The Hegemonic Ways of the Western Scientific Community

I haven’t attended this blog for some time feeling fearful after the unchallenged ascendance of the PAD yellow shirts, who flouted the law with impunity in the occupation of government house and siege of the Suvanabhumi airport and, up till now, with nary a single PAD person arrested, then the case of Harry Nicolaides, who was fortunately released, and more recently, the flight of Giles Ungpakorn to England to escape lese majeste charges.

I recently attended a conference to build adaptive capacity for managing change in Asia’s coastal megacities given the increasing frequency of intense weather patterns (drought, rains, typhoons) in combination with land subsidence and sea level rise. The conference was supported by prestigious scientific groups, well endowed academic institutions and a multilateral bank.

The situation among Asia’s megacities was counterposed to those of small island nations who have made their voices heard in the debate on global warming being under threat of permanent submersion when sea levels rise. On the contrary, Asia’s megacities are found wanting in coming up with an agenda to increase awareness among its citizens and prepare themselves for the worst to come as well as building networks to share expertise and experience in dealing with climate change with other similar cities.

The case of Bangkok was highlighted in one of the first sessions by a representative of the World Bank (WB) who declared that a recent study reported a study that by the year 2050, “30 to 35% of Bangkok will be inundated”. In response to a question from the floor about whether this state would be permanent or temporary, the answer was that it was going to be a permanent state. On the second day, a representative of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) involved in this WB study as well as the technical advisor to the WB study from the Asian Institute of Technology pointed out that the dire scenario assumptions were based on a combination of both high precipitation in the north swelling river volumes, continuing land subsidence in Bangkok and a storm surge. The worst scenarios were divided into two as is usual in planning forecasts, those with no mitigation measures and with mitigation measures in place. There was nothing specific in the presentation about the role of deforestation in the north in increasing runoff in the Chao Phraya river nor an indication that the sea front Amphurs (districts) of Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakarn would be permanently inundated, although maps showed these to be the most vulnerable to flooding.

The message from the organizers appeared ambiguous for the simple reason that present level scientific data of what it is exactly to expect is imprecise since modeling data is based on global/regional variables. In other words, in the case of Bangkok, it is difficult to imagine the worst possible scenario (the big event) in much the same way that no one before 2004 would have believed that a tsunami would hit Thailand (except Smith Dharmasaroj who was called a “mad dog” for his warnings since 1998). Therefore, the ability to persuade Bangkokians to prepare for the worst unseen and perhaps has never yet been experienced before on the shock scale of a “Katrina” will be a major challenge. Bangkok is fortunate enough not to be on the typhoon zone, unlike the case of Manila where flooding risks are exacerbated by the presence of densely occupied slum and squatter settlements and the higher frequency of typhoons. The previous deputy governor of the BMA optimistically described the flood infrastructure improvements of Bangkok such as its network of pumping stations and existing dikes that can protect the city up to a sea level rise of 2.5 meters. The study appears to show that the worst case scenario for Bangkok would be manageable, and would not be in the order of a catastrophic or permanent inundation. Still, it is worth bearing in mind the assumptions of the study which is a combination of high precipitation from the north, land subsidence, and a storm surge. A Japanese expert explained in a conversation that the greatest danger to Bangkok would be a storm surge that would hit close to Bangkok from the western side that would then raise sea levels to more dangerous levels. Projected sea level rise by 2050 (from global warming effects) according to a Thai professor is expected to be within 30 to 35 centimeters from the present mean. The worst case scenario of ice sheets in Greenland melting completely raises that amount to (permanent) 7 meters sea level rise, with Thailand’s coastal population at greatest risk (already at 5 meter sea level rise) compared to other countries.

It seemed apparent from the scientific panel discussing the science of climate change that research agendas are primarily determined by an exclusive club of rich Western countries (including Japan, China and Taiwan). There is no mystery in that; not only was global warming given impetus by the great industrial revolution of the West and the consequent large ecological footprints of its expanding system of cities by virtue of first arrival in the high stakes game of economic development, but the West has also developed the most advanced scientific research infrastructure. The immediate issue that came to mind is whether or not the state of preparedness (and awareness) of these developing countries’ coastal megacities would be better if there had been local scientific validation of western data and determination of specificity of threat to individual coastal cities. Clearly the status quo in the unequal distribution of research infrastructures cannot produce finer scientific data specific to these Asian megacities at present, and as such these megacities are dependent on macro data that may lead to inaccurate or even costly decisions. Asian megacities need to double check the assumptions and question the models used so that a more detailed range of worst case scenarios can be specified with the associated appropriate responses utilizing more efficiently scarce resources.

In sum, the key issue for planners is not to contribute to the denial about global warming. On the contrary, planners need to find ways to communicate these threats to the public without necessarily sounding alarmist (and putting one’s mental state on the line) in terms of the degree of imaginary renderings of calamities that could or could not happen to an equally ignorant public. The agenda of the scientific community remains in my view unclear. Is the purpose to raise general awareness so that more resources are brought to bear in predicting and preparing adequately for these scenarios? In times of economic recession, scarce resources must be utilized efficiently such that anticipatory building of new expensive infrastructure must be appropriate to the specific threat (i.e., not blindly aping the 8 meter sea wall around Tokyo) and will not further hurt the chances for long term economic recovery for these megacities that serve as engines of growth for the country. Perish the thought that infrastructure building than what would be necessary (via loans) could surpass the Obama stimulus package. Alternatively, governance structures of these coastal cities that have not been included in the discussion need to be explored in varying country situations that range from severe organizational weakness to some level of sophistication. Finally, the focus on megacities seemed biased against equally vulnerable smaller cities that by far would have even fewer resources to cope than megacities. There seemed to be an underlying assumption that the burden of coping with migration of people from smaller cities as a result of climate related calamities would fall on megacities, a rather defeatist and irresponsible approach to communities that may very well be able to fashion their own solutions (by starting right now) to mitigate the effects of global warming through careful land use planning.