Connect with us

Green Planet

Plant Rights: A Neglected Regime

Siddharth Singh

Published

on

Whenever an entity stood for itself to claim specific interest, it has faced humiliation at every possible level. Fight for rights never gone smoothly in history, for instance, women’s rights, slave’s rights, children’s rights, rights of a prisoner of war, etc. (Stone 1972: 451). Nobody thought in earlier times that even these could be considered as rights. The problem with our society is that we work for our self-interest. We exploit a thing up to a level that entity itself gets a realization that whatever is happening with them is not correct. Apart from self-interest, a perspective always plays a vital role in protecting the interest of the victim. The exploiters might never imagine that their actions are, in a way, harmful to the other being. Such exploitation can be rectified only with enlightenment and awareness among the general masses in time. It is to be understood that rights are always needed by the oppressed, not the oppressor. The journey of plant rights is no exception to this situation. When people come across this term, they laugh at the very first instance, considering it to be just a vague concept. This notion did not even find much discussion among the academician across the globe.

Furthermore, we disregard someone’s right, either knowingly or unknowingly. In the case of plant rights, it is mostly unknowingly since we do not consider plants to as being as they do not behave like humans or animals. Various studies suggest that plants own life, and they do respond to their surroundings in their way (Tandon 2019: 593). However, scientists are skeptical about the question of sentience in plants (Pelizzon and Gagliano 2015). Thus it makes the whole regime uncertain and necessary to be further analyzed with extra care.

The fact that plants cannot speak like other creatures does not make them less being. If they live and die like other entities on this planet, then we should reconsider our legal regime to address their concerns. Present laws for the protection of plants provide a limited scope in their application. Humans consider plants as a commodity and govern their conservation for the fulfillment of their own needs. This issue necessitates a plant-centric legal regime that should enable plants to possess their own legal identity and rights. There exist scientific limitations to provide evidence for this study. However, it is appropriate to develop an approach today, so to avoid any guilt in the future. 

NEED FOR PLANT RIGHTS

The underlying issue with the plants is that they are not granted rights per se. Any violation of plant rights cannot be brought before the courts with a reason that an injury has been inflicted upon plants. The actions against plants can be challenged in the court only when it affects the interests of other human beings related to such plants. If one cannot show the nexus between the plant and its owner or regulator, then the accused party shall not be held liable for its derogatory actions. This scenario depicts a problem where the interests of the plants are compromised, and those of humans prevail. 

The human-centric legal regime provides that nature should be conserved and protected to fulfill the needs of humans (Shastri 2013: 523). On the contrary, one should argue that several plant species are on the verge of extinction. It is necessary to develop a legal regime to prevent biodiversity loss and mitigate floral destruction (Marder 2013: 46-47).

Further, scientific studies are uncertain on the issue of pleasure and pain in plants (Calvo, Sahi and Trewavas 2017). Scientists have a difference in opinion on this issue. Where one set considers that plants lack a nervous system so they cannot respond to pain, the other argues that plants work differently from humans (Shepherd 2012). Daniel Chamovitz, in his 2012 book ‘What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses’ has called such a response of plants as “anoetic consciousness” – an ability to sense and react (Chamovitz 2012). However, if plants feel pain, for instance, then even plucking a leaf from the plant will constitute an illegal action that will not be preferred by the plant. Thus a need arose to determine the status of a silent entity to ensure global justice in the world.

PLANT RIGHTS: DEFINITION AND SCOPE

As per Christopher Stone in his book “Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects”, the realm of legal rights entails three aspects for the right holder. Firstly, such rights-holder can take legal action at their will. Secondly, the injury needs to be identifiable by the court that is determining relief for such an entity. Thirdly, such assistance must be in the interest of rights-holder and benefit him (Stone 1972: 458).

