The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) has forecast a normal monsoon for 2008. This is good news. A good monsoon will help Indian agriculture sustain a 4 per cent growth rate, rein in food price inflation and improve food security for the poor. However, the way we use a good monsoon is in need of urgent change. For millennia, the Indian farmer has used rainwater to raise his main kharif crop, making agriculture risk-prone. Mid-season or terminal dry spells during the monsoon period often result in halving of crop yields. Canal irrigation was thought to be an answer to this problem.
But even after 200 years of canal building, less than 15 per cent of Indian farmlands benefit from canal irrigation. The rest is either rain-fed or supported by some 20 million farmer-owned irrigation wells. In sustaining well-irrigation lies the future of Indian farming.
Thanks to groundwater development, Indian agriculture today is far less susceptible to the vagaries of the monsoon. Irrigated rabi wheat has become the most important crop in large swathes of India. In West Bengal, irrigated boro rice has helped break its agrarian gridlock. In the semi-arid west and south, a booming dairy economy is sustained by lightly irrigated fodder millets during summer.
Contrary to popular thinking, the marginal farmer is at the forefront of the groundwater revolution. During 1970-1995, marginal and small farms increased their groundwater-irrigated area by 400 per cent. Large farms increased it by only 60 per cent. Governments at the centre and in the states keep investing heavily in dams and canals. These projects have guzzled crores of rupees, claimed most monsoon run-off areas but have added nothing to the irrigated areas since 1990.
We need to rethink our use of the monsoon for improved water security. This is especially true in the hard rock aquifer areas of peninsular India — 65 per cent of our land mass — where dry-land agriculture depends increasingly upon crop-saving supplemental irrigation from over 11 million open dug wells. In 86 million hectares of India's rain-fed areas, mid-season or terminal droughts regularly take their toll on kharif crops.
Traditionally, the Indian farmer has used his dug well only for taking out water from the aquifer. This needs to change. Managed properly, dug wells can be excellent devices for putting monsoon floodwaters into the aquifers to be retrieved during dry spells to save crops. Scientists scoff at the idea because Americans and Australians do not use dug wells for recharge. But they overlook the fact that westerners do not have the millions of dug wells that we have and we do not have the vast uninhabited swathes that they have. We must design our recharge strategy around what we have.
Our dug wells are often built as collector wells with a huge capacity for storage. For instance, in Kolar and Coimbatore, they are over 10 metres in diameter and 30-50 metres deep. Farmers commonly make several lateral bores inside them to access surrounding water-bearing formations. When recharged, such wells can also dispatch water to those water-bearing formations.
What hard-rock India needs is a new mindset of managing dug wells as dual-purpose structures, for taking out water when needed, and putting water into the aquifers when surplus is running off during a good monsoon. Presently, water available for recharge is estimated after allowing for the requirements of existing and planned surface reservoirs.
We need to take up an intensive project to rethink the ways to harness a good monsoon. First, extensive groundwater recharge should get priority claim on reservoir water after power generation. Second, farmers must be exposed to the benefits of recharging wells with monsoon floodwaters rather than turning it away from wells as they have always done. Third, farmers should be helped to desilt floodwaters before recharge. Fourth, they should be encouraged to desilt their wells every 3-5 years. Fifth, economic incentives should be offered to villages that take to recharge. Sixth, funds from schemes like NREGS should be allocated for deepening existing wells and digging new wells provided they are recharge-enabled. Finally, instead of regulating well-digging, groundwater laws should elicit farmer participation in the recharge campaign.
If all 11 million dug wells in hard-rock India are recharge-enabled, during a good monsoon, these can add 25-30 billion cubic metres of water to the aquifers, and provide crop-saving supplemental irrigation. Over the years, a sustained recharge campaign can drought-proof kharif crops and also sustain some rabi or summer irrigation. It will also increase lean season flows in rivers, revive wetlands and reduce the high fluoride contamination in groundwater, which is a public health hazard in hard-rock areas.
The economics of recharge are highly attractive too. It costs just around Rs. 5,000 to modify a dug well for recharge and support supplemental irrigation on 2-2.5 hectares. Compare this with the estimated Rs. 2 lakh it costs to cover one hectare by canal irrigation. At the national level, a groundwater recharge campaign can pay for itself many times over simply by
reducing farm power subsidies.
In recent decades, India has emerged as the world's largest groundwater user. Nowhere else in the world are hard-rock aquifers under vast areas so intensively used as here. There is a dire need to rethink our 'monsoon strategy' in the wake of this reality.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 10 July 2008
Efforts are afoot in Bangalore to make rainwater harvesting compulsory to address the problem of impending water shortage. There are other such proposals to counter the shortfall problem. I hear how waste plastic will be used to make roads. Have the city fathers considered studying the Chicago model? Chicago has 2,500 km of small service streets that bisect blocks, so the city is known as the alley capital of America. These alleys bisect Chicago's north and south sides and have garbage cans and garages that allow its main streets to be clean and less congested. The alleys are tough to maintain, are prone to flooding and dump runoff into a strained sewer system. So, Chicago is planning to retrofit its alleys with environmentally sustainable road materials under its Green Alley initiative. Water will penetrate the soil through the pavement itself, which consists of a new but little-used technology of permeable concrete or porous asphalt. Then the water, filtered through stone beds under the permeable surface layer, recharges the underground water table instead of ending up as polluted runoff. They say some of that water may end up back in Lake Michigan from which Chicago takes a billion gallons a year.
Our techies can study how the retrofitted pavements will deflect or reflect heat from the sun instead of absorbing it, helping the city to stay cool. They say the green alleys will stay warmer on cool days. The alleys will be given the kinds of lighting that conserve power and reduce glare and the paving will be with recycled materials. The Green Alley initiative is an ongoing one, and we can learn from their experience, getting in, as it were, on the ground floor. How are they going to tackle the comprehensive restructuring programme to replace the uneven alley lines that exist? Chicago also has an expert panel that will begin permitting processes for builders to use green techniques. Chicago has already started rooftop gardens to collect rainwater while garbage trucks have emission controlling. Indeed, these latter two techniques are already known here. Bangalore - and our other cities - may gain from studying the Chicago initiative. My worry is that under the pretext of studying it, our netas will make foreign jaunts with two dozen so-called delegates, spending two dozen weeks in two dozen countries at public expense.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 28 July 2008
Need for Pro-Active Approach for Groundwater Recharging!
As water is emerging as a very contentious issue in the backdrop of crisis in many states during the summer period, the meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee addressed by the minister for water resources in New Delhi has rightly stressed on the need for a balanced development of surface and groundwater resources in the country.
As groundwater occupied an important place in the overall water scenario and it needed focused attention for proper recharge and management, the Ministry of Water Resources is required to pay special attention to the conservation and re-charge of groundwater resources in the country as water was becoming scarce in many states owing to population explosion.
Till alternate sources are not tapped in the water deficit states, replenishment of groundwater was a pre-requisite need of the nation.
In view of the diminishing fresh water resource and increase in its demand, it has become essential to properly manage ground water resources and devote attention to the conservation and recharge aspects. Various speakers including the minister rightly emphasized on the need to adopt a pro-active and pragmatic approach to ensure further development of groundwater in a sustainable manner.
The Central Groundwater Authority has notified 43 areas for regulation of groundwater development and management but a lot remains to be done to tide over the crisis and for making the ground water available in required quantities in future.
The water resouces minister, who welcomed the suggestions made by the members in the meeting, should take the feasible suggestions on record for incorporation while formulating policies and schemes for development of water resources in the country.
The Himachal Times (Dehradun), 27 Aug. 2008
विनाश की ऊर्जा
यह विडंबना ही हैं कि अधिक बिजली पैदा करने के मकसद से उत्तराखंड में गंगा नदी पर चलाई जा रही बांध परियोजनाएं विकास के नाम पर विनाश को न्योता दे रही हैं। प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का निहायत अविवेकपूर्ण ढंग से दोहन किया जा रहा है। टिहरी में भागीरथी पर बने एशिया के सबसे ऊंचे बांध के अलावा अब गंगोत्री से उत्तरकाशी तक गंगा और उसकी सहायक नदियों पर बनाए जा रहे सात बांधों ने इस नदी का अस्तित्व ही खतरे में डाल दिया है। इन परियोजनाओं की वजह से गंगोत्री से उत्तरकाशी तक गंगा कुछ स्थानों पर अपने स्वाभाविक प्रवाह में नहीं,
बल्कि पंद्रह से बीस किलोमीटर लंबी सुरंगों में बहेगी। पर्यावरणाविदों के मुताबिक परियोजनाओं के तहत बनने वाली सुरंगें इस नदी को खा जाएंगी और बड़े पैमाने पर स्थानीय आबादी को अपना घर-बार गंवाना पड़ेगा।गौरतलब है कि टिहरी बांध बनने से करीब एक लाख लोग विस्थापित हो गए। जाहिर है
, इस तरह की दूसरी परियोजनाओं के भी कमोबेश ऐसे ही परिणाम होंगे। इन्हीं आशंकाओं के मद्देनजर जाने-माने पर्यावरणविद और आई.आई.टी. कानपुर में सिविल और पर्यावरण इंजीनियरिंग विभाग के अध्यक्ष रहे प्रोफेसर गुरूदास अग्रवाल को विरोध जताने के लिए अनशन पर बैठना पड़ा। शायद उनके ‘गंगा बचाओ आंदोलन’ से बने दबाव का ही असर रहा कि उत्तराखंड सरकार को पाल मनेरी और भैरों घाटी पर बन रही पनबिजली परियोजनाओं का काम रूकवाना पड़ा। राज्य के मुख्यमंत्री भुवनचंद्र खंडूरी का कहना है कि उनकी सरकार गंगा की शुद्धता बनाए रखने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध है। मगर इसी नदी पर बनाए जा रहे बाकी बांधों के बारे में उनकी सरकार का रूख अब तक साफ नहीं है। जबकि पर्यावरणविदों का मानना है कि गंगा को बचाए रखने के लिए सभी परियोजनाओं को तत्काल बंद करके पानी रोकने वाले सारे बांधों को खोलने की जरूरत है। राज्य में बाधों को लेकर प्रतिकूल वातावरण होने और भूकंप के लिहाज से अत्यंत संवेदनशील क्षेत्र माने जाने के बावजूद सरकार के साथ-साथ कुछ दसरे लोग गंगा बचाओ आंदोलन को महज भावात्मक विरोध करार दे रहे हैं। सरकार का दावा है कि गंगा की पनबिजली परियोजनाओं के जरिए आने वाले दस सालों में पच्चीस से तीस हजार मेगावाट बिजली का उत्पादन किया जा सकेगा। इससे राज्य की जरूरतें पूरी करने के अलावा उत्तर प्रदेश और दिल्ली को भी बिजली मुहैया कराई जा सकेगी। इस पहाड़ी राज्य में बिजली कारोबार के लिए कई निजी कंपनियां होड़ में हैं। दूसरी ओर, यह तथ्य है कि किसी भी बड़ी पनबिजली परियोजना से जितनी बिजली के उत्पादन का लक्ष्य रखा जाता है, वास्तव में उसका लगभग एक तिहाई से भी कम हिस्सा हासिल हो पाता है। जबकि बिजली उत्पादन की छोटी इकाइयों में पचास फीसद से भी ज्यादा बिजली प्राप्त की जा सकती है। फिर हिमालय में कई छोटी नदियां और झरने हैं, जिनसे पर्याप्त मात्रा में बिजली का उत्पादन किया जा सकता है। जिन्हें नदियों के खत्म होने से ज्यादा फिक्र अधिकतम बिजली पैदा करने को लेकर है, उन्हें महानगरों में हो रही बिजली की बर्बादी पर भी गौर करना चाहिए। यहां छोटे-मोटे काम के लिए भी बिजली पर निर्भरता बढ़ती गई है। दफ्तरों और बाजरों में वातानुकूलन संयंत्र और स्वचालित सीढ़ियों जैसे काफी खपत वाले विद्युत यंत्र बेवजह चलते देखे जाते हैं। इसके अलावा पारेषण क्षति और बड़े पैमाने पर बिजली की चोरी पर काबू पाने का कोई कारगर उपाय अब तक नहीं किया जा सका है। लिहाजा, नदियों पर अंधाधुंध बांधों के निर्माण से बिजली की समस्या से पार पाने का दावा नहीं किया जा सकता।जनसत्ता (नई दिल्ली), 5 Aug. 2008
Manmohan Unveils Action Plan on Climate Change
Reiterating its commitment, India on Monday said that despite developmental imperatives, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions would not exceed that of the developed industrialised countries.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said climate change was a challenge that could be overcome only through global, collaborative and cooperative efforts.
