Politics and Economics of Climate Change: Opportunities for India

Any event can be easily manipulated politically if the intent from the start is to set a narrative contrary to the belief of the people, the geography, culture or history. The Western world has mastered that art. History reveals the attitude of the West to first get a foothold, and then overlook well-established ideals of sustainable development used by local societies. Following a consumerist approach, they have manipulated and replaced those models for their own benefit—monetary, political and social.

By controlling the branding and shaping of perceptions they control mindsets, which enables them to propagate matters in a chosen manner. By glamourising their own lifestyles, they create new markets. Simultaneously, they sow insecurity in the minds of the target social group. Climate Change is one such notion that has been twisted into politics and economics. It is a term coined only by the West and they have succeeded in making it look or seem more attractive than it really is.

What is Climate Change

Weather is essentially the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time. Although a definite time scale cannot be attached to it, weather conditions can change rapidly or last for weeks. Climate is the synthesis of weather for a long enough period for reliable statistical determination of its properties. Changes in weather are collectively known as climate. Unlike the weather, where the change is instantaneous or may last for weeks, the climate is relatively constant from year to year or century to century.

Nevertheless, there is evidence of fluctuations or variations in climate. When these fluctuations follow a particular trend, it is called a climatic trend. These fluctuations may themselves be cyclic in nature and are known as a climatic cycle. Over a longer period of time, climatic fluctuations may be such that they will shift the climate of a given area. Such changes in climate are called climate change. Various terms like climatic variations, climatic fluctuation, climatic trend, climatic cycle and climatic change refer to relevant time scales and are mostly just terminologies.

Variations in climate on geological time scales run into millions of years. Such variations in climate that occurred during recent history dating back to perhaps a few thousand years are collectively called climatic change. Changes in climate usually occur over a period of 100 to 150 years and are termed secular or instrumental changes. Other variations in climate that happen within a period of less than 30 to 35 years are used to calculate values of climatic normals. These variations are too rapid to be considered climatic change.

Are we in a Climate Change?

Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines climate change as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. Thus, the UNFCCC makes a distinction between ‘climate change’ due to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and ‘natural climate variability’ that occurs due to natural causes.

It is unanimously agreed that the earth is warming. How much of this warming can be directly attributed to or caused by human activity is not clear? Their effects are extremely difficult to assess, though accumulations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are more than likely taking their toll. What is clear is that, globally, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century. Each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one. 2001-2010 has been the warmest decade on record.

Average global air temperatures over land and sea surface in 2014 were 0.57 °C (1.03°F) above the long-term average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period. By comparison, temperatures were 0.55 °C (1.00°F) above average in 2010 and 0.54°C (0.98°F) above average in 2005, according to WMO calculations. The estimated margin of uncertainty was 0.10°C (0.18°F).

Is it man-made?

It’s our recklessness that we multiply uncontrollably, deforest, burn stubble and use chemicals, knowing well that they cause destruction and degradation. We understand that if we do not take action now it will be too late! Ironically, we ourselves are products of climatic change. Had climate not changed, reptiles and mammoths would have ruled the earth and there would be no coal. We are a product of such transformations and this climate change will ultimately pave way for other ecosystems to evolve.

We cannot master the functionality of nature or its ways. What we see today might not be there tomorrow and there might be something new in the climate that we still do not know about. However, to link every event in the atmosphere to global warming defies logic. What we do know is that climate change has acquired a new dimension in the form of opening up new battles, disputes and new war including perception war.

The Politics of Climate Change

Climate change is a natural event but the concept can and has been used to convey manipulative motives more than it has been dealt with naturally. Ever since the term came into use, it is strongly used to build narratives that are even contradictory and are altered in different regions and for various purposes by assorted groups.

When a model of change is not in sync sustainably, does not adjust naturally, and is laced with consumerism, it speaks of hidden intents and motives. When it is being done with the purpose of changing the perception of people, it is nothing but a deception of the highest order, an epidemic (infodemic) and a form of war (perception war). Solutions turn political when there are many unexplained truths and a refusal to accept change is woven into the scheme of things.