The definition of plant rights can be read in similar lines of human rights. Those inherent rights that every plant possesses by being a plant are its plant rights. International human rights found its basis on the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness (Whelan 2010). These plant rights shall be based on the similar principles of human rights. Apart from the right to live and protect against their extinction, plant rights shall also include dignity and ethical considerations for the plant. The plants shall not be subjected to the arbitrary and unethical actions of a human.

The term ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unethical’ are subjective and open for debate. While determining the scope of these rights, some might consider even plucking of the flower to be arbitrary. In contrast, for the others, arbitrariness could include deforestation, destructive cultivation, affecting reproduction, and changing the genetic pattern of plants. Although this debate is unsettled, however, the plant’s life and their dignity need to be respected beyond doubt (Schulp 2019: 112).

NATURE OF PLANT RIGHTS

Both Christopher Stone and Peter Singer have argued that these rights should not be followed in their strict sense. Granting of rights did not mean equal treatment, rather equal consideration (Singer 1993). If we take plant rights up to the absolute sense, humans cannot even have food on their plates. In such a scenario, then will it means that we are compromising the right to life of humans. Also, before identifying their rights, it is to be determined that whether each plant on earth shall be given equal rights, or we could bring some differentiation or exemption while conferring rights to some of them. Thus a distinction between vegetable and ornamental plants could be observed while determining the nature and extent of plant rights. 

Science mentions that plants and animals have a similar origin (Meyerowitz 1999). Where we have a plethora of rights for one animal (humans), it is pertinent to have rights for plant kingdom that must be plant-centric instead of being human-centric. The new system should protect the interests of plants instead of humans.

WHAT ARE THE PRESENT LAWS FOR PLANT?

The present plant regime is regulated by numerous international instruments covering various aspects of plant protection. International Plant Protection Convention of 1951 prevents the entry and spreading of pests on plants. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of 2004, also known as the International Seed Treaty aims for food security through conservation and sustainable use of plant’s genetic resources. It works in the collaboration of the Convention on Biological Diversity, another multilateral framework with a goal of conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973 (CITES) is another multilateral arrangement to protect endangered plants and animals. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1961 (UPOV) provides intellectual property rights to the generators of new varieties of plants.   

Though the present international law non-uniformly recognizes the intrinsic value of plants still, it does not accord any legal personality to plants. Notably, some of these instruments consider plants as an object and protect them, not for their conservation but to fulfill the requirements of human. The present situation could be understood similarly as to the rights of indigenous peoples that are considered necessary for their lives and livelihood against economic developments (Phillips 2015). Thus, plants should have a mechanism available to seek redressal for their grievances.    

In the 21st century, there were attempts to recognize this new realm of rights. On the 56th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Venezuelan government organizations and biological groups adopted the Universal Declaration of Plant Rights that consists of 22 principles. This declaration presents a very stringent protectionist view of plant rights. Also, the April 2008 Swiss Report “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants” claims that since plants are alive, their morality must be respected. Further, they must not be considered as an object that can be owned by anyone (Willemsen 2008: 20).

States have reflected a commendable approach to provide legal rights to environmental entities. In the year 2008, Ecuador became the first state to adopt the rights of nature in its constitution (Revkin 2008). In 2010, Bolivia adopted legislation to grant legal standing to nature (Eckstein et al 2019: 805). New Zealand provided legal personality to Te Urewera national park in 2014, and later such status was also conferred to Mount Taranaki and Whanganui river to represent their interest through its guardians (Gleeson-White 2018). Similarly, in 2017, Uttarakhand High Court in India has conferred the status of ‘living entity’ upon river Ganga and Yamuna by making Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, ‘Namami Gange‘ project director and Advocate General of the State as a legal parent to the river to represent their interest in the court (Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others 2014). In the same year, Columbia has granted legal rights to the river Rio Atrato (Mount 2017). Thus, a similar approach is needed to be undertaken for plants as well where custodians are to be appointed those who may speak purely for the interest of plants before the court of law.

