. What a phenomenal innovation that ‘hydraulic civilization’ was!

And then there are the ongoing efforts to reconnect fragmented wet-zone forest fragments by means of biodiversity corridors. Initiatives by NGOs such as the PLANT project of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society, the rainforest and mangrove restoration projects of Biodiversity Sri Lanka, and the 2-km forest corridor at Endana near Kahawatta by Dilmah Conservation are leading the way in this regard. I urge your readers to support these pioneering projects. That is how, by everyone doing their bit, Sri Lanka can build resilience to the climate of the future.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Division Bell Mystery

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense 3

The murder, in a private dining room in the house, is of a financier with whom the government was negotiating a loan. When this seemed difficult the Minister of Home Affairs agreed to lead discussions, since he had known Mr Oissel the financier when they were young. Hence the private dinner, but when the Minister stepped out for a vote, Oissel was shot just as the Division Bell rang.

The Brahms and Simon detective novels, the first of which I wrote about last week, were amongst several books by the pair that Robert Scoble gave me when I was in Australia towards the end of last year. Amongst them was another thriller of a very different sort, though that too was written and set between the wars.

Called The Division Bell Mystery, it was set in the House of Commons, the first such book I believe, and was by Ellen Wilkinson, a Labour MP who became Minister of Education in Attlee’s government after the war, having served previously as Parliamentary Private Secretary to several ministers. Her hero Robert West is also a PPS, but a conservative, and his Minister, of Home Affairs, is an old style aristocrat, not much loved by the less orthodox Prime Minister, who nevertheless needs his support on many occasions.

The murder, in a private dining room in the house, is of a financier with whom the government was negotiating a loan. When this seemed difficult the Minister of Home Affairs agreed to lead discussions, since he had known Mr Oissel the financier when they were young. Hence the private dinner, but when the Minister stepped out for a vote, Oissel was shot just as the Division Bell rang.

West was just outside the door when the shot was heard, and when he opened it saw only the dead body with a revolver beside it. The assumption that this was suicide was however challenged by Oissel’s grand-daughter Annette, who was his heir, on the grounds that he would never have killed himself. But her view was given greater credence by the Inspector put in charge of the case who said there were no burn marks on the body which would have been the case had Oissel fired the pistol himself.

Matters are complicated by the fact that Oissel’s flat had been burgled while he was at dinner, and Jenks the policeman allocated to him, who had served the Home Secretary and seemed more acceptable to Oissel than someone from the Security Service, had been killed. Matters get even more complicated when Annette says her grand-father’s notebook in which he wrote his secrets in cipher was missing.

That was found in Jenks’ pocket, and then a photographer came to West to say he had been asked by Jenks to photograph this. More worryingly for West, he finds in the Home Secretary’s drawer a few pages from the notebook with what appears to be an interpretation of the cipher.

Ellen

Overwhelmed by all this he confides in a recently created peer who knows all about the business world, who insists that they leave the house party at which they had met over dinner and discuss the matter with the Prime Minister who promptly summons the Home Secretary.

But the Home Secretary had gone to Scotland to launch a ship over the weekend, so the meeting could take place only on the morning of the Monday, when difficult questions were expected on the adjournment motion. He admits at the meeting that he had got Jenks to take the notebook, and also that he knew the code since it had been created by him and Oissel when they were young.

He thought he should resign, and even contemplated suicide, but the Prime Minister told him that that would be even worse for the government, and that he should go home to bed. The Prime Minister said that he himself would handle the question, which he did with aplomb, insisting that confidentiality was needed until the inquest. What had happened would be made clear then, he declared, leaving West and Inspector Blackit and Lord Dalbeattie what seemed the impossible task of solving the murder.

Dalbeattie had suggested that West ask a female Labour MP who was very fond of him to get what information she could from the staff. That there was some involvement there had become clear when West, going back late one night to collect a briefcase he had left in a dining room, found someone lurking in the dark in the corridor outside the private rooms. Room J, where the murder had happened, was meant to be guarded throughout by a policeman, but he had left the room having felt dizzy, and it seemed that his coffee had been drugged. West’s sudden appearance however had prevented anyone else getting into the room.