Climate Change is politics when its interpretation is manipulated, converted into economics and used in trade. It becomes a weapon to threaten and destabilise countries. With different narratives in mind, Climate Change is used as a power projection. Politics comes into play with the setting of a narrative and usually involves hiding the truth by justifying lies. To begin with, Climatic Change has been used by its supporters with an aim to shift blame. Secondly, when it involves treatment, it is using economics and business. Climate Change politics is about looking away from simple solutions. Thirdly, it gets converted into a tool that is used to threaten all those who do not subscribe to a particular view. Towards this end, facts are doctored, information deliberately hidden, some arrangements camouflaged, and scientific knowledge is interpreted with a hidden agenda.

The Industrial Revolution and Crony Capitalism

The industrial revolution saw almost all the western economies present a consumerist model that was capital-driven and energy and resource-intensive. There was little thought given to the impact this would have on the environment. Now, having created a dirty world, the same creators are scrambling to treat the negative effects.

Crony consumerism has generated waste that required constant management. Energy use at every stage created the present man-made climate change. The industrial revolution created by Western economies has now become one of the greatest catastrophes to infest mankind. The waste generated by the combined western world in the last 200 years still remains in the atmosphere and is now the greatest cause of global warming. It is the biggest source of all greenhouse gases and subsequent environmental degradation. Western economies have made every effort possible to hide and manipulate this fact from the world. They seek to absolve themselves from the magnitude of damage caused by them and are shifting the blame to developing economies. They have also outsourced manufacturing and thus have exported pollution and emissions to developing countries.

Having used coal lavishly during their industrial revolution phase, the Western world now wants to prevent developing countries from using this cheap source of energy. This comes at a time when the developing world wants to attain a better GDP to come to some degree of parity and has just started to use coal on an industrial scale.

Food Consumption Patterns

Food consumption habits, tastes and pattern of the West leaves much to be desired. Let us examine the issue of meat production and consumption. Meat production causes global warming at a much higher rate than the cultivation of vegetables and grains. 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock and their by-products. The industry accounts for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. Cows produce around 150 billion gallons of methane each day. Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) and is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 over a 20-year time frame. Livestock farming is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. It stays trapped in the atmosphere for 150 years. Agricultural practices in the western world are also highly energy-intensive and without principles of ecological conservation. The higher rate of production ignores the cost involved in terms of energy and other inputs. The same goes for their livestock farming. The West carries on with it since they think they are correct and have the right to do so. To top it all, they convince the world of the correctness of this practice and shamelessly defend it too.

The Fashion Industry Camouflages Intent

Unmonitored growth of the fashion industry contributes to extreme levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The western world hides the truth to maintain its superiority in branding and identity, apathetically to an extent of affecting global warming. In fact, the industry accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions which is more than the emissions for all international flights and maritime shipping, combined.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the manufacture of polyester are three times more than those for cotton. By 2030, such emissions from the manufacture of textile alone are projected to increase more than 60 percent.

Pets come with “Climatic Price” Tags

When it comes to climate change, fondness for pets is not far behind. There are 470 million pet dogs and 370 million pet cats on the planet, and they all add to climate change. An average-size cat generates 310 kg of CO2e per year, an average-size dog produces 770 kg of CO2e per year, and a large dog creates 2,500 kg of CO2e per year. Over 64 million tons of greenhouse gases are released only because of America’s pet cats’ and dogs’ eating habits. A minor shift will bring about change, though of a minuscule level.

Travel has side effects

Travel generates huge amounts of carbon. The travel industry accounts for 8 percent of global carbon emissions and tends to grow at a rate of 4% annually. It is the need of the hour to promote carbon offsetting to compensate and reduce travel emissions. Visitors from high-income countries contribute to a majority of this footprint. Also, we indeed to promote local tourism to cut on air travel. Unless the lifestyle, GDP-oriented consumerist model, and the so-called industrial revolution-based model are changed, climate change will remain.

Narratives and Concealments as Politics

It is ironic that several narratives are aided with concealments that abound in the world. While the whole world is undergoing warming at a differential rate, there are many anomalies too. The role of methane and Trifluromethyl Sulphur Pentaflouride has been inconsistent and so has been on Ozone hole whose mechanism of formation left some in quandary and also which never grew to the desired size once the West found a market for new alternative to CFC.

