Monthly Archives: January 2010

Melting glaciers

Posted on by
Reply

When will the Himalayan glaciers melt, is the question the IPCC has been losing sleep over. Frankly, the debate over the question has been bothering me no end, especially since the science providing the answer has been so divided. When it comes to climate change and melting glaciers, there are theories galore. So, I had chosen not to make a comment on the issue that has caught a lot of media attention in India and was churning up new dates to the melting theory everyday.

Till the IPCC chose to speak, of course.

This evening IPCC chairperson R K Pachauri also sent across a document: FAQ on “Climate Change and Impacts on Glaciers” clearing the ice on the very many hows, whens and whys. I reproduce the document as is below for wider interpretation and understanding. Hope it ends the sparring over dates and redirects the climate change debate to where it should go:

Q1) The IPCC has wrongly quoted the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 2035?

IPCC’s conclusions in the synthesis report of AR4 “Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.” are robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment. The statement on glacial retreat in the technical report is a regrettable error arising out of established processes not being diligently followed.

Q2) Has this been responsible for creating alarm?

While some people may have been genuinely alarmed by this, it has not resulted in any extreme reaction. What it did lead to was an appreciation of the need for better quality data and research and heightened awareness about the real threat to the Himalayan glaciers. A wide range of community perceptions in these regions testify to this threat.

Q3) What is the possibility that there are no more errors in the report?

The possibility is minimal – if not non-existent. As mentioned above, the IPCC has laid out well documented procedures on the use of literature both peer-reviewed and grey by way of which the scientists develop the reports. The responsibility of assessing the quality of this literature and ensuring its availability for future use lies with the authors within the larger process. After the finalisation of the chapters by authors, there is a well defined review process that is undertaken. The chapters are then put in the public domain for inviting comments. After the comments are addressed the chapters are also sent to country governments for review and comment and all these processes have been followed.

Q4) The report on Glaciers endorsed by MoEF (India’s ministry of environment and forests) last year had alternative views to present on retreat?

The science of glacier retreat or advancement is extremely complex and conclusions can be reached only after studying both the area and the mass. The MoEF report does not indicate that both these aspects have been fully addressed. In any case, this issue of the error in the IPCC report can not be used to authenticate the findings of the MoEF report.

Q5) Would the IPCC take action against any scientist you think is responsible for such an outcome?

As explained above, there is a full process that is followed and attributing responsibility on specific experts may not be desirable, particularly since the error was more of one of judgement. We would be reviewing and strengthening our processes henceforth.

Q6) How does this affect the credibility of IPCC?

Given the extremely complex nature of the climate change science, impacts, vulnerability and adaptation and the large number of issues that are addressed in the IPCC report from literature that is from all over the world, I am confident that this regrettable issue should not in any way detract from the work done by hundreds of eminent scientists carefully selected and nominated by governments.

Q7) What is the attribution to black carbon?

This is an important area in which active research is being pursued at a number of institutes across the world. However, it is difficult to attribute the extent to which black carbon impacts the melting of Himalayan glaciers till we have critical body of scientific literature.

Q8) There have been views that your institute has gained from the alarmist situation created to rope in projects worth billions of dollars?

Research on climate change in TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute , which Pachauri heads) goes as far as back as 1987 – before the IPCC had been formed. Our work on glaciers started two years ago recognising the need for greater field based data generation and modelling. The IPCC report has also pointed out the need for more research in these areas.

Q9) What is TERI’s research on glaciers?

The project on Himalayan glacier quoted by the media (Hi Noon) is an EU funded project under the FP7 programme. TERI participated in this competitive bid as one partner in a consortium of institutions led by a European institution and involves several other Indian institutions including IIT Delhi and Kharagpur. Each institute has a well defined role and TERI is addressing the issue of socio-economic impact assessment.

Q10) What work is TERI doing with Government of Iceland?

The Global Centre, Iceland received support from Carnegie Foundation for glacier related work. Our collaboration with this Centre is for the purpose of training and teaching in glaciology.

Toy trouble

Posted on by
2

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in New Delhi made some characteristically startling revelations today when they declared that Indian toys have high levels of toxic phthalates — plastic-softening chemicals that can lead to a wide range of health disorders and are especially dangerous for very young children who chew up anything at hand.

In its lab tests, CSE found phthalates in all samples of toys tested, all exceeding internationally accepted safe phthalate limits by over 45 per cent. The revelation is especially disturbing since India is all set to lift the ban on import of toys on January 23, 2010. India and China have no regulations to control use of phthalates in toys.

teether.jpg

Phthalates are known to damage the male reproductive system, impair lungs and affect the duration of pregnancy, according to a CSE release. CSE tested 24 toy samples randomly bought in Delhi and manufactured in India, China, Taiwan and Thailand. The study challenges manufacturers’ claims of producing ‘non-toxic’ toys.

