In Bangladesh, An Entire Nation Grapples With The Concept Of Drowning - Independent

EDIT

It is hard to gauge the exact extent of the local devastation caused by climate change because severe flooding and catastrophic river erosion are part of every day life in rural Bangladesh. But the island of Aralia, in the Haor flood plain of north-east Bangladesh has, in the past 50 years, diminished to a fifth of its size, according to its older residents Ask anyone over 40 about the island of their childhoods and they describe fertile fields, green trees and animals, an island of plenty, where children grew up healthy and went to school. Today, Shamola's misfortunes are becoming the norm as flooding and river erosion become ever more common. Non-government agencies working with Bangladesh's poor, as well as scientists throughout the world, are convinced that climate change is to blame for the dramatic increase in this flooding.

With a population of 150 million, Bangladesh is the world's most densely populated country. A series of straddling deltas of some of the world's biggest rivers, Bangladesh is at risk not only from rising sea levels, but the increased flow of water caused by more rain and glacial melt from the Himalayas. At this rate of flooding and erosion, 20 per cent of Bangladesh could be under water by 2100. All this despite the average Bangladeshi using just one tenth of the carbon emissions of any European, and one 25th of the average citizen of the United States.

And the people whose lives are most catastrophically affected by this flooding and erosion are, inevitably, the poorest and most vulnerable. As Nazmul Chadhury, of the UK's Practical Action, says: "Forget about making poverty history; climate change will make poverty permanent.'' Climate change may not immediately cause life-threatening catastrophe for the very poor and vulnerable, but when you visit Shamola and her neighbours on the island of Aralia you see that they are, statistically, inextricably linked. Shamola lives with her remaining five children, all under 12, in her aunt's one-room house. The room measures about two by four metres, and it's impossible to imagine what feat of geometry enables five children and three adults to sleep here at night. But somehow they do. Shamola's mother, Aysha Begum, says that the island was once a good place for a family. "There was no poverty or hunger," she says. "We were healthy and strong. We ate milk and butter."

Everything began to change about 20 years ago, after the l988 flood virtually wiped out the entire population of the island. Then, in 2004, many people who had rebuilt their lives on the island lost their homes. "That's where our house used to be," says Shamola, pointing into the muddy waters, quite close to the mangrove swamp where her son is buried. In the past 20 years, she adds, the flooding has become more extreme and the island was continually eroded. At the same time, sickness has increased among the old and young. Poor diet is one reason for the increased sickness; a sanitation system collapsing under the numbers who use it is another. The islanders use "hanging" toilets, perilous contraptions made from bamboo which hang from the backs of houses, like "long drops", over the water's edge. Cholera, typhoid, severe gastric problems, conjunctivitis, blindness and stunted growth are some of the many health problems derived from malnutrition and appalling sanitation.

EDIT

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2458848.ece

be able to generate lots of electricity as the water rushes in.

The dead bodies can be biodigested to make a wonderful renewable fuel.

Also the newly flooded areas would be wonderful places to put algae farms to make biodiesel for cars and trucks.

That's some bitter snark there. :P

when the Indians have been practicing hydrologic warfare on the Bangladeshis for like, over a century.

What, all the shit the Indians do upstream on the Brahmaputra and Ganges hasn't affected the surface area of that island? Urbanization? Water diversions? Dams???

The Ganges drains an area of one million square kilometers. It's got the third highest flow of any river on earth. It's also home to a mind bending number of people. Heavy metals, raw sewage, half-burned bodies... it's got the worst possible types of waste in it.

The Brahmaputra sounds less hammered than the Ganges, but together these rivers drain the entire south Himalayan slope, which is a big slope and probably pretty flashy with snowmelt and the monsoons.

Finally, not to blame the victims, but Bangladesh has had incredible population increases too, which can't help the health of those poor rivers. :(

Blaming climate change seems like a cop-out in this instance, like why should anyone be bothered to take immediate local action when they're all screwed anyway? :shrug:

The Ganges is listed along with three other major Asian Rivers as being among the world's 10 most threatened rivers. The other two are the Yangzte and the Sulaween.

It matters of course that the sources of these three rivers are all Himilayans glaciers. Glaciers all over the world are under threat from climate change.

Like all riverine deltas, including that of the Mississippi, restricted river flows have a huge impact on land mass.

However there is almost no doubt that the rising sea level will hit Bengladesh harder than most highly populated countries.

It's not that there is just one environmental catastrophe in Bengladesh, but rather a plethora of environmental catastrophes all of which to some extent play upon the other.

One might argue that climate change itself is a function of population dynamics, of course. But rather insist on focusing on one cause to the exclusion of all others, it is better to view the problem as systematic.

There is no doubt in my mind that climate change alone could kill tens of millions of Bengalis, but the death of the river will also kill.

Bengladesh has been pumping ground water contaminated with arsenic (from natural arsenic ores) for several decades now. It has been an awful situation and there is no hope that it will get better.

The bottom line is though, that the Western World couldn't care less. We're far more concerned about the environmentally correct way to grill a steak.

I think I'll skip it. Thanks though for the helpful suggestion. If I start eating meat, I'll keep this contraption in mind.

It's my son's birthday and his aunt and uncle bought him a solar reflecting dish that's supposed to heat a test tube. (Maybe they're concerned about his mean old pro-nuke dad.) It isn't working. It's been out in the sun for two hours now and the water isn't boiling.