“If not us, who? If not now, when?”

at the inaugural in New York City, MAa 2008.

Prof. Rowland at the inaugural in New York City, MAa 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

GUEST POST by Rajendra Shende, Chairman, TERRE Policy Centre, former Director, UNEP

 
In 1997, these words reverberated at the round table in The White House, Washington DC – spoken by a Nobel Laureate.
 
Prof F. Sherwood Rowland, a chemist with a grit and a grace to match, not only sounded the alarm on the thinning of the Earth’s ozone layer but also crusaded against the use of man-made chemicals that were harming earth’s atmospheric blanket.  He was, in a high level meeting of the scientists, urging the world community to march for the action against the common enemy: climate change!
 
His discourse and his emphatic words had no shade of rhetoric and no shadow of grandiloquence. He was speaking with confidence emanating from the success of the Montreal Protocol.
 
Prof. Rowland passed away on 10th March 2012. He  laid his life at the age of 84 after saving all of us from one of the worst environmental catastrophe. He was born when the refrigerators were using absorption technologies and in some cases Sulfur Dioxide and Methyl Fromate as refrigerants.  Soon the so called ‘Freons’ –CFCs were introduced. In a way, in his life, Prof Rowland saw the ‘rise and fall’ of CFCs. His unwavering commitment to unfolding science, and grit to face inconvenient truths was displayed with unusual integrity and a grace of angel.
 
Rowland was among three scientists awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry –nearly two decades after he, along with his post-doctoral student Mario Molina, hypothesized how the ozone is formed and decomposed through chemical processes in the atmosphere and if human use of CFC, used in of aerosol sprays, deodorants and other household products was to continue at an unaltered rate, the ozone layer would be depleted after several decades.
 
I was studying Chemical Engineering in Indian Institute of Technology-IIT Mumbai, when the postulation of ozone depletion due to CFCs formulated by Prof Rowland, Paul Crutzen, and Mario Molina caught enormous attention. It was a time in when Indian Chemical Industry was entering second phase of takeoff.  The prediction of these scientists was strongly challenged partly because the non-toxic properties of CFCs were thought to make them environmentally safe.
 
Then came the debate of the developed and developing country’s ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. I was fortunate to be part of that debate in which I took part at close quarters.  Fortunate, because I was able to contribute to some extent in resolving the impasse by suggesting ‘strategic cooperation’ between developed and developing countries. The technology and financial cooperation was initiated under auspices of United Nations Environment Programme –UNEP. Rest is the history of success that started with Prof. Rowland’s courage to speak on his scientific findings.
 
“Isn’t it a responsibility of scientists, if you believe that you have found something that can affect the environment, isn’t it your responsibility to do something about it, enough so that action actually takes place?” Rowland said in that White House climate change roundtable in 1997.
 
It looks like history repeats more in failures than in successes. Early warning on climate change by scientists is also being debated and argued for decades now. Implementation to save our earth from climatic catastrophe is still eluding us. There is ample support by the climate-scientists that the present assessment of the risk is even underestimated.
 
Prof Rowland has departed but considering the underestimated risks, his words will continue to resonate: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”
 
Advertisements

Comments

  1. “Isn’t it a responsibility of scientists, if you believe that you have found something that can affect the environment, isn’t it your responsibility to do something about it, enough so that action actually takes place?”

    In many countries (including mine, Canada), it seems like the problem is the lack of trust in science and in scientists. We can debate the cause of this lack of trust, but the result is that we (in Canada) are not even discussing climate change. Our carbon emissions are actually increasing and our economy is becoming more and more focused on fossil fuel extraction.

Comments (moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.