Earlier CSE studies have made significant impact on government policies. The organisation had tested pesticide levels in soft drinks forcing the government to set standards for such food items. It also conducted tests to determine pesticide residue levels in human blood samples, an endosulfan analysis, a study of transfats in edible oils, and studies to detect contamination levels in the soil and groundwater in and around the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal.

The new study comes at a time when the government policy on import of toys can still be reviewed and standards set for the safety of millions of babies chewing teethers in this country.

Tiger ticker

Posted on by
2

Close on the heels of Indian scientists demonstrating the invaluable genetic diversity of the subcontinent’s big cats, here’s some more good news for tiger conservation in India.

tiger1.jpg

© WWF

Last week, India officially launched an online database of authentic record of tiger deaths and other key wildlife species across the country. Tigernet is a collaborative effort of the National Tiger Conservation Authority of the environment and forests ministry and TRAFFIC-India, the wildlife trade monitoring network.

The idea is to compile and analyse such data as a management tool for tiger conservation in India. The website is a refreshingly candid venture that promises to be a transparent official record of deaths of the big cats in India. It gives tiger reserve directors and chief wildlife wardens in India the ability to key-in crucial information about tiger deaths, poaching and seizures.

Conservation experts have been crying foul for long on the lack of accurate information on such issues. The website answers a lot of questions raised time and again by NGOs and conservation workers and should go a long way in assisting anti-poaching efforts.

By significantly simplifying the tiger death reporting system and even findings of post mortem examinations, the government has shown its willingness to go a step further in its seriousness over transparency in wildlife conservation efforts.

Double R&D funds

Posted on by
2

National funds for research and development are poised to double from the current 1% of the GDP to 2%, according to India’s science and technology minister Prithviraj Chavan. The next ten years, in fact, have been labeled by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the ‘decade of innovation’ following which the government plans to focus on Research & Development efforts to translate lab research into product and process innovations that benefit the masses.

At an annual meet of non-resident Indians last week, which included scientists in good numbers, Chavan did concede that challenges in science and technology were tougher now since scientists have to find solutions to myriad problems ranging from energy security, food security, water availability & quality and affordable health care to terrorism and internal security.

The government shoulders about 75% of the entire R&D spend and has been urging private players to chip in more in this area.

Echoing the Prime Minister’s views at the Indian science Congress, Chavan sent out some positive signals to the Indian diaspora scientists urging them to collaborate with scientific institutions in their home country.

Looks like the year has begun on a positive note for Indian science.

New year, new hope

Posted on by
2

The new year brings new hope for all those weary of red tape plaguing Indian science. For, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself acknowledged the rot while addressing one of the largest annual congregations of Indian scientists — the Indian Science Congress — last weekend.

Here’s what he said at the Thiruvananthapuram meet: "It is unfortunately true that red tape, political interference and lack of proper recognition of good work have all contributed to a regression in Indian science in some sectors from the days of Dr. C V Raman, Meghnad Saha, J C Bose, Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai, Satish Dhawan and other great pioneers of Indian science.

I urge all our scientific institutions to introspect and to propose mechanisms for greater autonomy, including autonomy from the government, which could help to improve standards for research and development. We must make a special effort to encourage scientists of Indian origin currently working abroad to return to our country including coming to our universities or scientific institutions for a short period. In this way we can, convert the “brain drain” of the past into a “brain gain” for the future. This will require special incentives. We need to think creatively on how this can be done so that high quality minds are attracted to teaching and research in our country.

Much of what we have to do to improve science requires money but this is only one part of what is needed. It also requires a change in mindset, including, if I may say so, the mindset of senior faculty and university administration. Sometimes that is the hardest thing to do.

I invite you all to explore all these issues and engage with the Government so that we can do what is needed to liberate Indian science from the shackles and deadweight of bureaucratism and in-house favouritism. Only then we can unleash the latent talent and creative energies of our vast scientists and engineers too."

The Prime Minister has made similar observations in the past and seems to have taken serious note of the issue that makes life difficult for many scientists across government set-ups in this country. The regressive nature of scientific establishments is the talk of many coffee table discussions but whistle blowers are far to come by. As one senior scientist at the Congress remarked — even scientists have families to feed, jobs to defend.

That said, the Prime Minister’s statement has shown a ray hope to many such scientists for whom doing science is more than just defending a job in this country.