Why is (Punjabi) groundwater extraction being linked to the climate crisis?

-

The concept of 'resolution' is an important consideration in science. The word has many meanings; here, we use it to denote the ability to distinguish between two distinct things. For example, Remote Sensing terminology includes at least four kinds of 'resolutions'. We can talk of an instrument's spatial resolution, or its ability to distinguish between two objects on ground. An instrument with a low spatial resolution may not be able to distinguish between your house and your neighbour's house, with both lumped together in one fuzzy pixel. We can talk of temporal resolution1, which refers to the frequency of collecting data -- or the ability to distinguish between two time intervals. If you collect data only once every day, you can not distinguish between an event that occurred in the morning and another that occurred during the evening, for example. We can talk of spectral resolution, which determines whether the sensor will be able to distinguish between signals at different wavelengths. Lastly, we can also talk of radiometric resolution, which, in the simplest terms, denotes how many shades of grey the instrument can record2. I recommend the excellent illustrations on this page, which would help drive home the points here.

I would like to propose another concept: that of intellectual resolution, or the ability to distinguish between two distinct concepts. Here, I will use it to talk of scientific concepts (since that is all I know of), but it can be extended to concepts in other fields too.

It is a common tendency to lump together many scientific concepts which actually represent very distinct problems with different causes and different solutions. Most people do not distinguish between terms like climate change, air pollution, water pollution, groundwater depletion, unsustainable practices, ecological crisis, and many more. This beast of mass confusion rears its ugly head whenever there is a need to politicize an issue. The latest instances are those of Greta Thunberg, Disha Ravi and the 'toolkit', but I am sure there are many precedents.

Here, the Editor-in-Chief of Times Now has clumped together climate change and environmental problems such as soil degradation and groundwater depletion. R. Shivshankar may be very surprised to know that soil degradation, soil poisoning and excessive groundwater extraction have very little to do with climate change. There exist weak and situation-specific links, but in the context of climate change, none of these are our top concerns.

Similarly, here is Prof. Shamika Ravi, an economist and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, who also considers climate, soil and water-table issues as one and the same thing, also adding cancer incidence (likely a proxy for pesticide use) in the same list.3

Once again, many distinct issues are unnecessarily connected to climate change. There is no doubt that the excessive use of pesticides and excessive groundwater extraction are problematic -- but what do they have to do with climate change? The answer to this question actually determines the irony!


Left: the kind of simplifications and generalisations that will not do in the 21st century
Right: different related but distinct problems


Such clumping together of whatever vaguely seems to be related to nature or the environment, or seems to be antithetical to development4, is a result of poor intellectual resolution. As expected, intellectual resolution is not a function of one's opinions or political inclinations. For example, here is Rupi Kaur who has expressed solidarity with the protesting farmers, but mixes climate justice with ecological destruction and environmental issues.


I must point out -- I also think any discussion of agricultural reform must consider climate justice. But climate change and ecological destruction -- while somewhat related -- are two very distinct problems. Mixing them is like saying -- "Me and my neighbour live in the same mohalla, so we must live in the same house and be the same people." 

The link between climate change and groundwater extraction

Climate change is due to too much of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat. This causes temperatures to rise ("global warming") which also alters weather patterns and a whole lot of other things ("climate change" - the more holistic term).

There is no doubt that climate change is altering the global water cycle5. There is also no doubt that this climate change is anthropogenic i.e. it is caused by you, me and the farmers. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no clear causative link between groundwater extraction and climate change, especially on a regional scale6. For the same reason, groundwater availability and associated policies usually focus on how to adapt from climate change, not how to mitigate climate change (if you're not the problem, you can't be the solution).

Let me put this another away. Consider the following three statements:


While A and B can sometimes be true, they do not automatically lead to C7.

A common retort is: "Yes, but what about the fact that groundwater extraction is carried out using subsidized coal-powered electricity?" Aha! Now here is a better, albeit misplaced, argument. There are three nuances to be considered:

1. Distinguish between two kinds of subsidies: those for agriculture and those for fossil fuels.  The first is supposed to be for maintaining food prices, but this is beyond my domain. The second is beyond my comprehension. The fact that the Indian Government supports fossil-fuel usage, comparably or more than renewables8 is the decision of the Indian Government, and not of the farmers. If citizens, including farmers, ask for subsidized unclean electricity, it is against their own benefit. This may not be imminently clear to the masses, but it is expected that it be clear to the leaders. 

2. The carbon footprint of groundwater extraction must be assessed using a universal formulae that applies to all of us and all of our activities. There is nothing special about the carbon dioxide that is emitted during power generation for farmers and their groundwater extraction; and it is certainly not different from when it is emitted for lighting up primary schools for example.

3. Who foots the bill for the emissions - is it the producer or the consumer? If you and I consume the food the farmer has grown by coal-powered groundwater extraction, are the emissions for his benefit or ours?

Thus my answer is: "Yes, farmers' groundwater extraction has a carbon footprint but it is not of the greatest concern or of isolated concern. Farmers must not be the only ones to be blamed for their carbon footprint."