The information on Arctic as well as the information and interpretation on glacier melts is inconsistent and contradictory. The causes of Arctic warming and its domino effects remain mired in contradictions. What is never even mentioned is that water temperature increases in the Arctic region contribute significantly to carbon dioxide and methane emissions and the resulting warming leads to more thawing—an effect called ‘positive feedback’.

One may not even know the truth behind the narrative related to petroleum reserves and their potential for the world but here too, the negative consequences are glossed over. The truth behind fusion reactors being environment friendly too are not very clear, neither is the reality behind the damage that could be caused by the lithium batteries. The impact of disposing of solar cells when they have lived their life is hidden too. The reality of the environmental impact of nuclear power, solar panels is replaced with another narrative. Misconceptions associated with limitless energy remain disguised. Such narratives are set in the name of so-called development and globalisation. It was western societies that coined the term ‘Climatic Change’. They then funded think tanks to pour doubts over global warming, and then later hired retired scientists to shower scorn over climate science. This resulted in enormous bias in their so-called researches that lacked objectivity. Though the West comes out with researches on global warming at frequent intervals the aim is to seed doubts and therefore the intent of the researchers even if the research was absolutely right.

Global Warming and Power Politics

The likely impact of global warming is a scary eye-opener. Projections indicate that in the US, rising seas will render important naval bases (like Norfolk, Virginia, and Mayport, Florida) essentially useless. A good number of islands and many coastal cities around the world are on the brink of submerging.

While the polar warming raises concern, contrastingly, the same areas will benefit from a more temperate climate. Greenland may have a flourishing agricultural industry by the middle of this century. 40 years ago, Arctic ice was near impenetrable. Submarines could navigate the Arctic Ocean, but not destroyers or cruisers. That is no longer the case. As the ice caps melt, there will be a geopolitical ocean-heist in the far north to gain control of aquatic hydrocarbons, deep-seabed mining and shipping routes. With Russia on one side of the Arctic and five NATO nations on the other (Canada, Denmark by virtue of Greenland, Iceland, Norway and the US), the possibility of conflict is likely to rise just like the ocean levels. The USA of course will be the last country to give any advantage to the Russians.

In the Arctic, where temperatures are rising doubly as the global normal, Russia, China and others are formally trying to establish a geopolitical foothold over the region. Resources here that were once under the ice, now stand exposed. The melting of permafrost in Siberia will pave way for the expansion of the agricultural area and its simultaneous effect will be felt on the food security of Russia too with an added muscle power to its politics. China can use Tibetan region and its snow cover to alter the albedo and affect the monsoons.

Checking Russia, China and other Choke Points

Phasing out oil imports will help reduce the income and geopolitical power of countries like Russia, which currently relies heavily on the EU market. Of course, the loss of this key source of Russian revenue could lead to instability in the near term. Strategically, as oil becomes less relevant, the old strategic chokepoints — starting with the Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb strait will become less dangerous. These seaborne passages have preoccupied military strategists for decades. But as the oil age passes, they will be less subject to competition for access and control by regional and global powers.

Business Economics as Politics

A transition, either economic, technological or perceptual is a good business proposition as it offers opportunities that never existed before. It could be in the form of technological development. To begin with, developing countries have already been converted into trash bins of recycling. Developed countries have smartly outsourced all the dirty manufacturing and made the third world a dump yard for pollutants. Energy shift and transition in the Middle East economies will mean conversion to solar energy. The new climate change politics is creating and has created two different blocks, “petra” and “electra” with a concomitant effect on control of energy politics and consequently power politics.

Greater emphasis on electric power reliance will allow China to rise and petrostates will fall —or so says conventional wisdom. In reality, the geopolitical fallout of a clean energy transition will be far more subtle, complex, and counterintuitive. But politics and economics will always speculate. China also dominates the market for some of the commodities—such as lithium and cobalt—that are critical inputs for many clean energy technologies such as batteries. This naturally raises national security risks, particularly in military and communications applications, where these commodities are also crucial.