He was releasing the ‘National Action Plan on Climate Change’ here, ahead of the G-8 Summit to be held in Japan next week.
Developing countries want the industrialised nations to share the burden of reduction of GHG emissions. The developed world insists that the developing countries need to take greater steps to cut down on CO2 emissions.
For fair outcome
“India is prepared to play its role as a responsible member of the international community and make its own contribution. We are already doing so in the multilateral negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the outcome we are looking for must be effective, fair and equitable,” Dr. Singh said.
Every citizen on the planet must have an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space. Long-term convergence of per capita emission was, therefore, the only equitable basis for a global compact on climate change.
Broader perspective
Pointing out the need for rapid economic growth to overcome widespread poverty in the country, the Prime Minister said ecologically sustainable development need not be at odds with achieving the growth objectives. “In fact, we must have a broader perspective on development. It must include the quality of life, not merely the quantitative accretion of goods and services but a better standard of living.”
Key components
The National Action Plan encompasses a broad and extensive range of measures, and focusses on eight missions, which will be pursued as key components of the strategy for sustainable development. These include missions on solar
energy, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, conserving water, sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem, creating a “Green India,” sustainable agriculture and, finally, establishing a strategic knowledge platform for climate change.
The mission for sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem will include measures for sustaining and safeguarding the Himalayan glacier and mountain ecosystem as it is the source of key perennial rivers.
The Green India mission will enhance ecosystem services including carbon sinks, to be called Green India.
The sustainable agriculture mission intends making agriculture more resilient to climate change by identifying and developing new varieties of crops that are thermal-resistant and capable of withstanding extreme weather.
The mission on strategic knowledge will identify challenges and develop responses to climate change.
Solar mission
The solar mission will be launched to significantly increase the share of solar power in the total energy mix while recognising the need for expanding the scope of other renewable and non-fossil options such as nuclear energy, wind energy and biomass.
Under the national mission for enhanced energy efficiency, four new initiatives including a market-based mechanism to improve the cost-effectiveness of improvements will be put in place.
With solid waste proving a major challenge, the action plan stresses recycling material and urban waste management, and developing technology to produce power from waste.
The mission on sustainable habitats will include a major research and development programme, focussing on biochemical conversion, waste water use, sewage utilisation and recycling options wherever possible.
Water mission
The water mission will develop a framework to optimise water use through regulatory mechanisms.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 1 July 2008
On Monday 30 June, 2008 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh released the long awaited National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). The statement of principles at the beginning of the NAPCC modulates growth and poverty reduction objectives by speaking of achieving "national growth objectives through qualitative changes in direction that enhances ecological sustainability, leading to further mitigation of greenhouse gases".
The NAPCC is organised around eight missions dealing with solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable cities and villages, water, forests, agriculture, the Himalayan systems threatened by glacier melt, and support for climate change related science and R&D. It marks an important shift of stance. Till recently there was a tendency to argue that we should not be diverted from our pursuit of growth and respond to climate risks with the simple message to the West: you caused the problem-you fix it. But over the past year attitudes have changed. The prime minister set up the Council on Climate Change and appointed Shyam Saran as his special envoy thus conveying that this issue was as important in his eyes as the nuclear deal. (Hopefully it will not go the same way!)
The NAPCC does not give away much on India's negotiating position. It does not include any commitment on emission caps but repeats the prime minister's promise at last year's G-8 meeting at Heiligendamm that India would keep its per capita emissions below the average for the developed countries at all times.
This is not as innocuous as it sounds. It means that we cannot reach current patterns of energy consumption in the West ever. As western economies become less material intensive and shift to low carbon energy patterns, their per capita consumption will decline and our self-imposed ceiling will keep coming down. Europe is proposing 30-40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and 80-90 per cent by 2050 which would take it to about 5-6 tonnes in 2030 and 2 tonnes or less in 2050 against India's current level of 1 tonne, focussing on fossil fuel related carbon dioxide only. Our per capita consumption, which may double every10-12 years with high growth, would have to start declining just about the time when urbanisation and motorisation will be reaching a peak. (China, with per capita fossil fuel related carbon dioxide emissions of around 4 tonnes is much closer to this point of inflexion).
There is general recognition that the primary responsibility for cutting back on emissions rests with the developed countries; but China and India, as large fast growing emitters are under pressure to show some commitment, which they are stoutly resisting. The action plan will help in conveying our sense of global responsibility. But it will not deflect the pressure to act and we need to start thinking about how we should flesh out the compensatory mechanisms for the provision of finance and technology.
The Bali agreements clearly envisage a financing and technology transfer arrangement for promoting mitigation actions by developing countries. This is the space which the World Bank is trying to occupy with its battery of climate funds. With this, the provision of finance for mitigation would be a project or programme based transaction with the usual routine of consultant's reports, appraisal missions, loan agreements, conditionalities, monitoring, evaluation and so on.
A far simpler approach would be to use the market for carbon credits that has emerged as part of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism-— an off-set mechanism that allows entities in the developed world to meet their obligations by buying carbon credits from developing country entities. The CDM itself does not involve any additionality of mitigation effort. What the developing country does is counterbalanced by a corresponding reduction in the developed country obligation.
This need not be the case. Instead of putting money into the World Bank Trust Funds for mitigation, the developed countries could simply buy carbon credits in the CDM market and retire them without using them for setting off their own obligations. If they decide to auction emission caps within their borders, they could use the proceeds of the auction for additional purchase of carbon credits. There would be a net increase in the global mitigation effort and the developing country contributing to this would get additional finance. Purchasers can always ensure that their purchases are geographically balanced and lead to savings where they are wanted. This may require some coordination but no new international bureaucracy would be required. The machinery of registration and certification of GHG savings set up for CDM projects would suffice
The CDM as such must continue, since flexibility is important to reduce the costs of mitigation. The CDM has already played an important role in introducing "carbon consciousness" at the enterprise level in China, India and some other developing countries. It has helped to establish an infrastructure of agents for working a carbon market. But it must move beyond bilateral project based trades to a system that allows a more programmatic "wholesaling" approach to reach the masses of small producers and consumers. Procedures need to be simplified by relying on standard norms and baselines rather than a case by case approach for registration and verification.
Funding for mitigation is only half the answer. Adaptation actions to cope with the impact of climate change on water regimes, agriculture, health and human settlements will also require additional resources. The actions that have to be taken are a part of the general development effort and the additional funding has to come as a fungible amount that can be added to the pool of investment resources. One way would be to levy a charge based on some measure of responsibility for the problem (say cumulative emissions) and disburse it in proportion to some measure of adverse impact (say a climate vulnerability index). But this is going to require a lot more analytical work before it becomes a live political option.
The same is true for venture capital funding to support experiments and innovations which will not pass muster in the funding mechanisms constrained to work with predictable technologies.
The Action Plan is the first step towards putting our offer on the table. The next must be to persuade developed countries to put their money where their mouth is and use the carbon credit market for additional mitigation by developing countries.
Business Standard (New Delhi), 2 July 2008
Climate Change Hits March of the Penguins
The dwindling march of the penguins is signaling that the world’s oceans are in trouble, scientists now say. Penguins may be the tuxedo-clad version of a canary in the coal mine, with generally ailing populations from a combination of global warming. ocean oil pollution, depleted fisheries, and tourism and development, according to a new scientific review paper.
A University of Washington biologist detailed specific problems around the world with remote penguin populations, linking their decline to the overall health of southern oceans.
“Now we’re seeing effects (of human caused warming and pollution) in the most far-away places in the world,” said conservation biologist P. Dee Boersma, author of the paper published in journal Bioscience. “Many penguins we thought would be safe because they are not that close to people. And that’s not true.”
Scientists figure there are between 16 to 19 species of penguins. About a dozen are in some form of trouble, Boersma wrote. A few such as the king penguin found in islands north of Antarctica, are improving in numbers, she said.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature lists three penguin species as endangered, seven as vulnerable, which means they are “facing a high risk of extinction in the wild”, and two more as “near threatened”. About 15 years ago only five to seven penguin species were considered vulnerable, experts said.
The largest Patagonian penguin colony in the world is at Punta Tumbo, Argentina, but the number of breeding pairs there dropped in half from about 400,000 in the late 1960s to about 200,000 in October 2006, Boersma reported over a century, African penguins have decreased from 1.5 million breeding pairs to 63,000.
The decline overall isn’t caused by one factor, but several. For the ice-loving Adelie penguins, global warming in the western Antarctica peninsula is a problem, making it harder for them to find food.
For penguins that live on the Galapagos island, EI Nino weather patterns are a problem because the warmer water makes penguins travel farther for food, at times abandoning their chicks.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 3 July 2008
SAARC Adopts Climate Change Action Plan
India and other SAARC members have adopted a three-year action plan to combat climate change, pressing the developed countries to establish a special fund to save them from the drastic effects of the phenomena.
“The SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) region is most vulnerable to climate change and thereby seriously affecting our agricultural production, crippling our vital infrastructures, diminishing our natural resources and limiting our development options for the future,” said a joint declaration issued at the end of the three-day regional meeting here.
The ministers said the region needed more technology to fight climate change, while developed countries needed to reduce their carbon emissions apart from raising a special fund as suggested after the Bali conference. The six action plans prioritised in the meeting included capacity building for clean development mechanism (CDM) projects, exchange of information about disaster preparedness, exchange of meteorological data and mutual consultation in international negotiations.
Environmentalists have warned that SAARC members Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will be among the worst affected in the world by the climate change.
“We have decided to adopt the action plan for climate change to raise our voice unitedly against the climate change at all types of international forums to strengthen our negotiation capacity with the major carbon emitters,” Bangladesh’s chief adviser’s special assistant for environment and forest Raja Devasish Roy said.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 5 July 2008
Tool to Counter Climate Change
Brazil and Peru had in 2007 proposed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that biofuels and organic foods be classified as “environmental goods,” thereby qualifying the two countries for deep tariff cuts. This proposal prompted an outcry from the United States, the European Union and other members of the WTO, once again placing the environment at the forefront of the Doha Development Agenda. Many have now been compelled to ask: What does this development mean for the future of Doha? One of Doha’s nine negotiating groups is trade and the environment, and one of its key components is the elimination of trade barriers for environment-related goods and services.
“By negotiating reduced barriers to trade in environmental goods, we are attempting to make these goods cheaper and more readily available to increase the trade in this department,” said Keith Rockwell, chief spokesperson for the WTO.
However, the complexities lie in where to draw the line between environmental and non-environmental goods. “The Japanese say that their washing machines are very efficient in the use of water, so is that an environmental good?” asked Rockwell. “Qataris say that natural gas gives off fewer CO2 emissions than petroleum, so that should be an environmental product as well.”
As the debate pits Brazil and Peru against other WTO members, the question remains: Where to draw the line in determining an environmental good?
Despite the undeniable environmental benefits of ethanol and other biofuels, countries such as the US, the European Union nations and Korea posit that only industrial goods, not farm products, should be considered when assigning the favourable status of “environmental product.” Brazil, on the other hand, responded to critics calling its proposal a means of reconciling the persistent divisions between the WTO members about how to integrate the mandatory component of Doha on trade barriers and environmental goods.
The paradox of reducing trade barriers, however, lies in the increased carbon emissions from the cars, boats and planes needed to ship goods internationally. Approximately one quarter of the world’s energy-related output of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is attributed to the transport sector. Fresh strawberries are out of season during the winter in the US and Britain, yet transporting these fruits from a country such as Kenya would produce substantial CO2 emissions.
Critics say that the goal should not be solely to increase access to environmentally friendly products, but to ensure that they are actually put to use. Yet some, like. Rockwell, believe the benefits are worth it.
“Trade is the efficient allocation of resources,” he explained. “If every country had to make all of the things it consumes, we would have a disastrous situation. For all the concern about food miles, this is what the whole principle of comparative advantage is about. At the end of the day, you are producing wealth while ensuring access to such things as solar panels and wind turbines that help fight climate change.”