Lastly, we must remember that even if farmers switch to clean energy sources such as solar-powered electricity, excessive groundwater extraction will continue to be a concern. Groundwater extraction needs to be considered as an issue in its own merit9. Just like air pollution. Just like ecological destruction. Just like a number of other things.

Do these nuances even matter?

Some of these are nuances which you could dismiss as arcane and irrelevant in your daily life. But some of these determine whether we hold farmers responsible for a serious issue, or not. They determine whether we exaggerate the culpability of the protesting farmers. They determine what we think of some climate activists, and they determine what we think of people commenting on these climate activists. In this context, I think these nuances are important. 

Consider the previous three statements, where we saw how A + B ≠ C (at least not universally). Now consider some more statements:


And now analyse the question -- "Are farmers to be blamed for climate change?"

I leave it up to you, the reader to figure this out for yourself. Your reasoning will determine which side of climate justice you're on. I can say nothing about which side of the farm-law debate you may be on. That includes many other aspects as well.


---

Additional musing

1 The concept of temporal resolution is also very important in Paleoclimatology. Whether you're sampling finely enough in time or not is crucial towards your ability to identify short-term abrupt events.

2 Although I'm tempted to use a popular reference here, it would be technically incorrect. Radiometric resolution increases in powers of two. Thus, a 5-bit sensor has 25 = 32 levels (lower resolution) and a 6-bit sensor has 26 = 64 levels (higher resolution). Nothing for 50, alas.

3 It is a wholly different issue that the link between farm reforms and climate / soil / water-table reforms is very, very unclear. Even if one were to ignore the fact that there is hefty debate on whether these actually are agricultural reforms, it is very unwise and unprofessional to extrapolate that these are climate / soil / water-table reforms.

4 IMO the most accurate way of putting this is: "..what is antithetical to the narrow view of development vested interests want people to hold" but you see why I can't use that.

5 For example, this is from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report:

6 For example, Chapter 27 of India in a Warming World discusses this in detail. A glimpse:

This section also discusses a major concern: that models do not incorporate impacts of man-made structures like dams and reservoirs. Thus, a fixation on role of agriculture in exacerbating climate-change-induced-water-stress is misplaced without a thorough background understanding.

7 For example, this is from India in a Warming World: "While climate change is expected to lead to water stress, multiple other stressors such as land-use changes, groundwater abstraction, and urbanization, to name a few, may dominate in the short run."

8 Surprised? I was too. Dive in here: https://www.ceew.in/publications/mapping-india’s-energy-subsidies-2020

9 Consider this, for example: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/9/eabd2849


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Darwin's Lost World - Part II

-
<< Previous page So what do we (did Darwin) know by now (then) ? That living creatures from the very very ancient past (we're talking in terms of millions of years) were often found preserved in the rock record. That we could make out some things about the past environments from these fossils. Fossils showed specific associations: you saw only certain types and groups of fossils in certain suites of rocks (belonging to different periods of geological time). There came a dead end at the base of the Cambrian. Scientists like to call this the Cambrian Explosion today, but back then, many of them were more inclined to dismiss this either as a figment of the imagination of relatively smaller body of researchers, or simply, incomplete/inaccurate science. That the Creator had made us all, was the popular view. 3 theories emerged to explain why we see the Cambrian Explosion (if it even is a real thing!): Charles Lyell Interestingly, it is said that Lyell was...
Read more

On Darwin's Lost World

-
Image
Martin Brasier was a prolific paleontologist. And from what little I know of him, he must have been a pretty cool guy. I recently read his book "Darwin's Lost World" and it was definitely one of the better decisions of my life. On Darwin Thankfully, even the most plebeian of science curricula finds it worthwhile to describe Charles Darwin's scientific accomplishments. To me, all through childhood, Darwin represented my superiority to the apes. When someone said Darwin, I would get a mental picture of an ape gradually turning human. That's an overly simplistic picture, but then again, there is so much to learn about everything  that one doesn't quite know where to start. Source The rock record is the only thing that can give us a picture of the ancient Earth. Most other branches of science can tell you what the Earth is like, and why it is the way it is. But it was Geology that first told us what the Earth was  like, and bits of why it w...
Read more

What is ENSO? Page 2 - SSTs and trade winds

-
Image
  This is Page 2 of the sub-series "What is ENSO?". If you haven't already, please read Page 1 first. For convenience, keep that page open in a different tab. = = = What is ENSO? In the previous post , we learnt to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperature anomalies . In this post, I'm going to answer a question that no one really asked ―  What if I wanted to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) instead? What if, for no good reason but because I felt like it, I wanted to do away with the "anomalies" bit? Looking at SSTs instead of SST anomalies makes matters unnecessarily complicated, but we're going to do it anyway because it also teaches us a lot. In the image below, I've plotted SSTs from the HadISST dataset. These are mean SSTs for the months of December, January and February (DJF) over all years from 1872-2009. Why did we select the months of DJF? Because ENSO events can be seen...
Read more