SUGGESTIONS

As we need a law to protect our liberties, provide remedies, and tackle all forms of oppression and discrimination. Similarly, plants also require the same for their existence. It is not a justified argument that since plants cannot speak so they cannot argue and plead in the court of law for their rights. Bentham advocates that the threshold to determine rights for a being should be their capacity to suffer (Singer 1993). Being a right-holder, plants can bring the claim for their interest. Moreover, such law much is made considering their interest at large. The emergence of a new right for an entity diminishes the existing realm of rights exercised by the others. Thus such necessary amendments need to be brought in our present legal system. Also, such plant rights shall be treated at par with human rights, if not superior.  

CONCLUSION

Both plants and animals require sunlight, air, water, wind, earth, for their survival and development. Studies say that plant does communicate with each other in different forms (Karban 2008). Plants like ‘Touch-me-not’ (mimosa pudica) (Kumar et al 2009) or sunflower (helianthus) (Vandenbrink et al 2014: 21) shows a response to the external stimuli. It is also said that plant never dies until affected by any human-made or natural factor (Trewavas 2016). Most importantly, the plant produces ‘seeds’ that signifies the essence of life in them. It can be said that they are not a machine that breathes carbon dioxide in the presence of the sun and vice-versa. On the contrary, they occupy an essential part of the environment, along with humans. Based on a few fundamental differences between plants and animals, for example, mobility, one cannot ignore equality between the components of the environment. 

The critical question is, ‘Whether plants feel pain?’ Up till now, no accurate answer has been obtained from studies. Different scientists have suggested various theories for it. The response to the issue of plant rights found its basis in a more nuanced scientific discovery. So now, another question could arise ‘What should be done until we get a certain answer?’ In the absence of such knowledge, should it be appropriate to leave the notion of plant rights aside to be decided by our future generation? Another preferable aspect could be to set up a framework for now identifying the fundamental issues of plant rights. Such a regime should come from the plant’s perspective as a matter of being a living entity. No matter, science may take the time to answer the plant mystery; however, as a human, it is our responsibility to show respect towards the plant and their dignity in our actions (Koechlin 2009). It requires sensitization among people that rather objectifying plants as a matter to fulfill their selfish needs.

A strict need for change in perception is required. Since all of our previous generations, including us, have grown up exploiting plants from ages directly or indirectly, consequently today we do not sense any form of injustice in it. We got very well accommodated in this regime, and it seems beyond imagination to think of any such idea as plant rights. This reform is challenging; however, not impossible. It would be an honor for our generation and a gift for future ones if we can correct something that has been wrongly followed by our forefathers, especially after industrialization. 