Also crucial to increasing trade in energy and environmental goods is the other main component of Doha’s environmental agenda — the coordination of trade policies with environmental policies. While the prevalence of trade-distorting subsidies has left many in the developing world impoverished, with farmers unable to compete with the artificially low market prices of imported goods, subsidies have also adversely affected the environment.
“The key point in coordinating environmental and trade policies is to ensure that they really are environmental measures and not protectionist tactics,” said Rockwell. “Governments will employ standards which may not necessarily be for the protection of consumers or the environment, but are merely designed to protect the welfare of domestic farmers, or whatever industry it may be.”
A case in point is fishing subsidies. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that nearly 70 per cent of the world’s fishing revenues come from direct governmental support, as the global fishing supply has dramatically dwindled in the process. Governments and communities, many believe, must accept sacrifices in order to join the fight against global climate change. Critics say that international institutions such as the WTO must not solely advance the age-old paradigms of economic growth, but must also create new frameworks that prioritise environmental progress.
Though all governments have opened their eyes to the menace of increasing carbon emission levels, rapid increase in the production of waste, destruction of natural habitats and many such problems that have cropped up with growth and development, they are yet to reach a consensus on each country’s share of responsibility in mitigating the issues.
As the per capita emission levels of developed countries like USA, Canada and Australia are high, they are mandated by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions (based on figures in the year 1990) at higher percentages — more than 90 per cent in all cases — which in turn became unacceptable to these countries.
Developing countries like India, while clamouring for a per capita method of calculation of emission levels, has already taken up initiatives in Clean Development Mechanism on a large scale. Ensuring equity among its masses while implementing sustainable development programmes, working out ways for financing of clean technology and foreseeing and avoiding various pitfalls in the transferring and
implementation of clean technology are the challenges faced by the country in the current scenario.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 6 July 2008
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 6 July 2008
Rich, Poor Countries Spar on Climate Change
China and India say it is up to the heavily polluting developed world to take the lead in the fight against climate change. US President George Bush says no, developing nations must also sign on to make any global deal work.
This week they will be getting together to try to close the gap, but environmentalists warn that the meeting may produce little more than a lot of hot air.
Finding a common goal will likely prove elusive as the leaders of the world’s top developed countries and five of the most important developing nations gather Wednesday in connection with the annual Group of Eight summit.
China has said it is ready to discuss setting medium-and long-term goals for reducing emissions of polluting gases and is open to negotiating targets.
But Beijing has not changed its view that the main responsibility still lies with developed
countries. India has vowed to keep its emissions below those of developed countries, but is also looking for them to set the pace.
Bush has insisted on holding China and India, whose huge populations and fast-growing economies are also growing quickly as polluters, to the same emission-reduction standards as nations that developed earlier.
“I’ve always advocated that there needs to be a common understanding and that starts with a goal. And I am also realistic enough to tell you that if China and India don’t share that same aspiration, that we’re not going to solve the problem,” Bush said at a presummit news conference on Sunday.
But advocacy groups say that the G-8 focus on Chinese and Indian participation is a shield for their own failure to unite behind specific interim targets.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 8 July 2008
The G8’s twin communiqués on climate change and the crisis in commodity prices are deeply disappointing. On climate change, an admission that it is now a pressing enough problem, that interim targets are needed, is a useful if sadly content-free, step – though it is not an advance over what was decided at a ministerial meeting in May. The remaining aspects of the G8’s statements are unacceptable. The G8, a group of economies which have benefited from decades of unconcern about the environment and which are still responsible for the vast majority of the Earth’s total emissions, simply cannot shirk the responsibility of actually taking the lead in reducing those emissions. Countries such as India are struggling to break out of low-income traps; to hold the global environment hostage to their ability to meet goals similar to those the richest countries set for themselves is an argument that is, at best, bizarre – even if made in good faith. A global response is called for, but one led by those most accountable, and in which all respond according to their capacity.
On international prices of food and fuel, the G8 has at least noticed that the world’s poor have been disproportionately affected. However, it is unfortunate that the strong data now available demonstrating that blind faith in bio-fuels could be the link between those two
soaring numbers has essentially been ignored. Oddly, Europe’s parliament is expected to revise the EU’s goals for bio-fuels; Britain’s government has already done so following an internal report. In fact, most member-governments of the G8 have taken such steps recently. The sole exception here, as in the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, is the Bush administration, even as its appointee to the World Bank urged the summit to address the distortion in food prices created by ethanol subsidies. The United States must find the political will to rationalise its policies on these issues. Simply waiting for a change in dispensation is not enough: Senator Obama has consistently voted for and supported counter-productive legislation based on the convenient myth of environment-friendly bio-fuels; Senator McCain has indicated he would penalise industries in developing countries to create an artificially level playing field.
The prime minister has faulted the international structure of governance for not reacting to and dealing with these problems – which are, in addition, partially caused by subsidies and cartels. The G8’s communiqués have only reinforced this impression. The developing countries must make it clear, when they are invited to express their concerns today, that inaction is not an option.
The Indian Express (New Delhi), 9 July 2008
Climate, Economy, Security Confront Leaders at G-8
When leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations gather in Hokkaido on Monday for their annual summit, they face the challenges of global warming, an uncertain world economy and mounting tensions in the world’s hot spots.
Host Japan has put talks on climate change high on the agenda of the meeting in this northern resort town, building on the outcome of last year’s summit in Germany, where leaders agreed to seriously consider a target of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
At a UN climate change conference last December in Indonesia’s Bali, about 190 countries agreed on a two-year, UN-led negotiation process with a view to striking an agreement that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions.
But gaps exist among developed countries and between developed and developing nations over their share of the global efforts to fight climate change, which is blamed for rising sea levels and extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts and severe storms.
No breakthroughs were made at the UN climate change talks in Bangkok and Berlin earlier this year.
The world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, has ruled out setting any quantified reduction targets and a timetable, in sharp contrast to the European Union (EU), which has set a medium-term target of cutting emissions by between 20 percent and 30 percent below the 1990 levels by 2020.
Some developed countries, including the US, demand mandatory emissions cuts for developing countries, which were lesser emitters of greenhouse gases and need stronger industrial and agricultural sectors for development.
Data show that some developed nations lead the world in emissions of carbon dioxide, the main driver of rising global temperatures.
“The world economy continues to face uncertainty and downside risks persist,” G-8 finance ministers said in their statement following a meeting in Japan last month.
With market losses, a weakening dollar, food shortages and soaring oil prices threatening to slow down global economic growth, whether G-8 leaders can find the best remedy for the sagging world economy is another key gauge of how much they accomplish in Toyako.
Many of the woes afflicting global economic growth originated from some developed nations or are closely related to their economies.
The US subprime mortgage crisis sent shockwaves to financial markets around the world, hitting investment and spending, and dampening consumer confidence.
US financial and trade deficits and consecutive interest rate cuts caused the dollar to weaken, hurting export sectors of other countries and fanning speculation in commodities.
Tax barriers and farm subsidies in the US and the EU weakened competitiveness of farm goods from developing countries, reducing supply on the world market. The steep climb of the price of crude is partly fuelled by large consumption and increasing speculation in some rich nations.
Such woes not only stifle growth in developed nations but also curb growth graph in the emerging and developing economies. The rise of food prices, in particular, jeopardises the livelihood of the poor in developing countries.
The Toyako summit, which runs till Wednesday and brings together leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US, is also expected to address international security issues that include the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Iranian nuclear standoff and the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although the foreign ministers “reiterate G-8’s full support” for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the talks have hobbled along due to the failure of all Palestinian forces to speak as one.
As the US and the EU have listed the Hamas as “a terrorist organisation”, Israel has ruled out talks with the Palestinian movement.
The west and Iran are still far from agreeing on Tehran’s nuclear programme. Iran has offered a response to an updated package of incentives proposed by six major countries — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the US. The Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said Saturday that the Islamic republic has made no change in its nuclear stance and will hold on to its right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The Economic Times (New Delhi), 7 July 2008
G-8 Leaders Ink Climate Change Deal
Group of Eight leaders patched together a deal to fight climate change at a summit that wound up on Wednesday, but failed to convince big emerging economies that rich countries were doing enough. Climate change was the most contentious topic at this year's G-8 summit in Japan, which also tackled geopolitical problems from the crisis in Zimbabwe to worsening security in Afghanistan as well as soaring food and oil prices and poverty in Africa.
"There's been no huge breakthrough at this particular meeting, it is one step along the road," said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who attended a climate change meeting on Wednesday where the G-8 leaders were joined with eight more big polluters. "Of course, there's a long, long way to go." The 16-member major economies meeting group agreed that "deep cuts" in greenhouse gas emissions were needed to combat the global warming that is closely linked to rising food and fuel prices, already hitting vulnerable economies hard.
But bickering between rich and poorer countries kept most emerging economies from signing on to a goal of at least halving global emissions by 2050. Nor did the major economies meeting come up with specific numbers for the
interim targets they agreed advanced countries should set. The leaders of Japan, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia and the United States had embraced the 2050 goal a day earlier, but stressed their countries could not do it alone.
The rich countries had to paper over deep gaps just to get their own climate change deal, with Europe and Japan urging bolder action while the US opposed promising firm targets without assurances big emerging economies will act too.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 10 July 2008
The goal of the G8 countries outlined at the Hokkaido Toyako summit to reduce by half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is a woefully inadequate response to a grave environmental crisis. The scientific community has been hoping to see strong action on emissions over the next two decades and its consensus is stated unequivocally in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The data show that the time for pious statements is long past. To avoid tipping points that could produce sudden shifts in climate, the world now expects the major emitters to engage in concrete action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and to fund mitigation and adaptation actions in vulnerable countries. Newly emerging economies including India are responsible for a significant level of current greenhouse gas emissions, but the primary responsibility for carbon dioxide already in the air, which is warming the Earth, belongs to the legacy polluters. National carbon emissions travel around the globe in a matter of days, and, as the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow has pointed out, create an externality that is truly global in scale. If the G8 countries, led by the United States, are indeed serious about mitigating climate change, they must deliver on their promises between now and 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol ends. They need to work with utmost urgency to cut their own emissions from
a meaningful baseline.
India is a member of the group of major economies and its emissions, although low per capita, are now globally scrutinised. By credible estimates, the country exceeded absolute annual emissions of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2007. Among the top eight emitting nations, it had a significantly high coal fraction in total carbon dioxide. Moreover, automotive emissions are growing steadily. Given the vulnerability of millions of livelihoods, particularly of the poor, to climate change, it would be extremely short-sighted of India to counterpose development and action on reducing GHG emissions. Now that it is part of the Hokkaido Toyako declaration on energy security and climate change, business as usual is not an option and energy intensity of the economy has to be reduced. It is time to kick-start the national action plan on climate change and set quantitative targets for sectors, such as coal-based power plants, that need to be cleaned up. With aid available from the G8 under the UN Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, a strong governance structure for adaptation can be set up. But the first priority must be to assess the national and sector-specific options to reduce emissions, and to achieve sustainable growth before the successor to the Kyoto Protocol takes over.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 12 July 2008
The G8 Summit in Japan of a few days ago was overtaken in India by the political crisis that has shaken the UPA government and continues to rumble on towards a climax. But at Toyako in Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido, the site of the summit, India’s politics were peripheral and the talk was of other matters, being dominated by concerns about global warming and spreading food shortages, among other intractable issues.
The remote location of the meeting and the unprecedented security arrangements served to dampen the customary NGO-led demonstrations and demands for alternative solutions that have come to mark the annual G8 meeting. Nevertheless, activist groups have succeeded in raising worldwide awareness of the crucial importance of climate change issues, and the heavyweight leaders of the G8 themselves placed this matter at the forefront of their concerns.
Form of words
In the lead-up to the summit, significant differences of view had emerged between major industrial countries – or the major polluters if one prefers so to call them – with the USA as ever reluctant to accept binding targets for controls of emissions while Germany and others were shifting around to endorsing stronger control measures. In the event, the summit discussions yielded an agreed form of words that enabled everyone to depart with the satisfaction of having found a good compromise that both preserved the essential interests of all parties and advanced the common cause as far as it could reasonably be taken. The core of it is the agreement to which all subscribe that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by half by the year 2050. So stated, this conclusion looks neat and attainable.
