Slashdot Mirror
Being Outside Could Become Deadly In South Asia, Says Study (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Venturing outdoors may become deadly across wide swaths of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by the end of the century as climate change drives heat and humidity to new extremes, according to a new study. These conditions could affect up to a third of the people living throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain unless the global community ramps up efforts to rein in climate-warming carbon emissions. Today, that vast region is home to some 1.5 billion people. While most climate studies have been based on temperature projections, this one -- published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances -- is somewhat unique in also considering humidity as well as the body's ability to cool down in response. Most of those at risk in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are poor farmworkers or outdoor construction laborers. They are unlikely to have air conditioners -- up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity. In some areas that have been deforested for industry or agriculture, they may not even have very much shade.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
> ...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
> Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
Contrary to what you think, India knows electricity well, e.g. they are in Top10 worldwide regarding electrified railways, they have a huge 25kV AC based traction network.
Generating more electricity, however causes even more pollution. If you use hydro-carbons, CO2 will be released, further accelerating the AGW.
If you use nuclear, radioactive waste will be created and India already has a health problem, birth defects, etc. due to high radiation background in much of the country. (Scientists says it is caused natually by the ancient, thorium-rich bedrock, while vedic legends say there was an all out nuclear war there about 8000 years ago). Fusion energy is still promised 50 years into the future...
Hydro-electricity isn't very practicable in India, because the mountains are in the northern-most part but the population lives mostly in the southern tip of the vast subcontinent, so transfer losses would be too high even at 750kV AC. Furthermore, the northern region's borders and resources are contested by Pakistan and China and trying to build a dam there would probably ignite warfare.
Wind, I have no idea, but Asia usually experiences extremely strong weather phenomenon never seen in Europe, so one must wonder if those fancy "Made In Germany" fiber laminate wind pylons would topple in a monsoon?
DDT, for example.
But of course, nobody can report absolutely true figures about what are large global systems of systems. Maybe the DDT ban was worse than Hitler, maybe not.
Point is, there are simply no guarantees against human fallibility, and that includes human experts. There may not be limits to growth, but there are limits to knowledge and what we actually know for real, rather than what we think we know, even using all the best experts in the world.
And when an expert comes out and says that his or her field got it all wrong, they become controversial and attacked by others.
"We can't be sure", is perhaps the only truly modern insight.
Another example I heard of recently, Allan Savory says he and colleagues got it wrong when they decided that elephants were over-grazing and so 40,000 or some obscene number of elephants were shot on his advice. And today he realised, oh gee we got it wrong.
And now he thinks that actually, humans have a place in the ecosystem and food chain, and ruminants have their place, and if we let ruminants do what they do, which is graze on poor land, then we could solve climate change, and humans would eat what they are designed to eat, which is mostly meat.
So of course now you can find articles which attack his character.
Lots of people seem to think that humanity is facing some sort of crisis of selfishness. I tend to feel that humanity is facing a crisis of intellectual integrity. People just cannot stand that someone with a different view might actually be right.
Look up why the Americans replaced liquid metal reactors in their only liquid metal reactor submarine with conventional pressurised water reactors and why the Soviets never again built liquid metal reactor submarines after the Alfa class and the K-27 accident, with the first submarine of the Alfa class being scrapped just a couple of years after comissioning and second one having its reactors replaced with PWRs. While you are at that, read about the Monju reactor accident.
Please also note that all Gen IV reactors only exist on paper. Not one of these has been built.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
It won't be "solved," but, indeed, giving access to electricity would indeed be a useful thing to do for many reasons.
That's like someone having terminal cancer and just taking pain killers to 'fix' it. You have the fix the root of the problem, if you really want things to be fixed. That means halting global warming. And that means drastic action to limit Carbon and Methane emissions by humanity's machines
The clear solution to the problem of lack of electricity in remote parts of India is photovoltaic solar panels. For a country with a million villages that aren't on the electric grid-- and a country with a very unreliable electric grid-- the distributed nature of solar arrays is a good feature.
And solar panels are now cheap enough that it actually is economically feasible to use them for this.
and realistically a healthy dose of atmosphere engineering at this point to pull those molecules out of the air.
Sorry, you're moving out of science and into science fiction. Carbon dioxide is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. That's enough to absorb outgoing infrared, but ppm levels are hard to distill out of the atmosphere.
It is much, much easier to sequester CO2 from emissions, where the concentration is high. Once you've diluted it into the atmosphere, it's not easy to remove.
Massive plantings would do it. But you have to then sequester the plants afterwards, since if they then decay there's no point.
> Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Based on a history of developed countries experience that probably has only 2 decades worth of relevant data for material that can take 1000 years to decay to a low health risk.
While I am a proponent of nuclear power (even if it requires subsidization on the national level), I would not be a proponent for it based on the current state of technology (designed in the 1960's). Nuclear waste management is an indispensable requirement, and most nations do not have a remotely credible one. Also, future nuclear reactors need to be based on technologies like thorium, and "meltdown proof", both which are in technological reach.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
"political goal"?
The survival of technical civilization is at stake.
There is nothing political about solving the only real problem, to wit, coal profiteers buying orange-haired liars, since the alternative is droughts, floods, desertification, famine and war.