Dalbeattie decides to recreate the scene of the murder and has a dinner party in Room J on the Tuesday night, inviting West and Annette and the society hostess at whose house he had met, and also Patrick Kinnaird, an MP who was engaged to Annette, as well as the Permanent Secretary to the Home Ministry.

After coffee Inspector Blackit comes in with Grace, the Labour MP who had got the confidence of the staff, and a journalist who had also been helpful, and just as they say they think they are on the track the division bell rings. Grace jumps up and tells the Inspector that that provides the solution and they get a ladder, and sure enough find the revolver in the space where the bell is. Directed at the place where Oissel had sat, it had been primed to go off with the ringing of the bell. The waiter who had helped to set things up made clear who the murderer had been.

The reason for the murder and the confused motives of all those involved made for a fascinatingly intricate mix. But also impressive in the book were the descriptions of the isolation possible in the crowded premises of the house, the forceful characterization of the members – Grace based on the writer, the society hostess based on Nancy Astor, the first female MP – and the laid back nature of senior politicians which West realized had to change in the brave new world of high finance.

Continue Reading

Features

The challenge of keeping value-based politics alive

Published

on

Anti-migrant protests in Durban, South Africa. BBC

The current outbreak of anti-immigrant protests in Durban, South Africa is bound to have taken many a subscriber to value-based politics or political idealism quite by surprise. After all, this is evidence that despite the historic accomplishments of nation-builders of the stature of the late President Nelson Mandela it cannot be taken for granted that identity politics, including racism in its worst forms, is no more in South Africa.

At the time of this writing details are scarce on the substantive root causes of the protests but it could very well be that economic grievances, particularly on the part of the majority community in South Africa, are contributing considerably to the disaffection. Shrinking employment and material prospects are likely to figure majorly among the factors igniting the unrest.

Fortunately, the local authorities in Durban are losing no time in calling for peaceful co-existence among the relevant communities and are pointing to the vital importance of stepping-up national integration processes. Apparently, immigrants in sizable numbers from neighbouring countries are present in Durban. However, international TV footage of the protests quoted some local authorities as saying that the majority of the immigrants in some centres that housed them were not illegal migrants and had the documents that entitle them to be in Durban.

In the Durban protests the world has fresh proof of the socially divisive consequences of the gathering globe-wide economic disaffection, touched off particularly by the continuing crisis in West Asia. Going ahead, the world would need to brace for increasing identity-based unrest of the kind it is just witnessing in South Africa.

Considering that the material lot of ordinary people everywhere could only aggravate progressively, with the US and Iran showing no signs of negotiating an end to their confrontation any time soon, it will be left to the more democratic and progressive sections of the world community to initiate positive measures collectively to bring a measure of relief to the discontented.

The swiftness with which such relief will be provided would depend crucially on the importance those sections taking up these undertakings attach to value-based politics as opposed to Realpolitik of power politics.

Going by these yardsticks, Italy could be considered to be moving in the right direction. Recently Italy came to the fore in initiating the collective named, ‘Rome Coalition for Food Security and Access to Fertilizer’, which has as one of its aims the swift provision of fertilizer to economically weak African countries.

In a recent statement Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Antonio Tajani, said that a principal aim of the project was to ensure that the farmers of Africa gained easy access to fertilizer, considering that food security is a growing concern among some of Africa’s economically vulnerable countries.

The statement went on to mention that some 30 countries hailing from the Mediterranean region, the Middle East, the Balkans as well as the FAO had been invited to join the coalition. The venture is far-seeing in that food security is main among the reasons for social discontent which in turn could degenerate into endemic political turmoil and bloodshed. Separatist violence and geographical fragmentation of countries wouldn’t be too far behind these developments, as Africa itself has often proved.