But the ink was barely dry before contrary views began to be heard. Leave aside the strongly committed activists who have maintained an unceasing barrage against all governments, reputed bodies of experts and experienced observers expressed their doubts about the value of what the final G8 communique stated. One point of concern was that the base year for measuring the 50 per cent reduction has not been clarified. Ordinarily, 1990 is regarded as the base year but other more recent baselines have been suggested. One can expect that this particular matter will be decided at the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations on the subject. This is not a straightforward matter: depending on what is agreed, the choice could either bring onerous new responsibilities on all countries or more or less leave them to carry on much as they are doing, so the stakes are high and tough negotiations will lie ahead. The G8 heads may be fairly satisfied with what they achieved in Japan but it seems evident that the real issues are far from settled.
Meanwhile, the international negotiations on the subject under UN auspices grind on. As in other comparable negotiations involving all the member states, the meetings of delegates bring together large, unwieldy bodies of national representatives struggling to reconcile conflicting and highly divisive interests. From one point of view, the G8 summit is no more than an episode in the much longer story of international efforts to do something about the effects of manmade damage to the global environment.
The ‘Earth Summit’ of 1992 at Rio initiated the process and has been followed by other important meetings, notably the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 which is now reaching the end of its agreed term and thus needs to be updated. Group interests tend to dominate the conference discussions, such as those of the developing vs. the developed countries, or of newly industrializing countries striving to obtain redress from the older ones for the environmental damage wreaked in the past. UN-sponsored negotiations of this nature can peter our into long-drawn affairs that may arrive at indeterminate conclusions which do little to advance the cause they are trying to promote: who now remembers the New International Economic Order that was such a major preoccupation of the 1970s?
So the salience given to the environment at the G8 has created interest among the numerous environmental pressure groups spread across the globe. The G8 summiteers said they had no intention of superseding the ongoing talks, seeking rather to give a stimulus and a boost. How far this will come about, and to what extent the decisions of the G8 will be pursued by the larger conference, remains to be seen.
Through all the intense engagement of the climate change talks, India has been in a relatively comfortable position. It has stuck to its guns on the matter of differentiated obligations, under which the total environmental damage done over the years and not current levels of emission alone must be taken into account in calculating present day obligations to reduce carbon emissions. This means in practice that the older industrialized countries of Europe and America are required to accept more onerous targets than the newly industrializing ones led by China and India. In common with other developing countries, India has also pressed for easier terms for the transfer of new, non-polluting technologies from the advanced to the newly industrializing countries. Such measures by the international community are indispensable, it is argued, if the developing countries are to be able to pursue their necessary task of economic growth to combat poverty and disease.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 gave India and China the breathing space they needed, but when Mr. Bush first took office he decided not to ratify the Protocol; moreover, his Administration took various initiatives to undo the provisions benefiting these two countries. It was argued that they were among the most prominent polluters and to soften the demands upon them would compromise the entire global structure of restraint. Despite the pressures, the developing countries were able to hold firm and the Kyoto decisions, though vitiated by the US pullout, remain standing. Indeed, one of the lessons to be drawn from the climate negotiations going back to the Rio conference is that when India and China are able to make common cause, they can hold their own against the pressures generated by the industrialized countries.
India’s position
The G8 Summit has done nothing to disturb the existing balance of obligations, so India, among others, can take satisfaction from the outcome. Its economic growth will not be affected by more demanding emission control compulsions. Yet these are real problems that already affect the lives of India’s people and will become much worse unless remedial action is taken. India faces many daunting predicaments: rising sea levels will force river delta populations inland to add to the crush, melting Himalayan glaciers mean that this precious reserve of water on which tens of millions depend is being depleted faster than it is replaced, unpredictable weather patterns bring their own problems. While these and other climate-related problems loom, we cannot simply carry on as we have been doing. The government faces a big challenge to find fresh solutions and to provide proper incentives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As yet, there is not much sign that it has accepted the challenge and the responsibility.
The Statesman (New Delhi), 18 July 2008
The G8 lost a good opportunity to come clean at the summit in Hokkaido, Japan. While admitting the developed world's historical responsibility for the stock of emissions polluting the atmosphere, member countries could have spelt out a detailed action plan that would set guidelines for country-wise targets for emissions reduction and so prepare valuable inputs for the framing of an alternative agreement to the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. The G8 could have also discussed ways in which it would help developing countries leapfrog to cleaner technologies to enable sustainable development.
The climate vision statement issued by leaders of major economies who were meeting at the G8 summit — including outreach countries like India and China — made a general endorsement on the need to halve global emissions by undertaking deep cuts by the year 2050. The plan mentions neither a base year, nor detailed targets for the interim period. But it does acknowledge the fact that climate change "is one of the great global challenges of our time". It goes on to state that both developed and developing countries should commit to combat climate change in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities principle, but again, minus the specifics.
India has been firm that, as a developing country, there is no question of being equated with
the G8 in computing emissions cuts targets. However, as a leader in the developing world, along with China, India is in a position to redefine development by leapfrogging to cleaner technologies and methods. This can only be achieved with the help of those who have the know-how and money, and it is to this end that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change had suggested setting up a technology transfer fund, to which the G8 has pledged an annual contribution of $10 billion — of which the US would contribute 50 per cent — for technology research and transfer. Making a clean start is an option that's available to the current crop of growing economies — provided the developed world takes at least part responsibility and commits more funds to this end.
The US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Yet states like California and New York have gone progressively green voluntarily, bringing down US emissions a shade. But those developed countries who have ratified the protocol have not only been unable to meet their emissions cuts targets, some have increased their emissions. Since greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere would affect poorer countries more intensely, and considering the G8's historic responsibility, there is a strong case for member countries to step up technology transfers to the outreach countries to enable greening of energy use and development.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 12 July 2008
India’s Climate Change Views Not Fully Incorporated
Leaders of 16 of the world’s major economies meeting at the venue of the G8 summit at Toyako in northern Japan found enough common language to take forward their negotiations on how to mitigate the challenge of climate change.
Yet it was not quite the language that India would have liked. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said as much when he told the leaders, including U.S. President George Bush, that “even if some of our views have not been incorporated as we would have wished, we should adopt the text as it is.”
He said, “A text for our declaration has been agreed [to] by our officials after protracted negotiations. This has been done in a spirit of compromise and willingness to accept each others’ views.”
The declaration issued by the major economies noted that all countries “recognise that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the [U.N. Framework] Convention’s ultimate objective, and that adaptation will play a correspondingly vital role.”
Principle of equity
A long-term global goal for reducing global emissions needed to be set, but deferring to the sentiments of the emerging economies such as India, the declaration noted that the size of the cuts would take into account the principle of equity.
The developed major economies agreed to implement economy-wide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission reductions. They would attempt to first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible.
Only the day before the leaders of the G8 had affirmed that they would stick to the long-term goal of reducing global emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 without setting themselves any mid-term targets.
GHG reductions
In fact, Dr. Singh told the meeting “we have not seen demonstrable progress on even the low levels of agreed GHG (greenhouse gases) reductions from developed countries and indeed, the prognosis is that their emissions as a whole will continue to rise even in the years to come.”
“This must change and you (the G-8) must all show the leadership you have always promised by taking and then delivering truly significant GHG reductions,” he said.
Reiterating his stand on the obligations thrust on countries such as India, he said, “Sustained and accelerated economic growth is critical for all developing countries and we cannot for the present even consider quantitative restrictions on our emissions.”
In the end, his stand was not sustained as the declaration confirmed that the developing economies in this group, on their part, would pursue, in the context of sustainable development, “nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions.”
However, the meeting recognised that their ability ultimately to achieve a long-term global goal would depend on “affordable, new, more advanced, and innovative technologies, infrastructure, and practices that transform the way we live, produce and use energy, and manage land”.
Recognising that this would require more money, particularly in the developing countries, the declaration noted it was necessary to create positive incentives for actions; to finance the incremental costs of cleaner and low-carbon technologies; to make more efficient use of funds directed toward climate change; to realise the full potential of appropriate market mechanisms that can provide pricing signals and economic incentives to the private sector.
The nations agreed to work constructively together to promote the success of the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 10 July 2008
Some Plant Species Seem to Defy Climate Change: Study
Some plants defy odds and adapt to changes in patterns of temperature and rainfall, according to what is being described as the longest-running study of the impact of climate change on natural vegetation.
For instance, the study, which has thrown up new insights into the effects of warming on plant ecosystem, found that grasses clinging to steep cliffsides in England have shown an exceptional ability to adapt. "Contemporary wisdom suggests that climate changes cause plants to move or die," said Jason Fridley of Syracuse University and the study’s co-author.
"However, our study suggests that if the changes in climate occur slowly enough, some plants have the ability to respond, adapt and thrive in their existing location."
The findings are based on an analysis of 13 years of data collected at the Buxton Climate Change Impacts Laboratory (BCCIL) in the UK by J. Philip Grime and colleagues at the University of Sheffield.
Established in 1989, BCCIL is a field laboratory of grasslands consisting largely of slow-growing herbs and sub-shrubs, many of which are more than 100 years old.
As many as 50 different species of plants per square meter survive the region's hostile conditions by growing in shallow soil and in the nooks and crannies of limestone outcrops.
The 13-year experiment at BCCIL involved subjecting 30 small grassland plots to microclimate manipulation.
The Economic Times (New Delhi), 10 July 2008
Climate Change Will Cause 13 Per Cent GDP Loss in India
Given their increasing frequency, climate related disasters will result in 9-13 per cent of loss of GDP in India by 2010. It will be a key factor in preventing the economic growth in South Asia, a study has warned.
The millennium development goals (MDGs) aim to halve poverty in the world by 2015. South Asian countries should include disaster-risk management in national strategic plans, the study 'Rethinking Disasters' released today by Oxfam said.
Two to six per cent of South Asia’s GDP is lost to disasters every year, the study said. The associated costs of climate change threaten to jeopardise growth in South Asia. By 2010, the cost of climate change in India is estimated to result in 9 to 13 per cent loss of GDP, the study found.
South Asia has become world's most disaster-prone region when it comes to natural calamities, the study claims. Each new disaster deepens poor people’s vulnerability and does not allow them to enjoy the fruits of development and slows national growth, Nisha Agrawal, Oxfam’s CEO in India.
Rich countries
The study said that two-third of South Asian disasters are climate-related and rich countries are overwhelmingly responsible for the climate changes. An increase in temperature beyond two degrees Celsius will cause sea levels to rise, risking coastal flooding and salt-water infiltration into drinking water, it warned. The low level of development has aggravated the situation. And this means more harm when it comes to human lives.
On an average 50 poor countries are exposed to 11 per cent of the worlds natural hazards and they suffer 53 per cent of deaths due to these calamities each year. However, developed countries have exposure to 15 per cent of all hazards, but account for only 1.5 per cent of the deaths, the study, quoting UNDP, said.
The study has found fault with South Asia’s approach to economic development, which has allowed environmental destruction, increasing the risk of natural disasters. "India’s mangrove tree cover has been reduced to less than a third of its original area in the past three decades. After the tsunami in 2004, it became evident that the clearing of mangroves in India and Sri Lanka has left communities more vulnerable to the power of the waves," the study said.
Factors responsible
The natural disasters in the region leave a trail of tragedy and destruction and arrest long-term
development programmes. But nature alone cannot be blamed for the disasters. Factors like poverty, exclusion, inequality, inappropriate political decisions and actions also contribute to the damages by disasters. Disasters also cause supply-deficits and hoarding which lead to increase in inflation and affect the poor people, the study has concluded.
Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 11 July 2008
Climate Secondary for India Inc.
For most of India Inc., tackling the adverse impact of climate change is second preference as they aim for growth and expansion, claims a study, which also warns that such an approach will cost the firms dearly in future.
According to the survey by the business chamber Assocham, of the 180 top firms and 240 employees interviewed, at least 79 per cent still first prefer to take their expansion and diversification plans to logical conclusion while the issue of climate change and global warming is second best preference for them.”
Nearly 21 per cent of domestic firms were taking mitigating steps to curb greenhouse emissions, an encouraging fact considering that two years ago, the ratio of Indian Inc fighting global warming was just below 10 per cent, claims the survey.
Suggesting that a lot needs to be done, the survey points out that the Indian Inc is still way behind the 55-60 per cent global ratio.
The 21 per cent of green corporates have partnered with developed world to respond to climate change needs, the survey said.