REFERENCES

  • Calvo, Paco, Sahi, Vaidurya Pratap and Trewavas, Anthony (2017): “Are plants sentient?,” Plant Cell & Environment, 6 September < https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13065>.
  • Chamovitz, Daniel (2012): What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses, New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Eckstein, Gabriel et al (2019): “Conferring legal personality on the world’s rivers: A brief intellectual assessment,” Water International, Vol 44, No (6-7), pp 804-829.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization (1951):“International Plant Protection Convention,” UNTS, Vol 150, opened for signature 6 December, pp 67.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization (2001):  “International Treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture,” UNTS, Vol 2400,opened for signature 3 November, pp 303.
  • Gleeson-White, Jane (2018): “It’s only natural: the push to give rivers, mountains and forests legal rights,” The Guardian, 1 April <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/01/its-only-natural-the-push-to-give-rivers-mountains-and-forests-legal-rights>.
  • Government of Switzerland (1973): “Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora,” UNTS, Vol 993, opened for signature 3 March, pp 243.
  • Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (1992): “Convention on Biological Diversity,” UNTS, Vol 1760, opened for signature 5 June, pp 79.
  • International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1961): “International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants,” OJ, Vol L192 opened for signature 2 December, pp 64.
  • Karban, Richard (2008): “Plant behaviour and communication,” Ecology Letters, Vol 11, pp 727-739.
  • Koechlin, Florianne (2009): “The dignity of plants,” Plants Signaling & Behavior, Vol 4, No 1,pp 78-79 <https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.4.1.7315>.
  • Kumar, Nilesh et al (2009): “Mimosa pudica L. a sensitive plant,” International Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol 1, No 1, pp 1-7.
  • Marder, Michael (2013): “Should plants have rights?,” The Philosopher’s Magazine, Vol 62, No 3, 46-50.
  • Meyerowitz, Elliot M (1999): “Plants, animals and the logic of development,” Trends in cell biology, Vol 9, No 12, pp M65-M68.
  • Mount, Nick (2017): “Can a river have legal rights? A different approach to protecting the environment,” Independent 13 October <https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/river-legal-rights-colombia-environment-pacific-rainforest-atrato-river-rio-quito-a7991061.html>.
  • National Assembly Legislative and Oversight Committee(2008): Republica del Ecuador Constitucion de 2008 (Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008), chapter VII <http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html>.
  • Pelizzon, Alessandro and Gagliano, Monica (2015): “The Sentience of Plants: Animal Rights and Rights of Nature Intersecting?,” Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Vol 11, No 5, pp 5-13.
  • Phillips, James S (2015): “The rights of indigenous peoples under international law,” Global Bioethics, Vol 26, No 2, pp 120-127.
  • Revkin, Andrew C (2008): “Ecuador Constitution Grants Rights to Nature,” The New York Times, 29 September <https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/ecuador-constitution-grants-nature-rights/>.
  • Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others (2014): Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, Uttarakhand High Court.
  • Schulp, Jan A (2019): “Animal rights/Plants rights,” Research in Hospitality Management, Vol 9, No 2, pp 109-112.
  • Singer, Peter (1993): Practical Ethics United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shastri, Satish C (2013): “Environmental Ethics Anthropocentric to Eco-Centric Approach: A Paradigm Shift,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol 55, No 4, pp 522-530.
  • Shepherd, VA (2012): “At the roots of Plant Neurobiology: A brief history of the biophysical research of JC Bose,” Science and Culture, Vol 78, No (5/6), pp 196-210.
  • Stone, Christopher D (1972): “Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” South California Law Review, Vol 45, pp 450-501.
  • Taiz, Lincoln et al (2019): “Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness,” Trends in Plant Science, Vol 24, No 8, pp P677-687 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008>.
  • Tandon, Prakash Narain (2019): “Jagdish Chandra Bose and Plant Neurobiology: Part I,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, Vol 149, No 5, pp 593-599.
  • Trewavas, Tony (2016): “Plant Intelligence: An overview,” BioScience, Vol 66, No 7, pp 542-551.
  • Vandenbrink, Joshua P et al (2014): “Turning heads: The biology of solar tracking in sunflower,” Plant Science, Vol 224, pp 20-26.
  • Venezuelan Association (2004): “Universal Declaration of Plant Rights,” 10 December <http://www.avepalmas.org/rights.htm>.
  • Willemsen, Ariane (2008), “The dignity of living beings with regard to plants,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology ECNH, pp 1-24.
  • Whelan, Daniel J (2010): Indivisible Human Rights: A History, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

LL.M., Ph.D. Scholar, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi, India

Green Planet

Tiger Conservation in South and Southeast Asia and The Indian Experience

Published

on

Every year 29th July is being celebrated as Tiger Day since 2010 when thirteen tiger range countries, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Russia, Thailand and Vietnam adopted the Global Tiger Recovery Program  in St. Petersburg, Russia in November 2010 to double the number of wild tigers from about 3,200 to more than 7,000 by 2022. Earlier in the same year Governments from across Asia’s tiger range countries took initiatives to save wild tigers from extinction and total protection of critical tiger habitats on January in 1st Asian Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation at Hua Hin, Thailand.