Shrinking demand for oil and gas will mean lower prices, implying that even if petrostates gain market share, they would still see revenues collapse. West Asia will have a lot of stranded assets to deal with once there is a shift in energy and power structure. Unable to sustain themselves, these organisations will become mere tools for negotiations. Of course, the reality is more complicated

The future scenario could will be that some petrostates may be tomorrow’s electrostates. Saudi Arabia, for example, which has abundant, low-cost solar power, announced a US$ 5 billion project to turn renewable energy into hydrogen, and has also sent Japan the world’s first blue ammonia shipment. Other countries rich in cheap renewable power, such as Chile, may also emerge as the superpowers of a new hydrogen-based economy. Moreover, advances in carbon-capture technology could create opportunities for natural gas to play a role in a low-carbon economy, either directly or converted to other fuels such as hydrogen. Such energy transition in itself will shift power away from those controlling and exporting fossil fuels to those who master green technologies of the future. Gradually eliminating fossil fuels and reducing its dependence on energy imports will vastly improve European Union’s strategic position. In 2019, 74% of their gas and 87% of their oil came from imports. Fossil-fuel products worth US$ 386 billion or €320 billion came from abroad that year.

In short, the western countries used untested unsustainable energy and distributed toxic pollutants into cleaner environments. They invaded developing countries and industrialised them on their own paradigms of consumerism and crony capitalism. Then they de-industrialised themselves by exporting dirty industries. Now, citing environmental ethics, western powers are blaming the same countries to which they exported their emissions and are asking them to pay for cleaning the garbage and dirt that they themselves created everywhere! To prevent genuine forthcoming action, western funded think tanks pour doubts into minds over who is responsible for global warming. Unprincipled retired ‘scientists’ are being hired to pour scorn over climate science.

Politics of Solution and the Perception War

Manmade climatic change should not have taken place in the first place. Simple sustainable solutions exist, but they are not being propagated by the polluters. Global powers keep on inserting infodemics to alter the truths, to discard genuine and easy solutions for their own purposes.

To begin with, tackling CO₂ emissions is simple. The Covid 19 pandemic showed us that the lockdowns imposed in 2020-21, which halted social and economic activities led to global carbon dioxide emissions dropping by 6.4% or 2.3 billion tonnes. While lockdowns are not being advocated, global warming can be tackled using simple natural systems. In order to make the transit from an energy-intensive society to a more ecocentric one, (commercially speaking to electric one), we will have to stop producing pollutants and greenhouse gases. Reducing the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere can be achieved through dietary changes and through innovate building designs that consume less energy. We will also have to follow environment-friendly practices like afforestation, carbon storage by expanding wetlands, expand mariculture through seaweeds and kelp farming and encourage basalt weathering.

In terms of dietary habits, a shift to reduced calorie consumption (2000 calories per day instead of 2500 calories) will suffice. Today, about 20% of the world overeats and it leads to obesity. A diet shift is also suggested to cut down the consumption of proteins to the recommended level. We need to focus more on plant-based proteins and cut down on meat-based ones. When protein requirements are to the order of 55 grams of proteins per day, there is little need to consume 75-90 grams of protein daily. In addition, cutting down on beef consumption and cattle in general from our daily diet will offer both dietary and environmental benefits. It saves agriculture for land use and reduces greenhouse gases. Rather than beef, one can choose poultry, fish, and, of course, legumes.

Other simple solutions include lifestyle changes that can be supplemented with other changes like changes to building design, curbs on commuting habits, and weekend spending. That means altering the lifestyle and brand image of the West and homogenisation of lifestyle to be closer to nature.

The world has involved itself in various conventions and concepts. These include the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) or UN Environment, UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol (COP 3; UNFCCC Summit 1997) and other important UNFCCC Summits Post Kyoto, the last one being the Katowice (Poland) Climate Change Conference 2018. They have practically achieved nothing.

The new solutions such as the Net Zero concept, bears testimony to the ongoing manipulative streak. In simple words, net-zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away.

Net-zero, which is also referred to as carbon-neutrality, does not mean that a country would bring down its emissions to zero. Rather, net-zero is a state in which a country’s emissions are compensated by absorption and removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Absorption of the emissions can be increased by creating more carbon sinks such as forests, while removal of gases from the atmosphere requires futuristic technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

The emission-reduction targets for 2050 or 2070, for rich and developed countries seem an eyewash. The same rich countries whose unregulated emissions over several decades are mainly responsible for global warming and consequent climate change assured the rest of the world to wait. They did nothing other than boost pollution. The net-zero formulation does not assign any emission reduction targets to any country. Theoretically, a country can become carbon-neutral at its current level of emissions, or even by increasing its emissions, if it is able to absorb or remove more. From the perspective of the developed world, it is a big relief, because now the burden is shared by everyone, and does not fall only on them. Glorifying its net-zero targets the West is putting pressure on the developing nations. India constitutes around 18% of the global population but contributes less than 5% of pollution.

