Achieving zero-carbon emission

Zero -- carbon emission has been pinpointed by scientists as a major weapon for fighting the effects of climate change. The message was strongly conveyed in COP21, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN body responsible for climate. But serious doubts have been raised whether carbon emission can be reduced to zero level as climate has become for governments an excuse to build nuclear power and ditch other green policies. In addition, financial constraints are also being cited as an important bottleneck to address climate change. Money for biodiversity has been slashed, planning laws revoked, pollution and waste controls weakened and sustainable development policies ignored. Most heinous of all the vices of emissions is pollution of the air since climate change was incorporated in the political agenda 20 years ago.
No government wants us to know that far more people will suffer grievous illnesses and will die from the filthy air shrouding our cities than from warming of the atmosphere in the next 30 years. Climate change may give us a glimpse of the terrifying future we are heading towards if we do not change our ways.
Continuing carbon emission is the greatest environmental hazard of the age. It is an existential threat, a generational battle. All political and financial resources must be mobilised to resist the effects of climate change. Concerns about nuclear waste, food production, quality of river water, the health of our soils and seas, the fate of our forests, the impact of road-building and many other important ecological issues have been steadily marginalised over the last 20 years or more, either starved of resources or pushed off the agenda by climate change.
The world temperature is rising. Most scientists agree that extreme weather is due to climate change. It is one of the world's biggest challenges as rising standards of living is generating more demand for energy against the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  
On the other hand, the world population is also increasing from more than seven billion today and is estimated to reach 10 billion by 2050. With world population swelling, we can expect an accelerated growth of cities. Half of the world population already lives in cities which will rise to 70 per cent by 2050 with half of this growth occurring in Asia alone. Accordingly, the amount of energy to be consumed by the end of the century is also likely to double. However, in it we can see a possible way out - challenging though it may be - to a world where emissions of carbon dioxide will be at zero level. Cities, of course, will be central to the theme of this plan by making them more energy-efficient, encouraging high-density living to reduce travel and encouraging smaller electric or hydrogen-powered cars and by building high-capacity public transport systems.
The evolving energy mix will also be vital to the issue. Natural gas, for example, produces half the carbon dioxide, and one-tenth of the air pollution is produced by coal when burnt for power. There are sources of renewable energy providing reliable electricity when there is no sun or wind.
But adding carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to power stations and industrial complexes will be critical to reduce emissions enough to reach net zero. Renewable energy will, of course, continue to grow rapidly as part of the mix, and will mainly produce electricity. Today, electricity accounts for less than 20 per cent of the total energy consumed in the world and the share of electricity in the energy mix should grow to at least 50 per cent to enable renewable energy sources to make a major impact. But it remains to be seen how carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is developed and applied.
The production of chemicals used for industrial products will continue to rely on oil and gas. Where very high temperatures or dense energy storage are required - such as in the manufacture of iron, steel and cement, or in heavy freight and air transport - we shall almost certainly see the continued use of hydrocarbon fuels.
This means people must meet the costs of, for example, electric or hydrogen-electric cars. Food processing and light manufacturing industries must also go electric. Yet, with all this change, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to enter the atmosphere in the foreseeable future.
Bangladesh is one of the largest deltas in the world which is highly vulnerable to natural disasters because of its geographical location, flat and low-lying landscape, population density, poverty, illiteracy, lack of institutional set up etc. In other words, the physical, social as well as economic conditions of Bangladesh are very typical to any of the countries most vulnerable to natural disasters. The total land area is 147,570 sq. km. consisting mostly of flood plains (almost 80 per cent) leaving major part of the country (with the exception of the north-western highlands) prone to flooding during the rainy season. Moreover, the adverse affects of climate change, especially high temperature, rise in sea-level, cyclones and storm surges, salinity intrusion, heavy monsoon downpours etc have aggravated the overall economic development scenario of the country to a great extent.
Almost one fourth of the total population of the country lives in the coastal areas of Bangladesh, where majority of the population are some how affected (directly or indirectly) by coastal floods / tidal surges, river-bank erosion, salinity, tropical cyclones etc. With the rise of sea-level  up to one metre only, Bangladesh could lose up to 15 per cent of its land area under the sea and around 30 million people living in the coastal areas could become refugees because of climate change impacts. Agriculture, industry, infrastructure (school, hospitals, roads, bridges and culverts etc), livelihoods, marine resources, forestry, biodiversity, human health and other utility services will suffer severely. Salinity intrusion from the Bay of Bengal already penetrates 100 kilometers inside the country during the dry season and the climate change in its gradual process is likely to deteriorate the existing scenario further. Since most of the country is less than 10 metres above sea level and almost 10 per cent of the population of the country lives below 1 meter elevation, the entire coastal area is highly vulnerable to high tides and storm surges. Moreover, the Bay of Bengal is located at the tip of the north Indian Ocean, where severe cyclonic storms as well as long tidal waves are frequently generated and hit the coast line with severe impacts because of the shallow as well as conical shape of the Bay near Bangladesh.
New estimates from the Global Burden of Disease project and the World Health Organisation (WHO) reveal that between 5.5 and 7 million people die from air pollution every year. That is more than the number of deaths from malaria and HIV/Aids put together. In the next 10 years we can expect as many people to die from breathing poisonous air as were killed in the World War II.
Most of those deaths will be in China and India which, in the name of extreme poverty eradication, have been transforming their cities and are now having to pay for a health crisis of their own making. But the rich countries do not have the same excuses. Their industries and governments have known for well over a century the health effects of polluted air. If we take the example of Britain we will see that 29,000 people die a year from inhaling particles of unburned carbon and construction dust, and an estimated 23,500 more as a result of nitrogen dioxide. To condone these deaths is unforgivable and to carry on polluting like this is like declaring war on the public.
But those 50,000 or more deaths a year are just the tip of the iceberg, hiding hospital wards full of people with heart disease, cancers and respiratory and lung problems caused by lifetimes spent breathing toxic air. After 20 years of battling, we must wake up to the fact that the air we breathe is killing us. Science shows that if air pollution is addressed, there will be a significant reduction in climate emissions and investment in conservation will not only improve biodiversity, reduce flooding and contribute to a healthier environment, but will also reduce greenhouse gases.
Now we must return to the basics, and address all those issues that have been conveniently sidelined. We must address all the factors that make it worse. Unless and until the above issues are addressed realistically and sanity descends on energy use, zero carbon emission will remain as a distant dream.
[email protected]