Degradation in Tiger Population in Southeast Asia

Maximum tigers were roaming on those areas of Asia where human beings are now densely populated. Presently over one-third of tiger conservation sites in the world are still under the risk and the majority of those areas are located in Southeast Asia. Bhutan is the home to the highest altitude tigers in the world and Indonesian island of Sumatra is one of the last places on earth where tigers, elephants and orangutans coexist in the wild. Sunderban mangrove area of India and Bangladesh is the habitat of largest number of wild Royal Bengal tigers. One hundred years ago, there were 100,000 wild tigers in the nature but in 2010 as few as only 3,200 wild tigers remained. The sole cause of declination in tiger population is human activity and nearly 97% has been extinct due to rampant poaching and habitat loss. The borders of India-Nepal, Indonesia-China and Russia-China are very well known hot spots for trans-boundary smuggling of tiger body parts.

Indian Tiger Protection Laws and National Tiger Conservation Authority

The main legislative action was undertaken by then Indian government through the insertion of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 which was also known as ‘Tiger Amendment’. This Amendment of 2006 introduced some important statutory and administrative steps including National Tiger Conservation Authority (Section 38L), Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (Section 38Y), Tiger Conservation Plan (Section 38V) and Tiger Conservation Foundation (Section 38 X). This Amendment was made on the recommendation of Tiger Task Force (TTF) consisting of biologists, social scientists, activists and forest officers across the country constituted by then Prime Minister in July 2005 on the backdrop of vanishing of tigers by rampant killing and poaching. Since its inception in 2006, National Tiger Conservation Authority has worked tremendously and till now declared nearly 50 protected areas as Tiger Reserves having critical tiger habitats with the consultation of State Governments. Though few Tiger Reserves were established earlier after launching of Project Tiger during 1973 but those reserves have got the statutory status (Section 38V) after this Amendment. Central Government notified many bye laws for better functioning of National Tiger Conservation Authority and those are The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Qualifications and Experience of Experts or Professional Members) Rules, 2006; The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Salaries, Allowances and other Conditions of Appointment) Rules, 2006; The Tiger Conservation Authority Fund (Regulation) Guidelines, 2007; The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Tiger Conservation Foundation) Guidelines, 2007; The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Annual Reports and Annual Statement of Accounts) Rules, 2007; The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 2007 and The National Tiger Conservation Authority (Normative Standard for Tourism activities and Project Tiger) Guidelines, 2012. The Act has played nicely the federal features of Indian government as ‘wild animals’ are subject of State as well as Union.

Indian legal framework for wild animal protection

There is an elaborated interpretation of Indian Constitution after 42nd Amendment in 1976 through which protection of wild animals came under the Directive Principles of State Policies (Article 48A) and Fundamental Duties (Article 51A(g)) of citizen. This Amendment also brought the subject protection of wild animals within the legislative approach of States as well as Centre. In 1992, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments widened the legislative power on forestry and ecological aspects to local governments of panchayats and municipalities.  The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 instituted office of Director of Wildlife Preservation [Section 3(a)], Asst. Director of wildlife preservation [Section 3(b)] and Wildlife Advisory Board [Section 6] at central level and Chief Wildlife Wardens [Section 4 (a)] and Wildlife Wardens [Section 4 (b)] at State level. After the Amendment of 1991, Central Zoo Authority [Section 38A] came into force to regulate all zoos in the country and National Board for Wildlife [Section 5A] at State level. The Amendment of 2003 introduced National Board for Wildlife [Section 5A] and a Standing Committee of the National Board [Section 5B] and for state level Honorary Wildlife Wardens [Section 4 (bb)], State Board Wildlife [Section 6], Advisory Committee [Section 33 B], Conservation Reserve Management Committee [Section 36 B] and Community Reserve Management Committee [Section 36 D]. There are several other administrative authorities constituted for protection of tigers and wild animals directly or indirectly. In 1962 the Animal Welfare Board of India was established under Ministry of Environment and Forests as per provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and National Biodiversity Authority was established through the provision of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 to regulate, transfer and use of diversified biological resources at the national level. The National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, was set up in 1992 for promoting afforestation, tree plantation, ecological restoration and eco-development activities.