It is hoped that more G7 countries would take the cue from Italy and do what they could to ease the hardships of economically distressed countries, particularly of the global South. In these efforts they would need to break rank with the US, which is today brutally indifferent to the consequences of its policy of making ‘America First’, come what may.

Going by current developments, the Trump administration seems to be blithely oblivious to the wider, deleterious effects of its policy course in West Asia. Besides rendering Iran militarily and otherwise impotent nothing else seems to matter to Washington, as regards West Asia. This is policy short-sightedness of an extreme kind. After all, right now West Asia could be said to be sitting on the proverbial powder keg.

On the other hand, Iran is not giving the world the impression that it is doing anything constructive to get out of the policy straitjacket that it wove for itself decades ago. Rather than enter into a policy of ‘live and let live’ in relation to Israel in particular and initiate a process of reconciliation with the latter, it has chosen to operate within policy parameters that continue to damn Israel. This has put Israel always on the ‘defensive’ so to speak and prevented the opening up of space for meaningful dialogue.

That said, Israel is obliged to explore the possibilities of entering into a negotiatory process with the Arab-Islamic world that could lead to a de-escalation of tensions and bloodshed. It cannot continue to look at its neighbours through lenses that distort them as archetypal enemies who should be ‘wiped off completely from the face of the earth.’

In other words, the need is urgent for Realpolitik to give way to value-based politicks. Italy is beginning to prove that the latter approach could be pursued with some success. May be the EU and the UK could throw their weight behind these initiatives as well and establish that international politics could be refashioned on the basis of humane, civilized norms. The UN would need to be fully supportive of these moves and prove an organizational nucleus of the operations that follow.

In fact the time is ripe for people of conscience to collectively stand up on the side of peace and say ‘No’ to war and violence. Organizations such as the ICRC, the WHO and Medicines Sans Frontiers have already taken up this call. Referring to the widespread destruction of health facilities and their dehumanizing results these organizations have said, among other things, that ‘This is not a failure of the law. It is a failure of political will.’

True, ‘failure of political will’ among those powers that matter accounts for the runaway, uncontrollable nature of war and destruction in contemporary times, but more fundamentally it is a failure of the human conscience. It could very well be that the phenomenal levels to which violence and war have been unleashed today have had the effect of deadening consciences. This is a matter for urgent study and wide discussion.

Continue Reading

Features

Vesak celebrations … with Cuteefly

Published

on

Perfect for celebrations, gifts, and meaningful occasions // Gift pack

I would describe Indunil Kaushalya Dissanayaka as innovative and creative, and she operates under the name of Cuteefly.

Indunil always comes up with something novel to celebrate special occasions, and she does it with candles … and that’s her profession.

She was in the spotlight when she created a happening scene, with candles, for Christmas, Sinhala and Tamil New Year, and Valentine’s Day.

As lanterns light up Sri Lanka for Vesak, the Colombo-based candle maker is quietly turning wax and wick into little pieces of the festival.

Candles reflecting Vesak themes

Her candles reflect Vesak themes – light, peace, remembrance, giving, etc., to enable you to fill your Vesak celebration with devotion and beauty.

Among her Vesak creations is a lotus-shaped soy candle, scented with sandalwood, lavender, etc., meant to burn during this Vesak Poya Day.

Indunil Kaushalya Dissanayaka: Customers
praise her for her creativity

These handcrafted Vesak candles are perfect for offering at the temple, she says.

What makes her creations so novel is that they come in different shapes, scents, themes, and all are handmade.

What’s more, her customers have heaped praise on her for her creativity.

According to Indunil, her creations are perfect as a thoughtful gift … to bring beauty, unity, and light into every moment.

Says Indunil: “Our beautifully handcrafted Unity candles are designed with premium detail and love, making them perfect for celebrations, gifts, and meaningful occasions.”

Cuteefly, says Indunil, is available online.

Readers could contact Indunil on 0778506066 for more details.

He Facebook Page is: Cuteefly.

Handmade with love

Continue Reading

Trending