Climate change to hit agriculture hardest, warns weather expert
Significant
climate change
is expected in the coming years with temperatures projected to rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 and this alarming trend is set to impact agriculture the most, warned an expert and researcher on Monday.
#Pahalgam Terrorist Attack
Pakistan's economy has much more to lose than India's due to the ongoing tensions, warns Moody's Ratings
The day Pakistan got the power to poke India
India demands ADB to stop funds to Pakistan as fallout of Pahalgam terror attack deepens
Dr Anjal Prakash
, Associate Professor (Research) and Research Director at the Bharti Institute of Public Policy, the Indian School of Business (ISB), Hyderabad, stressed that every individual has a role in mitigating climate impacts.
A key contributor to the UN's climate reports for the past two years, he noted that climate change, a phenomenon that refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, will have the most severe effects on the agriculture sector. While urban areas and coastal cities will also face risks, rural farming communities will bear the brunt of this crisis.
Among the 20 most polluted cities in the world, 14 cities are in India, he said at a press conference in Latur.
Prakash urged citizens to take steps to safeguard the environment and added "In the future, we will have to face drought, heavy rainfall, storms." Maharashtra, he said, has nearly 750-km-long coastline and due to rise in temperatures, there is a threat to many countries and cities located in coastal areas.
Live Events
During the press conference, Prakash presented scientific findings and emphasized the need for urgent
climate responsive planning
.
Former MLC and chairperson of the Maharashtra State Agriculture Price Commission Pasha Patel, who was also present at the press meet, said the government is raising awareness among farmers about
bamboo cultivation
and encouraging its large-scale adoption.
Highlighting the state government's ambitious 'Green Maharashtra' declaration, which targets plantation on 21 lakh hectares, Patel emphasized that special efforts will be made to boost bamboo cultivation as part of this drive.
Awareness programmes will be held to educate farmers about the benefits of bamboo, known for its environmental and economic value, the former legislator maintained.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities: The radiation leak threat, explained
The United States attacked three key nuclear installations in Iran on Sunday morning (June 22), with President Donald Trump claiming that all the three facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated.' The US attacks follow a series of missile strikes by Israel last week, also targeting Iran's nuclear installations, most notably Natanz, which was a target of Sunday's US bombing as well. Sunday's attacks targeted Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities, all of them key uranium enrichment sites that house the infrastructure to convert natural uranium into highly-enriched uranium (HEU) that can potentially be used to make a nuclear bomb. Enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of Uranium-235 (U235) in a sample of natural uranium which is primarily — more than 99 per cent — Uranium-238 (U238). It is only U-235 that is fissile, meaning its nucleus is susceptible to being broken (fissionable) through a process that produces energy, and is capable of sustaining a chain reaction. An enrichment of 3-5 per cent is adequate for producing electricity in nuclear power stations, but for making nuclear weapons, HEU, which has concentrations of 90 per cent or more of U235, is required. The attacks have led to fears of a major nuclear disaster, in the form of nuclear explosion, or at least largescale nuclear radiation leaks. However, an explosion is not expected under these circumstances, and thankfully, no major radiation leak has been detected so far. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said it had not seen any increase in 'off-site radiation levels' following Sunday's attacks. Iran has also said that there was no risk to public health because of the attacks. A nuclear bomb is very different from the traditional explosives and chemicals used in warfare. Traditional bombs use a variety of chemicals that are generally designed to explode on impact, like when they are dropped. These chemical explosives can go off in other circumstances as well, like when they are exposed to heat or friction. These are explosive in themselves, and can get triggered and cause damage even when they are not used in the way they are designed to. Specifically, stored chemical explosives can lead to blasts when these are struck by other weapons. Nuclear weapons, or nuclear material, do not behave like that. A nuclear bomb causes damage not by exploding the way traditional bombs do, but by releasing very high amounts of energy in a very short span of time. This large amount of energy sets off a series of processes that cause widespread damage. Nuclear weapons are designed to detonate mid-air, not on impact like traditional explosives. They release a massive amount of energy in a few milliseconds, which heats up the surrounding air to millions of degrees Celsius, leading to the formation of what are known as blast waves, an expanding bubble of extremely hot air. Most of the damage is caused by these blast waves. A nuclear explosion also releases electromagnetic radiations of different kinds, and these also cause a lot of destruction. The release of energy from a nuclear device is the result of completion of the chain reaction in the fissile material. The initiation of the chain reaction requires a very precise set of processes to be followed and very precise conditions. These precise conditions cannot be met accidentally, or when the fissile material is under some kind of stress, like when it is struck by a missile or a bomb. That is why the Israeli, or the American, strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities do not result in a risk of a nuclear explosion. The sites, and the infrastructure it contained, could have been damaged, but there is no likelihood of a nuclear explosion. But what about radiation leak This is a more realistic threat. There are risks of both chemical and radiological leaks. Nuclear facilities, by their very nature, store a lot of radioactive substances, particularly uranium in different forms, including in gaseous state like uranium hexafluoride (UF6), and dust. Radioactive substances are unstable and release radiation over time. Some of these radiations, like gamma rays, are extremely harmful. They can penetrate the skin, damage cells and DNA, and can cause cancer. These radioactive substances are stored, and handled, in carefully designed containers in any nuclear facility. These facilities are constructed in ways to minimise the risk of any leak of radioactive substances in outer environment or in sources of water or food. An attack on these facilities, like the one carried out by Israel or the US, can damage or disrupt the mechanisms that ensure safe storage and handling of these substances. Two of the biggest instances of radiological leaks are the accidents that happened in Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. In both these cases, largescale radioactive substances escaped into the atmosphere as a result of accidents, posing a major threat to human beings and others. A more recent threat was seen at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine that has been caught in the fight between Russian and Ukrainian forces. The Zaporizhzhia plant is the largest in Europe, and has come under direct attack several times during the conflict. Thankfully, it continues to operate safely. The IAEA, which monitors nuclear activities worldwide, including radiation incidents, has said there has been no increase in radiation levels in areas surrounding the targeted sites in Iran. '…the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time. IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available,' it said on Sunday morning, within hours of the US attack.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Economic Times
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
Bloomberg Live Events Bloomberg (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