Collective Initiatives by Member Countries

Countries like India, Nepal and Russia have shown that tiger recovery is possible but other governments in Southeast Asia are facing the challenges in poaching and man-tiger conflicts. In November 2009, representatives from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Secretariat, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the World Bank (IBRD) decided in Vienna to form the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) to jointly move forward in a coordinated manner with mandates in law enforcement and criminal justice to prevent and combat illegal trade in wild animals and plants. Finally the Consortium was launched by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in November 2010 during the International Tiger Forum held in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. ICCWC is the first initiative where these five international agencies cooperate together towards crimes against animals, birds and fish, as well as timber and non-timber forest products to achieve a common goal of delivering multi-agency support to affected countries. In 2014, Nepal became the first country to achieve a full year of zero poaching for three of the world’s most iconic species –tiger, rhino and elephant. Last year Indian Prime Minister on the event of global tiger day declared that India is the safest habitat for tigers in the world and having largest numbers of wild tigers in the nature. India along with other participant countries decided to double their tiger population within 2020 at the St. Petersburg Tiger Summit, Russia in 2010 and as per recent press release of National Tiger Conservation Authority, since 2006, the 33% rise in tiger numbers is the highest ever recorded between cycles which stood at 21% between 2006 to 2010 and 30% between 2010 and 2014.

Continue Reading

Green Planet

Has CCS Really Got Us Covered?

Mehre Taban

Published

on

It is widely said and preached that one is responsible for one’s actions, but little do we pay attention to our actions towards our atmosphere. To cut it short, the ever-increasing temperature, scorching heat from the Sun and unbearable summers are all due to us-the humans. It may come to us as a shock, but it is the truth. Hotter days are the consequence of global warming. Global warming is the unusual rapid increase in the average temperature of earth. The Earth is getting hotter and hotter day by day due to human activities. Human inventions which involve burning fossil fuels(coal, oil, and natural gas) for industrial and domestic purposes is one of the major causes of global warming as combustion of these release methane, nitrogen oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, etc.  but most importantly carbon dioxide (CO2).

Even though carbon dioxide is a natural greenhouse gas which helps sunlight reach the Earth but it also prevents some of the heat from radiating back into space but this is a natural process to keep the Earth’s temperature within limit otherwise we would have frozen to death. But the main concern here is that we are adding extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels which is causing great problems to deal with. Scientists are burning the midnight oil to address this pressing issue and save our planet. They have come up with ways to prevent carbon emissions by using carbon-free devices and if not prevent then at least with ways to get rid of this extra carbon dioxide that we have added and continue to add in the environment.

One of the ways that lets 90% of the carbon dioxide to get rid of is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This technique collects the carbon dioxide from the emission sources, transports it to a storage location -underground and/or underwater and “dumps” it there. The method of Carbon Capturing has been in use for many years or to be precise for decades to get speedy recovery of oil and gas in industries, but it is only now that scientists have thought it to use for environmental reasons.

Carbon Capturing is done using three ways. All of them prevent up to 90% of the carbon dioxide from making the atmosphere toxic. One of the ways is ‘post-combustion capturing’ which lets us capture carbon dioxide after the fossil fuels are burnt. In the technique, a ‘filter’ can be added to the power-plant and the job is done. It allows us to modify the old plants with low expense. The second method is ‘pre-combustion capturing’ in which the carbon is collected before the fuel is burned. Unfortunately, this method is costly because new plants must be employed. The last and third method is ‘oxy-combustion capturing’ which separates carbon dioxide form steam after the fuel has been burnt in oxygen.