The respondents favoured public private partnership model as being done in developed countries to protect the environment from damaging effects of global warming ‘but the partnership offer
between Indian corporates and the government is yet to pick up required pace.’ Releasing the findings here on Sunday, Assocham president Sajjan Jindal claimed that a meagre 7 to 10 per cent of employees working in various government departments and the private sector have taken the issue seriously and are keen to work closely with industry and society.
The business body has appealed to corporates to voluntarily adopt and earmark a certain percentage of their annual earnings to respond to and address the issue of climate change “as the general refrain is it will cost them dearly and hurt the element of their corporate social responsibility in negative manner.”
However, the survey notes that majority of corporates are now realising the importance of climate change and are willing to campaign in a coordinated and cooperative way to understand implications of climate change and are working on strategies needed to cope with its adverse effects.
About 75 per cent corporates stressed the need for finding alternatives to fossil based fuels by switching over to natural gas and renewable energy, adopting energy efficiency measures, cleaner technologies and better utilisation of waste, the study says.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 14 July 2008
Over 21 Per Cent Cos Warm Up to Climate Change
India Inc is slowly responding to climate change and global warming. Two years ago, 10 per cent of companies took measures to fight global warming. Today, 21 per cent of domestic corporates have committed themselves to fight global warming in partnership with companies in the US, EU and the ASEAN bloc.
Prima facie, it appears that India Inc. has taken some strides in contributing to the reduction in greenhouse gas emission. But, when compared to the global achievement, it lags the global ratio of 55-60 per cent.
This has reported by the leading industry body, Assocham, in a study launched by it to learn about the social responsibility of Indian companies in contributing to the global effort in reducing global warming.
In course of the survey, the chamber came across 180 top Indian companies that apprised it of their anti-pollution measures. Besides, the survey took the views of 240-odd employees of another 100 companies, which also have installed machinery, equipment and other devices to curb air and water pollution.
The initiatives taken by domestic corporates in addressing the global warming issue is being wholeheartedly supported by a large number of global companies which are based out of the US, EU and the ASEAN bloc and have advanced tremendously cutting down greenhouse gas emission as per the standards laid down under the Kyoto protocol, reported the survey.
While pointing out some impediments in implementing the ant-pollution measures, respondent Indian companies have noted that PPP model in those countries is moving in the right direction for protecting the environment from the damaging effects of global warming. While the partnership offers between Indian corporates and the government are yet to pick up at the required pace.
About 75 per cent of the respondents stressed on the need for finding alternatives to fossil-based fuels by switching over to natural gas and renewable energy, adopting energy efficient measures, cleaner technologies and better utilisation of waste, the survey noted.
The chamber feels that the battle against climate change will not succeed unless all major economies, which are believed to be contributing 83 per cent to global greenhouse gas emission, join hands to tackle it.
The Economic Times (New Dehli), 16 July 2008
A Different Climate Change Apocalypse
Let’s say you are convinced that climate change is a huge impending threat that will bring about catastrophic consequences for humankind. Most people we’ve spoken with and most accounts we’ve read and seen, lean toward the apocalyptic.
But what are the mechanisms by which disaster strikes? Where does it occur? Who is most likely to suffer?
According to a fascinating new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research by Melissa Dell, Benjamin F. Jones, and Benjamin A. Olken, the answer to that last question may be an easy one: poor countries.
The authors have done a good job of showing the relationship between climate and the economy, and their paper may substantially inform the way that people — especially in rich countries — consider the possible effects of climate change.
They’ve taken the historical temperature and precipitation data for every country in the world from 1950 to 2003 and combined it with the data for economic growth to see the overall effect that earlier climate change has had on economies.
The world has gotten a bit warmer and a bit drier over the past 50 years. The presumption is that it will get even warmer and drier over the next 50 years. If past is prologue, the authors conclusions should bear out: “Our main results show large, negative effects of higher temperatures on growth, but only in poor countries. In rich countries, changes in temperature have no discernible effect on growth.”
So, instead of warrying about weather apocalypses, we should be thinking about border invasions: refugees the poorest countries fleeing as their own economies collapse. This would be Darwinism on an epic scale - the poorest millions, or perhaps billions, facing extinction.
That, of course, is assuming the Earth keeps getting warmer – and that warmer temperatures in fact disproportionately punish poor countries as Dell, Jones, and Olken suggest. But in light of their compelling overview, it’s worth revisiting similar work from other scholars: In sub-Saharan Africa, 29 of 43 countries experienced some kind of civil war during the 1980s or 1990s. The economists Edward Miguel, Shanker Satyanath, and Ernest Sergenti discovered that one of the most reliable predictors of civil war is lack of rain. If a country’s economy is a largely agricultural, and droughts cause agriculture to founder, political and economic breakdowns become much more likely.
Meanwhile, consider these findings from a pair of papers by economists Olivier Deschênes and Michael Greenstone:
In the first paper, they use long-run climatological models — year-by-year temperature and precipitation predictions from 2070 to 2099 — to examine the future of agriculture in the United States, and find that the expected rises would actually increase annual agricultural production — and therefore profits — by about 4 per cent. Some states would be winners and other states losers but overall, climate change would be good for U.S. agriculture.
In the second paper, Deschênes and Greenstone look at what a temperature increase means for mortality in the United States, and find that the predicted climate change “will lead to an increase in the overall U.S. annual mortality rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.7 per cent by the end of the 21st century.”
Sounds bad? Think again: “These overall estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero, “write Deschenes and Greenstone, although there is evidence of statistically significant increases in mortality rates for some subpopulations, particularly infants.”
In other words, the likeliest victims are, once again, the poorest. Which means that if the relatively rich who are currently most vocal about climate change are also the people who stand in the least danger, there may come a point where they realize that their concern is not so much an act of self-preservation as an act of altruism. Considering how impure much altruism is, that could be the most dangerous news of all.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 20 July 2008
Govt. Gets Cracking on Climate Plan
The government has taken the first step towards operationalising the National Action Plan on Climate Change with the PMO asking the nodal ministries to get cracking and finalise the detailed plans by August 14 for seven of the eight missions it had decided to pursue.
A deadline for the Solar Mission has not been set as yet. Though the mission is to be run through the ministry of New and Renewable Energy Sources (MNRES), the government is keen to scale it up further. The PMO has decided to call a 'brainstorming' session on the mission in the first week of August. The meeting will comprise, besides officials from the nodal ministry, scientists from other agencies as well as industry representatives.
The decision to upscale the Solar Mission comes with excitement building up within the industry on what could be the most lucrative new energy business in the next decade after wind power held the ace position for the last.
Under the climate change action plan, the government has envisioned producing 1,000 MW of concentrated solar power and set up capacity to produce 1,000 MW worth photovoltaic equipment annually by the end of the 12th five-year plan.
There is also a considered view within the government that MNRES is not adequately skilled to develop a scheme that will have to build on expertise and funds in the private sector. This led the government, sources told TOI, to help the ministry by bringing in experts from other agencies to mould the details into place. The action plan mentions an active involvement of industry in developing the country's solar might.
The sources said that solar being a key business 'venture' emerging out of the climate change action plan, the industry as well as other private bodies have pitched themselves strongly with the government to 'contribute' to the development of the detailed plan. On its part, MNRES has already contracted out a techno-feasibility report to the World Institute of Sustainable Energy, an industry-supported institute based in Pune.
The report was to become a background for MNRES' policy on Solar Mission. It is to be submitted by end of July. But now with the canvas for the mission being stretched beyond the ambit of just the ministry, the report could form only one part of the input into the final paper.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 26 July 2008
The political controversy may have subdued its release but not its contemporary relevance. It is, however, another matter that the much awaited National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), released in June 2008, has turned out to be a listless compilation of predictable ideas that lacks depth, vision as well as urgency. Making a case for the right of emerging economies to development for alleviating poverty, the action plan places economic development ahead of emission reduction targets.
It might disappoint those who believe in scary picture of climate change and consider emission reduction to be the panacea for reducing the impact of global warming. The Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, under whose aegis the action plan has been drafted, is firm that the country would not cross the per capita emission levels of the industrialised waste any time sooner. Consequently, the report makes no commitment to cut country’s carbon emission at the cost of its projected development.
In doing so, the action plan gives a spin in favour of the rights of the poor to emission equity and climate justice. Why should an average US citizen spew 20 tons of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere when his counterpart in India averages only 1.2 tons? In the absence of a firm link between global warming and antherpogenic emissions, the action plan reaffirms individual’s right to emit carbon dioxide (through enhanced energy consumption) for attaining a reasonable standard of living.
But there is more to climate change than per capita emission only. India’s cumulative carbon dioxide emission at a whopping 1.5 billion tons, which is a quarter of the US’s current emissions, can tip the climate balance against the poor. Whatever be the source of emissions, the glacial melting in the Himalayas is threatening to impact food and livelihoods security of over 1.4 billion people across the sub-continent. Projected sea-level rise, flash foods and unexpected droughts will only add to woes of the poor.
At the current levels of per capita emission there is undoubtedly a strong case for promoting sustainable development, but doing nothing about reining in emissions may not be a good idea as cumulative emissions do matter now. The action plan seems seized on the matter but the prescription lacks scientific rigour. Not only does mission-mode of addressing climate concerns seems inadequate, the gap between ‘good intentions’ and ‘planned actions’ is incoherent and at times paradoxical.
The proposed eight missions focusing on solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, the Himalayan ecosystem, green India, sustainable agriculture and knowledge gathering on climate change reflect bureaucratic inertia as well as political naivety. Can increased subsidy on petroleum, current obsession with coal and enhanced emphasis on hydro power (to meet the power deficit of 150,000 MW) be without altering existing land use and without compromising on country’s green cover?
To sustain the predicted eight per cent growth the country will not only have to increase its powergenerating capacity but simultaneously build ecosystem resilience to cushion dramatic aberrations in weather too. The compensatory forestry is one wrong proposition that justifies fresh plantations, in lieu of more resilient natural forests with higher carbon sink ratio.
Unless our long neglected alternate energy sector is pepped up with additional funding and new technologies, the country’s capacity to generate green energy (solar, wind and biomass)
will remain robust on paper only. But if economic slowdown is anything to go by, funding for new investments in alternate energy and desire for technology transfer will inevitably remain squeezed.
The action plan lacks strategic directions on some issues like resource mobilisation and technology transfer. Far from presenting a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue of climate change, the NAPCC adopts a sectoral approach that lacks vision and leadership.
In nutshell, the report raises more questions than answers on the issue of climate change mitigation. Unless a public policy report of such significance is put into public domain it will remain yet another document of good intentions, tagged for the archive only.
The Pioneer (Dehradun), 29 July 2008
India’s Climate Change Action - Plan
India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), eagerly awaited by environmentalists, has been unveiled recently by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. China and other fast developing economies too have come out with their action plans. A few days back, the G-8 nations also deliberated on measures for abatement of global warming at Hokkaido, Japan. Eight other countries, outside the G-8, including India and China were also invited to this summit. Certainly, all these action plans and discussions at the G-8 meeting would have great repercussions on deliberations in Poland on climate change in December 2008 followed by the final round at Copenhagen in December 2009. These would form the basis for evolving a new treaty alternative to Kyoto Protocol expiring on 2012.
Against this backdrop, let us look carefully at the three salient features of our NAPCC. Firstly, it states that India’s per capita GHGs emission would at no point exceed that of the developed countries. Secondly, India has stuck to its earlier stand of not committing to specific emission reduction targets or energy efficiency targets. Thirdly, the plan would be implemented through eight missions, viz., (a) enhancing solar energy contribution in total energy mix, (b) introducing energy efficiency steps, (c) promoting sustainable habitats, (d) saving Himalayan glaciers, (e) water resource management, (f) protecting mountain eco-systems, (g) improving eco-system services and (h) making agriculture more resilient and adaptable to climate change.
Let us analyse the above features of NAPCC from two angles, both of which are vital. One for meeting our growth objectives through a low carbon and ecologically sustainable path and two, its acceptability at the global level to increase our bargaining power with the rich nations, specially for providing clean technologies at cheaper rates.
Regarding per capita emissions, the rich countries have to take into account that India’s per capita emission is just above one tonne compared to their average per capita emission of above 12 tonnes. This gives India enough headroom for development and industrialisation, which is very necessary to combat its poverty. In fact, it is the OECD economies which should undertake deep emission cuts, say 50 per cent, as they are responsible for emitting merely 70 per cent of total global emissions. Since other fast developing economies, viz., China, Brazil, Russia South Africa and Mexico are equally under pressure to accept emission reduction targets set by rich nations, a joint campaign in the direction is needed.
