Two weeks ago, the President made another big splash in the international media by announcing that Maldives will become a carbon-neutral country by 2020!
Again, this is a political trick by the government. Achieving carbon neutrality by 2020 is completely unrealistic! Even if we had the will and the money, 10 years is way too short. It is estimated that the project will cost $ 1 billion over the 10 years. The gross foreign currency reserves in MMA is $257 million while the country’s net reserves is a mere $116 million. While we hardly have any money in our coffers, we are not going to attract any foreign investments by portraying the country as environmentally doomed. The majority of carbon emissions in the Maldives are from airplanes bringing in tourists from all over the world. So if we are to become carbon neutral we may have to stop the flights which bring in the tourists. That’s probably not a very good idea for a country in which 78% of the economy is based on tourism. Even if we miraculously become carbon neutral, that is not going to change anything with regards to climate change and sea level rise since we are not contributing even 1 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Therefore, there is no logical reason for Maldives to spend $1 billion on carbon neutrality when the country doesn’t even have a good education or health care system.
While climate change and global warming are real issues faced by Maldives, it seems that the President and the government are trying to use science to advance other agendas.
Well, the most seminal piece of climate change predictions is the IPCC 4th assesment report which gives clear indication on the vulnerablity of Maldive Islands. I have travelled all over Maldives and have covered all the inhabited islands in the Northern Province. In 80% of the islands I visited, there is unprecedented beach erosion which of course may not be due to global warming alone, but surely is human induced.
ReplyDeleteThe reefs which form the islands are the final stage of reef where the reef is dead and the Maldive Atolls lay on the Chagos Ridge which is on a relatively stable part of the Indian Ocean Sea bed. There is no indication the islands are going to rise, and mind you its the house reefs which should grow at pace and provie safety to these Isalnds. However coral reefs are facing much bigger threats from climate change and the 1998 bleaching episode has impacted widely on the house reefs. So your claims are also not false proof. Secondly attaining carbon nutrality does not mean halting all carbon emissions. there are new approacehs such as carbon sequestration and carbon trading schemes coming up as well. Meanwhile becoming carbon nutral is a good longterm investment as we cannot depend on fossil fuel for another 500 years even if our islands remain on the face of earth. So becoming carbon nutral through ecologically sustainabel development is the best option we have. well health care and education is merely enough for the population, and a huge challenge for it is the disparity and spread out nature of the population in 200 isalnds. We have lots of challenges, but we cant wait. dont be stupid man. and Do not be Americanised in the climate change issue. This is not the time for denial of the impacts of climate change impacts on vulnerable states like the Maldives.
@anonymous: i don't think moomin is denying that global warming & sea level rise are happening. With regards to carbon-trading, it's not realistic to imply that all carbon emissions will be neutralized. It's in NOBODY'S interest to minimize emissions to zero. The costs would be too high for little gain. Emissions have to be reduced to a level where the net benefit to society/planet will be maximised. Emissions trading or carbon footprint control would not be effective without a broader political & legal framework to solve this problem of the tragedy of the commons.
ReplyDeleteClimate change is a controversial topic.
There are many scientists who believe that the issue is well overrated as there are those who believe that the earth's time is up. People like Al-Gore are advocating a reactionary change by bloating the status quo of the environment issue. But as it turns out his signature documentary "An inconvenient truth" has indeed falsified statements in order to overrate the impact.
I'm not saying Al-Gore is wrong, and I applaud his eye-opening documentary. It has fueled political and economic bases into thinking ahead about our environment. Even so, i think climate change is a bit overrated.
It is very sad that an issue like global warming has been ruthlessly politicised and used for selfish advantages. The end result can only result in diminishing of the much needed attention this issue needs and we will the most affected. I wish that understood that issues like golbal warming must be taken seriously and not used for political mileage.
ReplyDelete