By Anuradhi. D Jayasinghe
Sri Lanka’s global cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 was 0.03%. However, the country ranked among the countries most vulnerable to climate change in the global climate change risk index. This indicates that Sri Lanka has a comparatively low carbon footprint but a significantly high climate change vulnerability.
The IPCC AR6 report has shown that intensified water cycles due to climate change are bringing more intense rainfall and associated flooding, changes in rainfall patterns, and monsoon precipitation in many regions of the world. These impacts are frequently visible in Sri Lanka. The loss of lives, livelihoods and damageto the built environment are questioning the country’s development pathways. For instance, not only has climate change caused flooding but also misjudged and unsustainable decisions in the development pathways have caused flooding. For example, Central expressway development projects caused floods in many areas in Gampaha district in June 2021. The country is coping with continuous climate risks (i.e., flooding and intense rainfalls) throughout the year 2021 without having time to configure resilience planning. Thus, having contingency planning to enhance resilience to forthcoming climatic risks must be given the most attention in Sri Lanka’s climate change preparedness agendas.
Although there is a lower carbon footprint in Sri Lanka, the current trends in our consumption patterns are about to make significant changes in per capita emissions in the long run. One of the alternatives for the sector-based approach of measuring ggreenhouse gas (GHG – e.g., CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) emissions is consumption-based accounting (CBA). The CBA focuses on people’s consumption of goods and services and reports GHG emissions by consumption category, not the GHG emission by source category, which refers to production-based accounting (PBA). The PBA of GHG emissions focuses on emissions from the domestic production of goods and services regardless of whether they are consumed domestically or are exported. The difference between the two accounting systems of GHG emissions indicates the net effect of emissions embodied in trade – the PBA generally refers to emissions from exports whereas CBA refers to the emissions from imports of goods and services.
Figure 1: Production vs. Consumption-based CO2 emissions in Sri Lanka
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sri-lanka?country=~LKA
The production vs. consumption-based CO2 emissions in Sri Lanka (Figure 1) show a significantly increasing trend in consumption-based emissions or emissions from imports of goods and services. Regardless of the situation, the Sri Lankan food sector is further promoting the importation of food items due to the sudden bans on chemical fertilizers and the decision to switch to organic farming without research and planning. As the country faces its worst economic crisis, the pandemic, and increased vulnerability to climate change risks, the people have to cope with the grave consequences of hasty and ill-thought out agricultural policies introduced by the government. Considering the types of landscape and demographics factors in facing these challenges, it is the urban poor and middle class who would suffer the most. Given the higher food prices they do not have space to grow their food. At the same time, they have to cope with climate risks such as flash flooding, which frequently results iin lowering their resilience. Thus, the egoistic political agendas in Sri Lanka make the communities more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Witnessing that communities are being entrapped in the vulnerability loop of climate change the developed nations are still fueling the development models of the developing nations to work more on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
The developed nations, the largest polluters on earth have the highest climate resilience while the developing nations have to incur the negative externalities from pollution while taking the majority of the responsibility in mitigating and adapting to climate change. China, USA and India are the world’s top three emitters that are responsible for 50% of the global CO2 emissions. In contrast, high-income oil producers – UAE and Saudi Arabia – are the top two in the list of per capita emissions followed by developed countries – Australia, the USA etc. Dividing the total emissions of a country by its population gives the per capita emissions. The highest per capita emissions in oil-producing countries are attributed to the relatively low population size and relatively low fuel prices prevailing. However, the more populous countries that have the highest per capita emissions such as the USA, Australia and Canada show a positive relationship between income and per capita emissions. This is also evident by the lowest per capita emissions found in many of the poorest African nations. But higher incomes and high standards of living do not always lead to higher per capita emissions. For instance, certain European countries with high living standards – Portugal and France – show lower per capita emissions. This is attributed to the source of electricity generated in these countries, which are renewable energy sources. Thus, the source of energy plays a key role in determining the emissions rates of a country.
Notwithstanding the deliverables and the proposed strategies developed by international climate conventions will force the scientists to forecast climate change impacts merely accounting for business as usual. Setting goals for zero emissions by 2050 and requiring the developing nations to reduce carbon emissions while allowing high income nations like China to use highly polluting coal power plants is preposterous ..
. When considering transitioning to greener sources of energy for countries like Sri Lanka, climate change adaptation and mitigation studies must also focus on the willingness of the general public to transition to renewables. Continuing willingness studies pave the path to investigate the barriers and prospects of overcoming them to the sustainable energy transition. The strategies to cope with emissions reductions and drafting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) should be followed by public hearings. Or else the conflict of interests would fail the transition projects at the very beginning. The introduction of floating solar power plants is one of the smartest moves that Sri Lanka has initiated mitigate the issues such as population density, agriculture needs, and declining forest cover and so forth. However, these floating solar power projects must first conduct awareness programs with the intact communities to convince them that their livelihoods will not be affected by the power plants.
It is essential to subsume culture and cultural trends when considering clean energy transition in Sri Lanka. In terms of low-carbon transport and mobility, one must examine the cultural factors affecting aggressive driving, speeding, and eco-driving; automated vehicles; and ridesharing and carpooling. The same must be examined in terms of cooking and building energy use. For instance, adapting to energy-efficient heating, cooling and use of improved cookstoves. Some scholars have identified, in Sri Lanka, a culture of shramadana which convince communities to give their own time or materials for the civil work and construction of micro-hydro units. Such cultural trends are possible to retain in the long run only if the communities are included in the energy transition decision making.
The addresses delivered by our country leaders at COP 26 in Glasgow were merely words prepared to impress the audiences without any serious intent to implement environmental friendly policies. . Thus, the international community, especially the developed nations have not seen the actual climate issues that the that global south nations are facing. Hence, the spilling of funds???? funding from developed nations will continue to be the same for the developing nations to strategise the traditional mitigation and adaptation measures. Achieving set targets of net zero by 2050 need realistic changes in both developed and developing nations. It is not sustainable for some to struggle in a minimalistic lifestyle in reducing per capita carbon footprints while some continue their high standard of living hoping that someone else could reciprocate and be responsible for others’ carbon footprints. At the most elemental level, mitigating the effects of climate change, should start with each individual doing his/her part to reduce the ill effects of climate change.
Blog writers raise issues of contemporary relevance and contribute to a vibrant discussion on human rights and related issues. They express their personal views and not necessarily those of the LST, its Board and its members.