Talking about the second feature, we face the risk of receiving flak from western developed nations because our action plan does not fix any emission reduction targets, even though we are right in doing so. A case in point is the stern warning already issued by US Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to both India and China, to accept “global standards” on emissions, or else face sanctions. Only Germany, France and UK have showed some appreciation of our position at the G-8 summit in Hokkaido.
It is evident that India faces an uphill task of not only convincing the global community but even environmentalists in India. It would be easier, however, if we are able to work out quantitative goals and specific institutional mechanisms and regulations in respect of all eight missions, which constitute the core of our action plan. We also need to evolve certain “feasible”, and “verifiable” indicators for each mission for their impact assessment. With such details, it would be possible to carry out a scientific evaluation of our plan with regard to efficacy in reducing global warming both locally and globally.
Here, I wish to make a few suggestions, for the consideration of the Climate Change Council under PMO in respect of the energy mix in our energy productions programme. At present, nearly 80 per cent of our energy comes from burning of fossil fuels — the greatest source of GHGs. The action plan talks about increasing the share of solar energy and this is welcome. However, there is no mention of enhancing production of nuclear energy which is 3 per cent (about 3,100MW) of our total energy. Now, when the prospects of the India-US nuclear agreement getting through are brighter in the changed political scenario, the nuclear energy programme should be given a boost. The nuclear power would work out to be economical over time once the constraints of access to nuclear fuel, required technology and capital are removed, as a result of the deal.
Further, scientists have proved that if India installed 200,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, it would save the world 145 million tonnes of carbon emissions. This is equal to the entire commitment of EU countries to reduce emissions under Kyoto Protocol. Would it not be a great achievement towards reducing global warming? The task is not difficult. Let us learn from the example of France which has produced 42,000 MW of nuclear power in just 10 years starting 1989 to 1999. Today, 70 per
cent of its energy is nuclear.
Wind energy is another source of renewable energy. In India, there is ample of scope for tapping it as our gross wind energy power potential has been assessed at 45,000 MW. At present, we have wind power installed capacity of 7,200 MW only — most of which is in the private sector. Thus we should also increase the contribution of wind energy in our total energy mix. The cost of production of solar and wind energy is higher at present but it will come down when economies of scale are achieved and conversion efficiencies are improved.
To conclude, the rich economies cannot shirk their responsibility of adopting emission cuts to the extent of 50 per cent by 2050 as proposed at the G-8 summit in Japan. And this needs to be done without forcing developing nations to do likewise. Let’s all remember that at current rate of emissions, the world would be hitting a disastrous threshold limit of 550 PPM of carbon emissions in less than a decade, if above measures are not taken on a war footing.
The Economic Times (New Delhi), 29 July 2008
Climate change has been correctly identified as a threat multiplier. Yet it has already become a divisive issue, with the danger that the rich nations’ efforts to lock in their advantages by revising the 1992 Rio bargain and rejigging their Kyoto Protocol obligations through a new regime could create another global divide between haves and have-nots — an NPT of climate change. A new bargain is at the heart of the efforts to fashion a 2009 Copenhagen Protocol.
With the Kyoto Protocol’s target of a mere 7 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels falling by the wayside, the standard excuse being trotted out for failing to meet one’s responsibility is that global warming cannot be slowed unless India and China also agree to cut their emissions. That China and India serve as a convenient pretext for political foot-dragging is apparent from the widely held belief that the climate crisis impact would be borne largely by the developing world and, therefore, the rich nations ought not to slow their economic growth through major emission cuts at a time when they face a growing challenge from the emerging economies.
An extension of that belief is the contention that global warming would change the relative strategic weight of nations, with those in the colder climes gaining, like Russia, but many others suffering an erosion of security and status. Such smug beliefs, as US senator Joe Lieberman acknowledged at a group discussion two months ago in which this writer was involved, have helped foster resistance in the US Congress to America slashing its high emissions, accounting for almost a quarter of the world’s total. The recent defeat of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill thus is not a surprise. Ironically, the desired new global bargain would call upon the vulnerable states on the frontline of climate change, like India, to shoulder responsibility with those who would supposedly benefit.
The blunt fact is that there will be no winners from climate change. Not only will its effects be global, climate change is likely to make weather patterns more unpredictable in higher latitudes. Indeed, with the upper reaches of the Arctic already warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, climate change could wreak havoc on agriculture, public health and ecosystems in colder lands, besides helping breed unmanageable viruses.
At a time of greater international divisiveness on core challenges — from disarmament and terrorism to the food crisis and the Doha Round — the world can ill afford political rancour over the climate crisis, which carries the seeds of exacerbating existing security challenges, without necessarily creating a new category of threats. While it is easy to exaggerate or underestimate the likely impact of climate change owing to the continuing gaps in scientific knowledge, three broad strategic effects can be visualised.
First, climate change is likely to intensify interstate and intrastate competition over natural resources. A new great game over water, for example, could unfold, with Asia as the hub, given China’s control over Tibet — the source of all of Asia’s major rivers except the Ganges. Accelerated melting of glaciers and mountain snows would affect river-water flows, although higher average temperatures are likely to bring more rainfall in the tropics.
Second, higher frequency of extreme weather events and a rise in ocean levels are likely to spur greater interstate and intrastate migration — especially of the poor and the vulnerable — from the delta and coastal regions to the hinterland. Such an influx of outsiders may provoke a backlash that strains internal and regional security. India, for example, could face a huge refugee influx from the world’s seventh most populous country, Bangladesh, already losing land to saltwater incursion.
Third, human security will be the main casualty as climate change delivers a major blow to vulnerable economic sectors. Disparities would intensify. The spectre of resource conflicts, failed states, large-scale migrations, growing extremism, and higher frequency and intensity of extreme weather events helps underscore the human security costs.
Unlike other unconventional challenges, climate change is caused not by hostile forces but by production and consumption patterns. While the reluctance of the rich to accept any diminution in their lifestyle comforts is understandable, there is a
need to go beyond symbolic approaches. The diversion of food for biofuels, for instance, has only helped create a windfall for major farm industries while burdening the world’s poor. Also, buying carbon credits from poor states to exceed one’s own emission targets is environmental grandstanding, at best, and carbon colonialism, at worst.
A strengthened regime will have to be anchored in differential responsibility, a concept at the heart of the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, but also embedded in international law through several other agreements — from the Montreal Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty. If the emerging economies were to assume obligations of the rich states, emission cut targets would have to be set on objective criteria calibrating a country’s reduction burden both to its historic contributions to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to its current per capita emissions. But if the privileged were to keep their emission rights and tie any cuts to burden-sharing with the underprivileged, it would constitute an NPT variant. By pledging that its per capita emissions would never exceed that of developed countries, India has ingeniously challenged the rich to help cap its emissions by cutting back on their own.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 30 July 2008
Gogoi’s ‘Green Code’ is First Step to Tackling Climate Change
Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi on Friday announced introduction of a Green Code as a first step aimed at integrating the state’s ecology with its sustainable economic growth.
The Green Code, in the first phase, would cover construction of new buildings, modifications to existing buildings, schools and other educational institutions, hospitals and health care institutions as well as highways and transportation systems.
“In the first phase, the state government is also evaluating the Assam Secretariat and three medical colleges by using the services of national-level ecological experts. The whole idea is based on the principles of energy efficiency, water conservation, waste minimization and preventing land water and air pollution,” said the CM in an official press note.
Based on these principles, the government would soon initiate necessary steps to plan,
develop and implement options to convert the existing building structures by making them carbon-negative, water-positive, energy-efficient, zero-waste-generating and pollution-free, Gogoi said.
“The state government has taken this step in a bid to reduce or eliminate the negative impact of the climate change on the environment, people and economy of Assam,” the note added. He said his government wanted to ensure food and water security for all times to come, accelerate economic growth and reduce poverty by building on Assam’s unique natural and environmental resources.
This new initiative, the CM said, would not only encourage conservation of natural resources and ecological sustainability but was also intended at minimising emission of greenhouse gases and energy consumption, apart from also bringing down discharge of waste and natural resource consumption.
The Indian Express (New Delhi), 2 Aug. 2008
Centre Puts Climate Change Action Plan on Fast Track
The stage is all set for implementation of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). The government on August 14 will spell out an action plan to operationalise seven missions, barring the mission on enhancing contribution of solar energy in the total energy mix.
“The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has directed the ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) to work on the comprehensive action agenda spanning the remaining four years of the 11th Plan,” a ministry official said. The PMO may include climate change action agenda in the PM’s address to the nation on Independence Day, if the agenda is ready on time.
The eight missions are enhancing contribution of solar energy in the total energy mix; introducing energy efficiency steps; promoting sustainable habitats; saving Himalayan glaciers; water resource management; protecting mountain eco-systems; improving eco-system services and making agriculture more resilient and adaptable to climate change.
The plan is likely to include targets for renewable energy generation with a focus on grid interactive power generation. The plan would also emphasise on regulatory norms required for the industry and purchase preferences for generation of green energy.
The climate change policy has stressed the need to have special financing mechanism to
support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in adopting cleaner technologies. The policy also suggested building clean developmental mechanism (CDM) as a possible financing route for these units. However, funds for renewable energy would be approved only by the PM’s Energy Co-ordination Committee, the official said.
Although the missions are to be run by the MNRE, these will be institutionalised by nodal ministries and also include finance ministry and the Planning Commission while implementing these missions.
However, the government has not yet mentioned any deadline for solar mission as it intends to scale it up further. Under the climate change action plan, the government has targeted 1,000 mw of solar power generation. It also plans to set up capacity to produce 1,000 mw of photovoltaic equipment annually by the end of the 12th Plan in 2017.
The Economic Times (New Delhi), 6 Aug. 2008
Reversing Climate Change Impact Himalayan States Should Promote Green Buildings!
Triggered by rapid urbanization, the shrinking green cover, depletion of water resources and pollutants in the atmosphere, at surface and in the sub-surface are some of the causes of climatic change which pose a great threat to the posterity if the issue is not addressed for reducing the negative activities.
The emission by vehicles, industrial processes, power plants, deforestations and turning of large green forest areas running into miles and miles, to concrete jungles the prime cause behind the climatic change which calls for reversing the process or increasing the green cover. The vegetation plays an important role in controlling the microclimate.
As tree cover is drastically reducing even in Himalayas where states like Himachal and Uttarakhand have imposed strict restrictions on green felling and felling even of dry trees for which high powered committees goes into the genesis of the cases for verifying genuineness.
Unless awakening comes in people for protecting the trees and greenery in general nothing much can be achieved. Undoubtedly the trees can be used as windbreaks to protect both buildings and outer areas – lawns and patios from both hot and cold winds. Potentially the trees can be effectively used to control the microclimate in addition to a score of other measures which calls for national level strategy carried forward by the states for providing effective teeth to the measures for results.
As urbanizations is taking the major toll of environment leading to climatic change, the buildings have major environmental impacts over their entire life cycle. Apparently resources – ground cover, forests, water, and energy are depleted to give way to buildings. And this is happening ruthlessly.
To minimize the damage through it, the Government of India is promoting the concept of “Green Buildings” as a green building depletes the natural resources to the minimum during its construction and operation. The aim of a green building design is to minimize the demand on non-renewable resources, maximize the utilization efficiency of these resources, when in use, and maximize the reuse, recycling, and utilization of renewable resources. It maximizes the use of efficient building materials and construction practices; optimizes the use of on-site sources and sinks by bio-climatic architectural practices; uses minimum energy to power itself; uses efficient equipment to meet its lighting, air-conditioning, and other needs; maximizes the use of renewable sources of energy; uses efficient waste and water management practices; and provides comfortable and hygienic indoor working conditions as enshrined in the green building code evolved by the GOI and as communicated to the media.
Another aspect required to be incorporated for green buildings, which Uttarakhand and Himachal should promote to take lead in the country in this matter, is the international voluntary building rating system which has been instrumental in raising awareness and popularizing green design world over. In India a US based LEED rating system is under promotion by CII, and a better system has been evolved by TERI as informed to the media. This system, after considering the merit of the design is required to be made available to the people in the hills and in the plains for results. Use of non conventional energy and greenery around the buildings will help in generating mass awareness if it cuts ice with the public in general.