After the carbon capturing process comes the transportation step. Carbon dioxide can be transported in three states-solid, liquid, and gaseous. Solid CO2also known as dry ice, is very hazardous and sometimes fatal so it is very dangerous to transport, it would require huge manpower and it is also not very much friendly monetarily. So, transporting carbon dioxide in solid state is not feasible.  It is also possible to transport carbon dioxide in liquid state through ships and tankers butliquid carbon dioxideneeds low pressure and a constant low temperature, so cargo tankers or ships must be both pressurized and refrigerated. For that special mechanisms ought to be installed which is again not very pocket friendly but still in use as it does not go very hard on budget. The last option is to transport it in gaseous form. This is the best possible option and widely in use because in gaseous form, carbon dioxide is transported through pipelines which can be installed anywhere- underground or underwater (on sea-beds). A compressor compresses the gas all the way through the pipeline and moves it forward. Occasionally, a pipeline will have compressors after a measured distance to keep the gas moving and avoid any interruption. The CO2 must be free of any impurities and moisture or else, it can corrode the pipes. But pipelines built from stainless steel are said to have a low risk of corrosion.

As much as this method of transportation sounds easy and feasible, it is not. The reason being that this is a new method and there is not much data regarding this. There have not yet been many accidents due to mishandling or pipe leakage but the ones that occurred have gone without much harm. If there is leakage of carbon dioxide at a place, a condition called asphyxiation is common. It is shortness of breath due to lack of oxygen and excess of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas. To avoid accidents due to leakage one thing that can be done is to add color and odor to the gas before transporting.

The last step in this method is storing the carbon dioxide. There are three possibilities to store carbon dioxide- in deep geological formations, underwater and in the form of mineral carbonates.

Considering storing carbon dioxide as mineral carbonates which is done by reacting CO2 with naturally occurring magnesium and calcium to form their respective carbonates which are very stable so there is no possibility of re-formation of carbon dioxide but this is a very slow process under normal conditions. It requires high temperature and pressure along with some catalyst. Once it is done then we are good to go.

The second option of storing it under water also seems quite promising but the environmental effects are believed to be very terrible. The excess carbon dioxide in the water reacts with water to form carbonic acid which leads to acidification of oceans. Also, the extra carbon dioxide in the water acts as asphyxiant and breathing becomes difficult for marine organisms. The last option is to store it underground. Carbon dioxide is stored in deep geological formations known as geological sequestration. In this technique, carbon dioxide is converted to ‘supercritical carbon dioxide’ which is a runny liquid. It is then injected into sedimentary rocks and the runny liquid then seeps into them underground. Various physical and geochemical mechanisms prevent carbon dioxide from escaping.

Although ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ technique seems like a miracle solution, but it is important to keep in mind that it is not a permanent solution. It is just a way to get rid off already present carbon dioxide and we surely should not emit more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere thinking that CCS has got it all covered. It should be given keen intention that we should still come up with ways and devices with little or no carbon emission. Fossil fuels should not be used anymore. Rather than wasting time and money on coming up with ways to get rid of carbon dioxide being emitted, our goal should be to get invested in replacing fossil fuels with alternatives which has less adverse effects to the environment.

Continue Reading

Green Planet

Organic Farming and Climate Change

Alek Karci Kurniawan

Published

on

In early 2019, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, published an interesting study related to the effects of organic agriculture on the Earth’s climate. Stefan Wirsenius, Professor of environmental sciences who wrote the study concluded that organic food production has a worse impact on the climate as compared to conventional farming methods. Summary of the thesis published in Ekologisk news mat ärsämreförklimatet by chalmers. seon 8th January, 2019.

The approach is based on the argument that organic food requires a larger area of ​​land, so it contributes more to deforestation. The data source was statistics on total production in Sweden — yields per hectare for organic versus conventional agriculture for 2013-2015.

Findings in Sweden showed that yields from organic foodper hectare were much lower – mainly because there was no fertilizer used. Thus, a much larger area of ​​land was needed to produce organic food with the same amount of that produced by conventional method.

Until now, it is still a problem formulation for environmental experts and observers regarding what systems are suitable for developing sustainable global agriculture. It is due to the number of human populations continues to grow as a geometric progression, while the growth of food resources for consumption moves slowly following the arithmetical count.

