By Clive Mutame Siachiyako
Climate change effects are getting more lethal than imagined before. They are more aggressive. Desperate situations call for desperate approaches it is argued. Policies that aggressively seek to address these effects should thus be designed and implemented. I will first look at policies to regulate pollution. Pollution can be air or water and otherwise. Industrial emissions of varied gases into the air during production present serious environmental hazards.
I am using a house using a chimney to illustrate this point. A house using coal would emit smoke through the chimney in the process forming thick residues that corrode the metallic chimney. The chimney may end up breaking. The same corrosion happens to the ozone layer. The smoke industries emit forms a thicket in the atmosphere which distorts weather patterns, blocks sun rays from reaching the earth; distort earth’s normal warmth, among other effects. A ‘sick’ environment entails sick system that supports life in different forms. It means less ability of nature to provide humanity, animals and water habitats means to life and flourish. For instance, the land loses its ability to support wildlife when its ability to provide pastures for them is distorted by climatic factors. The animals would migrate to others areas in search for food. They end up invading humans, thus resulting into human-animal conflict.
What then can be done at policy level? There’s need for policies that regulate gas emissions and real walk of the talk. Rules have to be toughened. There’s need for aggressiveness at monitoring compliance to those emission limits. We have many protocols around climate change. We have to do more than mere talk. We have to stand out and get tough to safeguard sustainable future for generations to come. We cannot be selfish and ruin the future of those to come after us. We have to use our moral and humanity sense of responsibility to prepare a place for them.
Production of today should not be allowed to shut tomorrow. A lot of risks are created in the name of increasing production levels due to less care of the environment and policy monitoring slackness to get things done accordingly. Economic factors are always given much consideration than the environment. But when the environment revolts, how will the economy stand? For instance, if we go by Zambia Electricity Supplying Company’s (ZESCO) argument that power outages are rife in Zambia due to low water levels caused by low rainfall; how would our cherished industrial productivity rise when nature fails to supply water to provide power to run industries? Can economic reasons still hold substance? Can’t we rethink the appetite for economic progress in relation to the environment? I bet we have to save nature now before things really get into a chaotic condition.
Waste recycling policies should be put in place immediately. Landfills are source of constant smoke into the air in many countries without recycling policies. Nature can be rid of its burden to sustain human life by recycling what’s thrown away from homes. The benefits of recycling go beyond the environment. It creates reliable input into industrial production systems. The increasing amounts of waste homes generate daily are straight forward source of production materials for industries in different sectors of the economy. Recycling preserves natural resources. Natural resources that could have been used to produce something can be done using ‘waste’ generated from homes.
Fossil fuels [like gasoline, coal, diesel, etc] emitted from decomposing waste are sources of different harmful green gases. Buried waste also cause pollution of water tables. Living organisms in water bodies where polluted water from decomposed waste end-up dying from such pollutions. The result is unbalanced ecosystem. Unbalanced ecosystem brings several climatic factors that affect humans in different ways.
We thus need recycling centres/plants to reduce natural resource use, remove pollutants from waste, and create pro-environmental conscious and behaviour among citizens for the good of nature protection. Everyone can do something to protect the environment. Both developing and developed countries can do a lot. Recycling can also be a source of wealth and job creation. Recycling plants can employ a number of people to process, collect, repackage and others required to complete the recycling and production process of new products from the waste.
Policies to ban importation of wrecked vehicles that emit excessive smoke should be put in place. If it means people walking because they can’t afford durable vehicles, it has to happen. Nature is over polluted by the endless smoke emitted daily from second hand vehicle wreckages imported massively. The luxury of driving shouldn’t be done at the expense of the environment anymore. Public transport doesn’t kill. In developed countries, riding a bicycle is more promoted than using vehicles to save the environment. We can all do it. We can step out our cars and walk or ride bicycles or use public transport. Public transport should use more environmental friendly vehicles such as the use of buses that are biogas driven. From recycled waste, biogas can be generated to produce fuel for public transport vehicles. With recycling working, other benefits can come into the economy.
Burning of bushes should be ‘criminalised’ if anything to avoid volumes of smoke being emitted into the atmosphere. Why should nature be levied for rats, rabbits and other small meat animals? Eating vegetables hasn’t killed anyone when balanced up. People can eat eggs, beans, and other greens without risking nature in the manner it happens now.
No one should burn the bush and go unpunished. Those living in areas with a lot grass, forests, and other flammable natural resources need protective measures in place to save those areas from fires. When a fire happens, policies and strategies for replenishing the areas should be put in place. When a forest is gutted by fire, trees should be planted within a short time for ecosystem balance. Even though the replanting will not replace all the lost eco life, it would create a new habitat and support system of life.
Agriculture policies that support conservation agriculture have to be put in place. Farmers have to shed off old ways of conducting agro-activities. From high to lowest levels of agricultural ladder conservation agriculture has to be adopted and other environmental friendly methods. The use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and others have to be gotten rid of. We have to do whatever it takes to rebuild a world that can sustain today and tomorrow’s future. The use of genetically modified organisms has to be shunned, and embrace organic foods. Consumers have a big role in this sense. We can shun food stuffs produced in environmentally hazard
ous ways in favour of organic ones. We can make industry to comply. We can stand up and be counted in this fight.
Someone can argue that hunger makes people fall for anything. But effects of meeting hunger needs of today shouldn’t be done at the expense of tomorrow’s lives. Many generations will perish if nothing sensibly and practical is done now. Imagine using poison to catch fish because you need a lot of fish today (...) what will happen when you need the fish tomorrow? What will you fish? How will you survive if you carelessly kill the fish and its fingerling? I believe whatever we do, we have to think about tomorrow.
At policy level, our communication about climate change should be about what policies can we have in place? We have to create a sense of ownership among people in getting around climatic change issues. People have to see platforms where they can dialogue and plan ways of doing something different to save the earth. We have to talk about what industrial policies can be pursued to minimise emission of dangerous pollutants into the environment. We have to speak simple, practical and precise always. Climate change is generally new, few people understand it well. We have to carry everybody along and work together in finding ways of improving things sustainably.
No comments:
Post a Comment