The Himachal Times (Dehradun), 8 Aug. 2008
Climate Change: Industry’s Lukewarm Response
From the G-8 summit to the regional gatherings of the industry associations, climate change and its impact as well as regulations on trade and industry are now dominating the discussions. There appears to be a genuine concern on the issues raised, but very little when it comes to follow up action relating to the environment. In other words, industries are trying to comply with the regulations already in place, but not enthusiastic about taking the process forward and planning for the future.
After the abolition of the ‘license raj,’ identified sectors of industry have in recent years only gone in for an environmental clearance for projects involving either a certain investment, or handling certain kinds of materials. Hardly a fourth of the businesses measured their current carbon footprint.
In the wake of the mounting international pressure on the government and Indian industry to provide leadership for developing countries in the realm of climate change, leading consultants and global professional service providers KPMG conducted a survey of Indian industries to assess their preparedness for the approaching global phenomenon. The report of the study throws light on India Inc’s appreciation of the issues at stake as also its readiness to respond to the change on hand.
“An overwhelming 83 per cent of the respondents claimed to have a fair understanding of climate change issues. However, just under half of these respondents said they had a clear strategy in place to tackle these issues. Almost 60 per cent responded to climate change issues for the need of complying with regulations. Only 21 per cent of the businesses surveyed measured their current carbon footprint,” says the report.
Global awareness
In contrast, global awareness appears far greater, and most companies in the developed world have measured and announced their baseline carbon footprint, and also their reduction targets over 5 to 10 year period. According to the KPMG report, the picture in India appears ‘rather dismal.’ Just 41 per cent of the respondents indicated having at least some quantified goals for carbon reduction to be achieved by 2010. But a significant 38 per cent have no goals whatsoever. By far the most common response to climate change issues seems to be the adoption of energy efficient appliances — 94 per cent have plans to do that. The other major response may be to go in for
environment friendly practices (77 per cent).
Carbon footprint
So what should the companies be doing? The KPMG report says there seems to be a significant gap between good intentions and appropriate actions to back them up. While a number of companies expect to contribute to mitigating their impact on climate change, few seem to be approaching it in a structured, measurable manner.
A detailed carbon impact mitigation plan would typically start with a measurement of the company’s present carbon footprint — as the baseline against which improvements can be evaluated. In the absence of this baseline data any initiative will lack credibility. This carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted over a full life cycle of a process or product. The more progressive industries have gone in to assess the total carbon footprint of their supply chain itself.
Some interesting case studies have also been provided. For instance, ITC has set itself the goal of becoming the first organisation of its size to become carbon positive, water positive, and zero solid waste discharge — it has achieved the first two and may be close to realising the third. Besides going in for energy efficiency, it has adopted renewable energy options, recycling of by-products, waste recovery, and odour abatement systems.
Some of the measures that companies can engage in to tackle climate change issues are: installing energy efficient appliances for lighting, heating, and air conditioning, educating and training employees on environment friendly practices, recycling products, reviewing and updating global supply chain to improve energy efficiency, achieving carbon neutral status, discontinuing high energy/carbon devices or services, reducing air travel and using vehicles with cleaner technologies.
Asked for a comment on the report and the state of preparedness of industry to climate change, a former regional president of the CII says: “We have been discussing these issues seriously, and we are also in touch with the government. When the Centre itself has not spelt out its detailed action plan in terms of emission standards or reductions, industry may not be in a hurry to do that. But we are seriously concerned and there is enough international pressure on us to respond to these challenges. I believe that 2010 will be a turning point.”
The Hindu (New Delhi), 11 Aug. 2008
India to Be 4o Hotter in 40 Years: Experts
The effect of climate change on India could be far worse than previously estimated. Latest projections indicate that after 2050, temperatures would rise by 3-4 degrees over current levels and rainfall would become both heavier and less regular, posing a grave threat to agriculture. These are part of the research conducted by scientists at Pune's Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, one of the key government institutions studying climate change in India. The findings are currently under review by a well-recognized scientific journal.
This provides another, more serious wake-
up call for India's planners to look at adapting to the impending climatic changes. More important, it demands that the developed countries reduce their emissions substantially before their accumulated emissions turn these projections into a reality for India and other developing countries.
If even a part of the projections turn into reality, the IITM modelling has dire implications for almost all aspects of life in the country — agriculture, power, water resources and biodiversity.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 14 Aug. 2008
Climate Risk for Some, Biz Opportunity for Others
Climate change is fraught with business risks. The type of business risk varies from sector to sector. While a majority of oil and gas companies (56 per cent) say that it is a reputational risk, most chemical companies (60 per cent) say that it’s an operational risk, according to the trends emerging from the ongoing FE-EVI Green Business Survey. The initial round of survey is based on responses from the senior leadership of select companies from oil and gas, automotives, and chemicals.
While some of companies say it’s for the government to take measures to slow down the process of manmade climate change, others say the onus is on businesses.
Divided along sectors, respondent companies even suggest measures to combat climate change. While 60 per cent chemical companies feel that the onus is on the government to invest in latest and clean technologies, 72 per cent automotive companies say that it calls for strategic level changes in companies to fight climate change.
Despite the realisation about their roles, many companies don’t seem to have made a beginning themselves. Most of them don’t know where they stand in terms of their environmental performance and greenhouse gas foot printing. For example, 67per cent of the oil and gas companies have not even come up their greenhouse gas inventory.
It has not stopped respondent companies from thinking about how they should fight climate change, though. For example, 70 per cent surveyed chemical companies feel that clean development mechanism and voluntary emission reduction could be important climate change combatant tools.
Others look at clean development
mechanism and carbon trading differently. A majority (67 per cent) of oil and gas companies feel that climate change is a mild business opportunity for them and can be harnessed through instruments like clean development mechanism and carbon trading.
Others look at the climate change opportunity from a marketing or brand building perspective. For example, 80 per cent automotive companies feel that combating climate change is a great way to enhance their reputation among customers and investors.
A few companies are going beyond harnessing conventional business opportunities of carbon trading and brand building. For example, generating renewable power by comapnies themselves is picking up in automotive companies with 60 per cent of the company having plans to do so. Others are focusing on innovation. A chemical company like Monsanto is developing seeds/chemicals that use 30 per cent less natural resources and produce 20-30 per cent more.
The final survey results based on responses from 300 top business houses in the country are expected by September end. Conducted by The Financial Express (FE) and Emergent Ventures India (EVI), a leading climate change mitigation advisory firm, the survey aims to map the greening of Indian businesses, highlight success stories and come up with a set of recommendations for the industry to adopt a low-carbon and high-growth path for a competitive edge in business.
It’s expected that the survey recommendations will serve as a reference work for industry bodies, rating agencies and financial institutions.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 18 Aug. 2008
Slower Economy Saps Climate Action Plan
An economic slow-down is sapping enthusiasm for a costly drive to fight climate change but persistently high oil prices are a lifeline for a “green revolution” of renewable energy technology, experts say.
UN talks on a new climate treaty to be
agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 resume in Ghana from Aug 21 to 27 – over-shadowed by worries about flagging growth and in an atmosphere soured by the collapse of world trade talks.
Weaker growth “will probably reduce the intensity of the negotiations,” said Mr. Cameron Hepburn, an Australian environmental economist at Oxford University.
Many climate experts say the cost of measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels would be far less than the long-term damage of inaction – more heatwaves, rising sea levels, disruption to food output from droughts in some areas and floods in others.
“The green revolution is going to come anyway,” said Denmark’s climate and Energy Minister, Mr. Connie Hedegaard, the host of the planned UN meeting in December 2009 to agree a new UN pact, when asked about the impact of the economic slowdown.
And a drive to diversity away from oil unites everyone from left-wing green activists to the US, alone among industrial nations in opposing the UN’s Kyoto Protocol capping green-house gas emissions in a first phase to 2012.
“We want to lessen our dependence on oil,” said Ms Paula Dobriansky, the US under secretary of state who leads Washington’s climate negotiations, when asked if economic woes would
affect US willingness to fight climate change.
Investments in renewable energies give a “double advantage”, easing dependence on oil and curbing greenhouse gases, she told Reuters. “It’s going to be a challenging, complex process.”
Brent oil is well below peaks of $ 147.27 a barrel in July but at $ 112 is still a spur for cleaner energies such as solar, wind, hydro or geothermal. A risk is that high oil prices also encourage a shift to coal, which emits more greenhouse gases. President George W. Bush argued Kyoto would be too costly and it wrongly excluded nations such as China and India. He has preferred investments in new technologies and agreed to join a broader, successor treaty to Kyoto.
As evidence of a revolution, Mr. Hedegaard pointed to a study that China was becoming top producer of green technologies ahead of the US. “It should also give some room for thought in the US as to ‘how do we take care that our companies do not lag in this green revolution?,” she said.
“If you are worried about job creation, then may be what Ford is experiencing – an $ 8.7 billion loss in one quarter – is not the trail to follow,” she said.
Ford’s loss was linked to writing down truck and SUV operations – it said it would aim to break reliance on gas-guzzlers.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 18 Aug. 2008
The national action plan for climate change begins with a conceptual disadvantage. It quotes Indira Gandhi as saying “poverty is the worst polluter”, and adds that “poverty eradication will be the best form of adaptation to climate change”. By adopting the right measures the action plan will promote “our development objectives” while yielding “co-benefits” in mitigating climate change. The Indian position is affirmed by the Kyoto Protocol and climate change convention which is quoted in the action plan document as stating “development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priority of the developing countries”.
There is a clear hierarchy — development comes first and fighting climate change comes second. The reality is different. The world and its knowledge have moved on since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. Development which harms the environment and damages health and nature, imposes costs and becomes unsustainable. It is a lot clearer today that environmentally unsustainable development is no development at all.
Destroy a pristine ecologically rich forest to mine, say, bauxite and chances are you will do more harm than good. You will reduce a carbon sink (vegetation which captures and stores carbon dioxide), destroy a catchment area whose streams feed an important river in a steady seasonal routine and replace this with floods created by quick runoffs, soil erosion upstream and silting downstream, maybe reducing the capacity of a reservoir, raise temperatures, reduce the Earth's stock of flora and fauna and lead to more ill health among local people. The economic gains of the mining will be negated by huge costs to be incurred in not the next generation but much earlier. The only way to develop, attack poverty, is to secure the environment along the way. Then temperatures will not rise and the climate will not change.
The action plan document categorically states, "India has a well developed policy, legislative, regulatory and programmatic regime for promotion of energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power, fuel switching, energy pricing reform and addressing GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the energy sector. As a consequence of these measures, India's energy intensity of the economy has come down sharply since the 1980s, and compares favourably with the least energy intensive developed countries.' Splendid. So why do we need a new action plan with as many as eight new national missions (covering solar, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, sustaining the Himalayan eco-system, green India, sustainable agriculture, and strategic knowledge for climate change)? Isn't the institutional framework already in place and producing results?
The reality is somewhat complex. According to 2005 data put out by the International Energy Agency, India scores well (low) in per capita energy consumption and is behind only Brazil in per capita CO2 emission (sample: the US, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Russia, South Korea, Brazil, China and India). It falls further behind, coming after Brazil and Japan and ranking the same with Germany in energy consumption per unit of GDP in purchasing power parity terms. It is behind Sweden, Brazil and Korea in terms of CO2 produced per unit of energy consumed and behind Sweden and Brazil in CO2 per unit of GDP in PPP terms. In this sample, the crown for the least energy intensive developed country surely goes to Sweden, with Japan, Korea and Germany following. India's energy performance, on the other hand, is better than that of the US, Russia and China.
In recent years China has bettered India in reducing its energy intensity. India is certainly not a culprit but it has a lot to do to ensure its current high growth can be sustained. Its fossil fuel consumption till now has been greatly contained by the poor using biomass to do its cooking. This will rapidly reduce (it should because the smoke is a health hazard for the poor women who do the cooking) as incomes grow, raising the demand for gas and oil to keep home fires burning. Europe was initially able to perform well in terms of its emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol by addressing the highly polluting power plants that
were operating in the erstwhile Eastern Europe. Once that historical advantage was gone (the easy option exhausted), Europe's performance has plateaued. Since the eighties new technology and business imperatives have taken Indian energy efficiency forward. It is hardly correct to take policy credit for what is captured in ‘business as usual' scenarios which assume a certain amount of improvement automatically happening even in the absence of policy.