Is it true that the organic farming system is no more sustainable than conventional farming system? Certainly it is not enough to conclude from one sample in an area. Even the different methods used in a system that want to be applied in the same area can show different results.

Simply put, the essence of organic farming emphasizes locality or the use of surrounding resources to grow plants – not dependent on industrial chemicals that help agricultural production. Then the problem is that there are certainly different and highly diverse local resources in each region.

There are areas with local resources that are sufficient to replace chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, there are also areas with very little local resources. It is not that simple, every local resource available must further be tested for its compatibility with local land. Whether or not organic farming is successful depends on it.

Several things needed are water resistance testing, comparison of soil texture, observation of the development of land ecosystems, and how toself-produce vegetable extracts from local resources for pest repellant.

December 2018 ago, in an activity covering the organic rice harvest in Sumpur Kudus Sub-District, Sijunjung Regency, West Sumatra, Indonesia, I found facts that were contrary to the Wirsenius Thesis that we discussed earlier. Through organic farming system, farmers in Sumpur Kudus could produce 7.7 tons of rice per hectare. Previously, through fertilization and spraying methods, farmers in Sumpur Kudus produced 4 tons of rice per hectare. Their production costs were reduced and organic rice could be sold at a higher value than the price of common rice.

These results were obtained after conducting a compatibility test between the local resources and local land. A group of organic rice farmers in Sumpur Kudus found that unburnt straw was the most powerful material in maintaining water sustainability for their rice fields. Meanwhile, the highest nutrient content was found in a mixture of rice mud with cow dung. To repel pests, they replaced pesticides with papaya leaf extract.

Rice is only one example of various types of plants that can be applied to organic farming system. But the point is whether local resources are sufficient and suitable to support the agriculture. We can get different yields in one hectare of land if we use different local materials to support agriculture.

Another experience was found by Verena Seufert and Navin Ramankutty, both of whom are geography professors from the University of British Columbia. They conducted a study on the application of organic agriculture in North America, Europe and India. In an article entitled “Organic Farming Matters, Just Not In The Way You Think”, the researchers found that organic farming was up to 35% more profitable than conventional farming. In a number of regions, organic agriculture provides more rural employment opportunities because organic management is more labor intensive than conventional practice. In terms of health, the biggest advantage is that organic system can reduce exposure to toxic agrochemicals.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Diplomacy6 hours ago

Geopolitical Theory of Water

Geopolitics, as an autonomous discipline, has a very particular cultural genesis, and it is not possible to ignore the deepening...

Terrorism8 hours ago

Cross-border links between terrorists, organized crime, underscore need for coherent global response

The nexus between terrorism and organized crime took centre stage in the Security Council on Thursday, with experts raising fresh concerns over...

Newsdesk11 hours ago

Beirut blast: Here’s how you can help the UN aid Lebanon’s recovery

After a devasting blast ripped through Beirut Port in Lebanon on Tuesday, wounding thousands and rendering hundreds of thousands homeless,...

Americas13 hours ago

Latin America – Russia: An Agenda for Constructive Cooperation in the Post-COVID-19 Era

On Tuesday, August 4, the outstanding video-conference “Latin America – Russia: an Agenda for Constructive Cooperation in the Post-COVID-19 Era”...

Africa15 hours ago

How COVID-19 pandemic affected South Africa

At present, South Africa is the world’s fifth in the number of coronavirus cases. The epidemiological situation in the country...

Tech News17 hours ago

Landmark Agreement Unites Parties in Boosting Commercial Space Operations in California

Leaders from the State of California, REACH, the 30th Space Wing, Cal Poly State University and Deloitte today announced a...

Central Asia19 hours ago

Localism in Tajikistan: How would it affect Power Shift?

Localism has been a common characteristic of all post-Soviet Central Asian Republics. However, this trait emerged in different ways; the...

Trending