Dr Vandana Prakash, PlanetArk 1 May 09;
A recent NY Times articles brings to fore the contribution of Soot, also known as Black Carbon, in the global warming. And how efforts are underway to reign in the global warming by replacing the mud-stoves in villages of India! On the Earth day, a legislation was introduced in US Senate for EPA to assess the options for reducing the black carbon pollution.
It is but natural to try to pick the "low-hanging fruit" first of all. Soot from mud-stoves in Indian villages is presented as a ready culprit of expensive health and environmental damage. But do we not need to evaluate whether it is in the nature of 'robbery' or of 'petty theft'?
The mud-stove change is projected as a ready alternative to CO2 handling in Green House Gases (GHG) management; a quick and cheap redressal to glacier-meltdown and of global warming. But, in any case, soot clears out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks whereas CO2 hangs about for a long time. So, by leaving CO2 in the atmosphere and removing the soot, what kind of time are we really buying? Since the particulate matter will any way process itself out of the atmosphere relatively soon, I wonder if the money couldn't be put to better use in finding a fundamental solution? It needs to clarified that I am not advocating that soot should be left alone; but that the longer lifecycle of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be used as a reason to leave CO2 alone.
The reach of the soot is not too spread-out (unlike other GHGs), so how global is this mud-stove- replacement solution going to be? I have not forgotten Delhi's commendable efforts on setting local standards for PM that were stricter than national ones to ameliorate its 'fourth most-polluted city in the world' problem. But is it even fair to ask some small village (that makes but a tiny contribution to GHG emissions) to alter its lifestyle fundamentally so that major polluters can continue their ways unchanged?
Indeed, this poses a fundamental dilemma for me. A news-report just the other day had left me in a similar conundrum. The newspaper was reporting on certain environmentalists launching protests against the killing of a man-eater tiger by villagers who had been suffering the loss of man and material at the hands (or should I say paws) of a tiger (to be precise, a tigress) for some time. Even though I feel strongly about the conservation of this species in its habitat {I consider it sheer arrogance of humans to want to re-define nature and have everything as it suits them} and actively seek to save the wild tiger, I was unable to suppress my agitation. I felt villagers were well within their rights to try to protect their lives and livelihood - catching live a man-eater tiger is no small feat even in my very limited knowledge. And desperation will drive people to dire straights. As someone said: "Darkness falls early where there is the fear of the tiger." (Bengali proverb: Jekhane bagher bhoye, Shekhanehi shondhya hoye).
It gladdens my heart to see scientists adopt a practical, people-centered approach to Black Carbon. Naturally, pleas to abandon age-old practices on account of global warming are not likely to cut much ice with someone struggling to provide a 'roti' to her child. But health problems and shortened life will: I am so with Dr. Ibrahim Rehman (The Energy and Resource Institute) on that. I think it might help to collect some specific stories (anecdotal evidence) in Kohlua where poor health and pre-mature death can be directly linked to mud-stoves (via, say, respiratory problem). Better still, in the areas of Agra where mud-stoves and diesel engines are prohibited to preserve the Taj, can evidence about health-gains with soot-reduction be garnered? This might be more convincing and change-inspiring to a common man.
Despite the noble intentions of the "Surya" (the cookstove project), I wish it also followed more people-centric approach like Dr. Rehman. I think its design needs improvement to incorporate the simplicity and sturdiness of the mud-cookstove. This was so elementary in its construction that a family could build and maintain its own stove without outside help and at very little cost. I hope the more attention be paid to the researchers' complaints of fraility of the substitute stove. And (though we are taught 'appearances are deceptive' and must be de-emphasized) I feel something familiar-looking and simple - rather than looking "like scientific instrument" - will catch the fancy of the villagers almost sub-consciously. It will help with the transition and, if the reports are not hyperbolic, will help with world-transformation. I think BP's innovative marketing approach and rural perspective with respect to the "Urja" stoves or Shell Foundations's carburettor design stoves might have useful lessons to offer to "Surya".
CO2, the number one concern in global warming, the tough-to-clear pollutant - the hardened criminal - bears the single largest onus for global warming with a 40% contribution. Black Carbon from all sources - cookstoves, diesel engines and coal plants - claims 18% with the mud-stoves responsible for the bulk. Does this not point to the fallacy of treating "soot from Third World stoves" as the new primary target? If nothing else, the problem needs to be recognized in its correct proportions. Third World stoves seem like an easy target. But if between the mud-stoves (that are said to hold the lead) and the other two sources the distribution is of 51% - 49%, then equally major sources of Black Carbon are still left even once mud-stoves get replaced. Adding filters and scrubbers to diesel engines and coal plants seems like an easier (and possibly more concentrated, area-wise,) way to go than generating a new way of life by visiting and convincing millions of individual households, across hundreds of villages in Asia and Africa. The report commissioned by the US Senate will go a long way in understanding the options for reducing the black carbon footprint and its impact on global warming.
From an individual point of view, I would say that an ocean is the accumulation of many, many little drops (Hindi proverb: Boond - boond se saagar bane). At the same time, where global warming is concerned, I think 'You versus Me' is unlikely to help: To grudge the Third World poor their daily bread so that the First World can run its Hummers and air-conditioners hardly seems right. As I read about the failures to arrive at an accord acceptable to both developing and developed countries, I always think that a truly global perspective - an 'us' approach - is needed. A widely acceptable median must be arrived at. An attempt to understand the other's viewpoint, to step into their shoes is critical.
Just as, overtime, it became necessary to redefine the growth and development discussions in terms of 'development with a human face,' I think it is time for 'environment with a human face.'
Reprinted with permission from Ecoworldly.com