The West is under the illusion that the important target is how much you are going to put into the atmosphere, before reaching net-zero. They assume that emissions from burning coal can be compensated in real-time by protecting a forest. This is ignorance given the fact that plants need time to grow whilst cutting fossil fuel emissions has immediate results. The fact is carbon removal does not take place in real-time.

India is opposing this net-zero target since it is likely to be the most impacted by it. Over the next two to three decades, India’s emissions are likely to grow at the fastest pace in the world, as it presses for higher growth to pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. No amount of afforestation or reforestation would be able to compensate for the increased emissions. Most of the carbon removal technologies right now are either unreliable or very expensive. In any case, India is not in a position to control emissions on account of various ongoing development projects aimed at taking the country forward. These projects are worth USD 28 trillion.

Opportunities for India

The earth has enough regenerating capacity environmentally. Economically, Japan and Germany are live examples of how a country can be rebuilt from the rubble after the harshness of World War II. There are many advantages that a country can gain when it starts afresh because it can remodel itself, insert a lot of lateral thinking, and look at creating new opportunities.

India is in a position to take leadership in environment protection through its soft power reach to include prevention, improvement and control. This can be done through its local wisdom and knowledge, weaving indigenous people with technology and making the historical knowledge gained through millennia to get identified and respected and implemented by the world (Gleb Raygorodetsky, Why Traditional Knowledge Holds the Key to Climate Change)

Managing Indigenous Societies and their Knowledge throughout the world

Indigenous people and their traditional ways of life have contributed little to climate change, but ironically are the most adversely affected by it. This is because of their geographic and historic dependence on local biological diversity, ecosystem services and cultural landscapes as a source of sustenance and well-being. These indigenous people are located predominantly at the social-ecological margins of human habitation—such as small islands, tropical forests, high-altitude zones, coasts, desert margins and the circumpolar Arctic.
The indigenous people, comprise only four per cent of the world’s population (between 250 to 300 million people). They utilise 22 per cent of the world’s land surface but maintain 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity in, or adjacent to, 85 per cent of the world’s protected areas. They are the real victims of climate change.
Indigenous lands also contain hundreds of gigatons of carbon—a recognition that is gradually dawning on industrialised countries that seek to secure significant carbon stocks in an effort to mitigate climate change.
Indigenous observations and interpretations of meteorological phenomena are at a much finer scale, have considerable temporal depth and highlight elements that may be marginal or even new to scientists.
Indigenous peoples’ observations contribute importantly to advancing climate science, and have meaningful experiences applicable at the local level.
Resilience in the face of change is embedded in indigenous knowledge and know-how, diversified resources and livelihoods, social institutions and networks, and cultural values and attitudes.

This local knowledge can be utilised through several mechanisms. It includes workshops with the help of several other partners (UNDP, UNESCO, and CBD) — to promote respect for the local and traditional knowledge at the national and local levels. For indigenous peoples, such workshops will provide an opportunity not only to present their experiences and knowledge about climate change in their communities, but to gain valuable information on global climate processes that are affecting their communities. Moreover, indigenous people learn about other indigenous climate change-related experiences, while scientists gain opportunities to ground-truth (field check) climate models and scenarios.

India can actually play a pivotal role in not only ending the suffering of indigenous people but utilising their knowledge and experience of being a 15,000-year-old actual civilisation. India can model Universities based on such experience on the lines of Barefoot College in Tilonia, but will need to create a realistic model that is visible and invisible as per its choosing. This is where India can truly be a ‘Vishva Guru’. This model will help a new diplomacy for India-Eco-Diplomacy. It will also empower a lot of local communities across the globe. India is the only country that has the willingness and ability to provide a platform to showcase the indigenous genius to the entire world.

