Recalculating the climate math

When we think about global warming, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, we need to do a little math.

How much of the fossil fuels in the world?s existing coal mines and oil wells can we burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet? In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth?s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

And here?s the answer: zero.

The rapidly expanding fossil fuel frontier has to be limited as soon as possible since digging any new coal mines, drilling any new fields, building any more pipelines may, for once, make oil cheaper but would consequently, ?permanently? sabotage the health of our earth, the recuperation costs of which will be expensive beyond defray-able. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields which are already in operation/will start operating soon.

Revisiting the fossil fuels - what made them so dangerous?

From our very childhood, we have been taught to ?question?. ?Wh? questions are, in fact, a very fundamental aspect our lives. So, ?why? not ask ?why? fossil fuels are so dangerous?

Ever since the Industrial Revolution took off in the 18th century, vast quantities of fossil fuels have been used to power the economy and deliver unprecedented affluence to huge numbers of people. As we all know, fossil fuels are organic matter made from the remains of flora and fauna subjected to immense pressure and heat deep within the Earth over millions of years. Petroleum, coal, and natural gas are major fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, natural energy, such as hydropower and solar power, and nuclear power are collectively referred to as primary energy. World consumption of primary energy greatly increased from 3.8 billion tonnes of oil equivalent in 1965 to 11.1 billion tonnes of oil equivalent in 2007.

But environmental pollution, later adding to the menace of climate change, is one of the major disadvantages of fossil fuels. It is a known fact that carbon dioxide, gas released when fossil fuels are burnt, is one of the primary gas responsible for global warming. Rise in temperature of earth has resulted in melting of polar ice caps, flooding of low lying areas and rise in sea levels. If such conditions continue, our planet Earth might face some serious consequences in near future. Sulphur dioxide is one of the pollutant that is released when fossil fuels are burnt and is a main cause of acid rain. Acid rain can lead to destruction of crops. Coal mining results in destruction of ecosystems. And the list can go on and on.

This is ?why? it is important to sound the climate alarm now.

?When you?re trying to burn the table down, you don?t deserve a seat at it.?

While there have been considerably gigantic news to hit the headlines of climate news this previous week, including the UK committing to ratify the Paris Agreement by the end of 2016. that heighten our hopes of successful climate talks in the upcoming D-Days, ?COP22? in Morocco, we can?t afford to ignore the ?participating? audience in the forum. How reasonable is it to even think of initiating climate protection talks with those who polluted it in the first place and still continue to do the same evil? It?s just like the situation where you leave the fox to ?safeguard? the chickens.

?It's just common sense that those who are causing the crisis should be kept as far away from solving it as possible. If the UN talks are going to deliver fair and ambitious actions on climate change, we need to see both national and international actions to end the cosy relationship between polluters and our governments.? The revolving door concept of nurturing a so-called amicable relationship between the polluters and the policy-makers should and must be avoided at all costs because we all know that no middleman could ever stabilize the ?conflict of interests? between the prey and the predator.

The moral hazard of  including the fossil industry

The World Health Organization, for instance, has banned the tobacco industry from tobacco control talks and requires countries to disclose any contact with industry lobbyists. The UNFCCC has no such protections or requirements.

?We have kept abusive industries out of lifesaving policymaking before, and we must do it again. Delegates must look to the precedent set by the global tobacco treaty, which bars the tobacco industry from having a role in public policymaking,? said Patti Lynn, managing director at Corporate Accountability International. In order to administer climate justice, we must resolve to show Big Energy the door before this year?s meetings in Morocco, the future of our planet depends on it.

?Keep them underground?

What should be included in a comprehensive ban on fossil fuel industry?

1. Ban on further fossil fuel exploitation and overexploitation

2. Ban on advertising, promotion, or,  sponsorship of/for fossil fuel industry

3. Ban on the participation of fossil lobbyists in the any negotiations/policy-making with regards to climate change