By creating an eco-centric approach that sets value and importance on the entire environment and all life in it, India can lead the whole world to make the shift! By fusing management and technology with minimal investment, India can showcase its carbon capture methods to the whole world. India needs to create self-reliant models of independent units with zero emissions that are environmentally sustainable in different agro-climatic regions. This model could be adopted by different countries with a similar climate like Mali, Cambodia, Siberia and Argentina. India can have a strong stand at the Conference Of Parties COP26 of the UN Climate Change Conference and play a major role in carrying its offshoots. She can set examples by expanding and reclaiming wetlands to capture and sequester carbon deposits. Wetlands cover about 6 to 9% of the earth’s surface and sequester roughly 35% of the global terrestrial carbon.

Although forests were considered the best natural protection against climate change, recent research shows that seaweed is the most effective natural way of absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. India has a large Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that can be used to remove huge amounts of carbon deposits and provide protein to its citizens from seaweed. The 7500 odd km of coastline is an effective way to grow and nurture kelp—a type of seaweed whose farming is considered to be a remedy for all the ills associated with global warming. Kelp can grow as much as 20 cm every day. It not only absorbs carbon dioxide but also de-acidifies the ocean water. By drawing CO₂ out of the waters they allow our oceans to absorb even more CO₂ from the atmosphere.

With the largest basaltic exposure in the world, India can additionally use basalt weathering technology to absorb carbon deposits. Basalt weathering means mixing crushed basalt with soil, which slowly dissolves and reacts with carbon dioxide to form carbonates. This method would allow between 0.5 billion and 2 billion tonnes of CO2 to be separated from the atmosphere each year.

Going ‘local’ is India’s recent mantra, though this life pattern is from ancient Indian wisdom. Our distinct set of concepts and thought patterns include theories based on the revival and evolution of local wisdom that is seldom found elsewhere in the world. These concepts can be weaved with our minimalistic living lifestyle and our nature-centric development visions. They are suited for different geographical settings that can be used anywhere in the world with similar agro-climatic conditions.

Minimalistic living strives to only use things that serve a purpose. It’s about simple living and having only what one needs to go about daily life. It is a smart rendezvous of technology, attitude and curbing the desires for sustainably. The components of the model include energy management, water management, vegetarian diet management, housing using natural ingredients and zero energy agriculture linked with satellites. Rural India works like a partially closed ecosystem in which energy obtained from plant photosynthetic is used to grow crops. This in turn provides an essential energy input to grow more food and is an endless cycle. This can be co-joined with new farming technologies developed with countries like Israel, as well as agricultural technologies based on minimum energy.

The second solution is the modification and linkage of the Happiness model of Bhutan. Both these models wean away countries from a GDP-based development model, but also provide alternative sustainable income on India’s soft power platform.

The third is the extension of PM Modi’s concept of ‘One Sun, One World. One Grid’ (OSOWOG) initiative organised along with the Chatth festival (the only festival that worships the Sun). It aims to raise awareness about various ways to harness energy from the Sun. It aims to build a transnational grid that would allow countries to source solar power from regions where it is daytime to meet their green energy needs when their own installed solar capacity is not generating energy.

India is actually at cusp of change to unleash a new knowledge to the world, cleanse the world of its infodemics on climate change, weave the world communities into making the earth a liveable, sustainable and a more beautiful place.

Author Brief Bio: Prof K. Siddhartha is an Earth Scientist, Knowledge and Perception Management Consultant and Thought leadership trainer. A strategic thinker, he has been advisor to several Governments. He has written 116 research articles, authored 43 books, and is a mentor to a large number of civil servants in India.

References

Chen, R.S. Boulding E and Schneider, S.H. (eds) 1983) Social Science Research and Climate Change : An Interdiscipinary Approach,
Gribbin, J. (Ed.) (1978) Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Sciences (1975) Understanding Climate Change; A Second Assessment, Climate Board/Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, U. S. National Research Council, Washington D. C.
Aakriti Bansal, Before you start travelling, know how much carbon you generate

https://wiyld.com/sustainable-travel/your-carbon-footprint-when-travelling-and-how-to-reduce/?fbclid=IwAR3Mp111IJRDqj0VxEe6tM-ZPZstX5hSVCpXpa3nWuIptl9GLZa1A09572A