The document abounds in motherhood statements and banalities and there is also the odd incorrect assertion (there is no metro bus project in Bangalore, as mentioned). An action plan should not abound in "would' and "should' and simply delineate recent frontier R&D activities. To be useful, it should clearly state what needs to be done. The first item in such a list has to be the need to raise fuel prices. Instead of subsidising fuel, subsidy should go to energy-saving consumer items like compressed fluorescent lamps. It is also vital to introduce ‘time of the day metering' for at least bulk power consumers so that big bucks paid for peak hour demand can make gas-based power plants, which can be started quickly, commercially viable. (This will make a Dabhol viable). Since we have to rely on coal-fired power plants indefinitely, clean coal technologies are vital. You can go a long way by simply washing coal more. A lot can be done and there is extensive knowledge within the government to do it. A policy document should at least say the right things boldly. Making it happen is another matter.
Business Standard (New Delhi), 20 Aug. 2008
Being Penny Wise and Pound Foolish on Climate Change
The recent political drama surrounding the nuclear deal appeared even more spectacular by the lack of discourse on an issue of far more importance. On June 30, the prime minister unveiled the country’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). But the nuclear fracas allowed little else for discussion and India missed an opportunity to get started on forging a domestic consensus on climate change.
The world is in a race against climate change. The current agreement under the Kyoto Protocol extends emissions reductions targets for developed countries through 2012. Last December countries met in Bali and agreed on a two-year negotiation process designed to achieve longer term reductions. Starting August 21, two key working groups have been meeting in Accra, Ghana, as part of the negotiation process. This is the third such high profile meeting this year. A period of two years is hardly enough time to secure an international agreement of the scope that is required. But the parties to the discussion have thus far demonstrated a genuine sense of urgency.
India will be central to the negotiations process. The fate of an international agreement depends closely on emissions reduction action that large developing economies, India and China in particular, can offer. India is one of the largest and fastest growing emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. At the same time, its per-capita emission is one of the lowest in the world and only a fraction of that of developed countries.
India has argued that emissions reduction cannot come at the expense of its national development. Further, India suggests that because industrialised countries have been mainly responsible for the historic growth in emissions, they should have to bear the burden of reductions. Developed countries have argued that a solution to climate change cannot be complete, or may even be meaningless unless countries such as India and China actively participate in the reduction effort. This divide will be hard to bridge but the scientific evidence on climate change overwhelmingly suggests that an international response to climate change must be found quickly.
Despite a year in the making, the NAPCC was never expected to depart from India’s traditional position. Nevertheless, the international community had eagerly awaited its arrival and was promptly disappointed when the NAPCC failed to say much. At home, nobody seemed to notice anything.
The disappointments with NAPCC should not be on what it says or doesn’t say. The real disappointment with NAPCC is the silent domestic reception it received. Climate change, and India’s response to climate change, will fundamentally transform the way we live and alter our underlying social, economic and technological basis. Even if not now, then in the very near future we are going to have to take much more action than what is outlined in the NAPCC. It is important that the civil polity begins to engage immediately to at least begin the process of developing a political consensus. The transformation that will be required from us to respond to the challenges of climate change cannot occur without such a political consensus.
NAPCC’s silent reception also reflects the collective failure of our business community to appreciate the opportunities that climate change represents. We have been so consumed with the pursuit of carbon credits through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that we have had little time to consider the broader context. CDM is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which allows emissions reduction projects in developing countries to earn credits that can then be sold in international carbon markets. Though CDM has been a success story in India, an appropriate carbon regime could offer far greater and lasting opportunities.
As with any other developing country, India’s struggle is the perceived trade-off between development imperatives and responding to climate change. The NAPCC proposes a directional shift to a development pathway that yields co-benefits for addressing climate change. This is an ambitious transformation and will also be expensive. If faced with competing priorities, it is clear that development priorities will prevail.
Achieving the directional shift to a sustainable development pathway cannot be the result of policy framework or government intervention alone. The perception of a trade-off between development and environmental sustainability must first be overcome. Businesses have an opportunity to help develop a vision where responding to climate change itself serves as the basis for development. For that, boardrooms must first recognise the opportunity that such a transformation represents.
Climate Group, an international NGO, reports that China is already over-taking developed economies in exploiting these economic opportunities, developing low-carbon technologies and adding green-collar jobs.
The climate change revolution could offer a better opportunity for development than the industrial revolution. Indian businesses must recognise these opportunities and support the government in securing an international climate change regime that offers such possibilities.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 25 Aug. 2008
The Food and Agriculture Organisation has issued a caution on the repercussions of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. It is that the changes seen in the seas and oceans will have direct implications for food security. This is particularly relevant to developing countries where about 42 million people work directly in the sector and 2.8 billion depend on fish products for 20 per cent of animal protein. Although the impact of higher temperatures is more pronounced in certain geographical locations and more intense in surface waters, studies have confirmed that warming of the oceans can go deeper than 700 metres. This is ominous. Any further heating of the ocean water, which acts as a sink by storing more than 90 per cent of the Earth’s heat, can result in some tipping points being crossed, which means the environment can be affected in some major ways. The warming of surface water has already led to changes in species composition in the northern hemisphere — warm-water species replacing coldwater fishes, ice-bound regions being invaded by aquatic species, and freshwater species taking the place of marine species. The warming has also led to algae blooms in the hostile northern hemisphere oceans, raising alarm signals for the survival of fish. The change in the ocean salinity and acidity is also affecting fisheries and aquaculture.
According to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), for the next two decades a warming of about 0.2 degree Celsius per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios. There is emerging evidence that marine organisms are responding faster to global warming than previously thought. The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership Report Card 2007-08 has highlighted the way U.K marine wildlife has begun to suffer as a result of wetter and warmer winters. It is difficult to predict what further changes the warming will bring. According to the FAO, climate change “will increase uncertainties in the supply of fish,” which in turn will make risk assessment more challenging. Owing to changes in fish species, the impact of climate change will mainly be felt in the availability of, and access to, food. Already the United States and Canada are negotiating access to certain fish species whose spatial distributions are determined by environmental variations. By far the major contributor of aquaculture, Asia will be the most vulnerable region. All this suggests that cutting emissions has become more urgent than ever — which, unfortunately, is something the recent G-8 Summit in Japan failed to agree upon.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 29 July 2008
Climate Change to Deplete Fishery' Production: FAO
Global warming and the consequential changes in climatic patterns will have strong impact on fisheries with far-reaching consequences for food and livelihood security of a sizeable section of the population.
Some of the impacts are already being felt as reflected by changes in the distribution of fish species in oceans. While the stocks of warmer water species are expanding, those of the colder ones are contracting.
Besides, the rising acidity (salinity) levels in the seas as a result of the climate change are believed to have negative effect on many coral reefs and calcium-bearing organisms.
This has been stated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in a recent scientific Symposium on Climate Change and Marine Fisheries held at its headquarters in Rome. The event was aimed at discussing the challenges that climate change posed to the marine fisheries and the millions of people who depended on it for food and income.
The global food body has pointed out that the wild capture fisheries are fundamentally different from other food production systems in its linkages and responses to climate change and in the food security outcomes that result from them.
Unlike most terrestrial animals that constitute the livestock sector, aquatic animal species used for human consumption are ‘poikilothermic’, meaning their body temperatures vary according to ambient temperatures.
Any change in habitat temperatures (warming or cooling of sea waters in which they live) significantly influence their metabolism, growth rate, productivity, seasonal reproduction, and susceptibility to diseases and toxins, the report points out.
It observes that with global warming, the waters of oceans are also warming up though there are considerable variations in different geographical regions and at different times. Warming has been more intense in surface waters but is not exclusive
to these. The Atlantic Ocean has shown particularly clear signs of deep warming. This is causing changes in the distribution of the fish species.
“This is likely to also result in significant changes in fisheries’ production in different seas. The impact would, of course, vary in different regions. For communities that heavily rely on fisheries, any decrease in the local availability or quality of fish for food or increase in their livelihoods’ instability will pose even more serious problems,” the FAO has cautioned. The countries with limited ability to adapt to the changes, even if located in low-risk areas, are equally vulnerable, it adds.
Fisheries and aquaculture play an important role in providing food and generating income. About 42 million people work directly in the fisheries sector, majority of them being in the developing countries. Besides, millions of others work in the associated processing, marketing, distribution and supply industries.
Aquatic foods have high nutritional quality, contributing 20 per cent or more of average per capita animal protein intake for more than 2.8 billion people, mostly in the developing countries. Fish is also the world’s most widely-traded foodstuff and a key source of export earnings for many poor countries. The sector has particular significance for small island states.
This apart, the changes in the ocean salinity have already been observed to occur, which would affect other forms of aquatic life, notably the coral reefs. While the water salinity is on the rise in the near-surface waters in the more evaporative regions of the world, it is decreasing in the high latitudes due to greater precipitation, higher run-off, ice-melting and other atmospheric processes related to the climate change, the FAO says.
“The oceans are generally becoming more acidic, with probable negative consequences to many coral reefs and calcium-bearing organisms”, it adds.
Business Standard (New Delhi), 25 Aug. 2008
The third round of UN talks on climate change that took place in Ghana have ended with some progress. The purpose of these talks has been to reach an agreement on a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. 160 nations attended the conference that should result in the signing of a fresh treaty. Last year UN scientists delivered the alarming news that climate change was truly and well underway. They predicted that the Earth’s temperature would continue to rise even if carbon emissions were reduced to zero because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They have also warned of catastrophic effects that my take place within the next 10 to 15 years if carbon emissions are not controlled and lowered. Therefore, climate change is an issue that has some urgency. But negotiations in the recent past did not reflect a sense of crisis and were marked by an atmosphere of confrontation between the industrialised and developing countries. On the one hand, the US has not fully accepted the Kyoto accord and other industrialized countries have been slow to fulfill emission targets, whereas on the other, China, India and other large developing countries have refused to accept an arrangement that would hamper the process of industrialisation in these countries. This divide was also evident in Ghana. Japan and the EU attempted to drive a wedge between the G77 countries and India, China, Brazil and South Africa. But cooperation between India and China prevented differences from arising. The two countries took a strong stand against the attempt to change the character of the UNFCC, the international accord on climate change. The UNFCC presently requires only industrialised countries to match their greenhouse gas emissions to fixed targets. These countries would have liked the four emerging powerhouses to take on more commitments even though they are not historically responsible for the problem.
But the efforts of India and China ensured that all the developing countries remained united. All signatory countries to the UNFCC decided that there would be two groups – the culprits and those who are suffering because of the emissions. Unlike industrialised countries, developing countries would face no binding targets limiting their economies as a whole. It has also been agreed that countries should be compensated for slowing or halting deforestation, and that countries where forests have been depleted would be rewarded for conserving and expanding remaining forest cover. Detailed proposals were also suggested for raising hundreds of billions of dollars needed to help poor countries grapple with the effects of climate change. Thus, the climate change talks in Ghana have been marked by progress and some common ground has been reached.
The Pioneer (Dehradun), 29 Aug. 2008
Climate Fight Hit by Global Slowdown
The fight against global warming is in danger of being downgraded on more urgent fears over energy security, heightened by a Russian war with Georgia, and a global economic slowdown.
Added to the mix — politicians are faced with a rising clamor of complaints from voters over record fuel bills, and racing gas and oil prices have sparked new interest in high-carbon coal as well as cleaner alternatives.
“A few years ago it was all about climate change. Now energy security has come up too. The problems arise when the two come into conflict,” said Michael Grubb, chief economist at the Carbon Trust think-tank.
Ensuring energy security can clash with the fight against climate change. In particular, the cheapest, most available energy source is coal, which also emits the most greenhouse gases when burned to generate electricity.
The sight two weeks ago of Russian tanks rolling into Georgia, a key energy transit route to Western Europe, has raised anxieties about Europe’s dependence on Russia for a quarter of its natural gas and thrown a spotlight on alternatives such as coal, wind and nuclear.
Poland said last week that the Russia-Georgia dispute had made gas a less attractive source of electricity.
“The key issues are now defined by what are coherent responses to these twin concerns,” said Grubb. “Where there are conflicts it would be dumb to do something which is entirely one at the expense of the other. But there are signs of a drift in that direction,” he told Reuters.
That shift has alarmed environmentalists who have also accused European Union lawmakers of weakening emissions curbs from cars and planes.
“There is clear evidence of backsliding. It is our job to make sure they don’t. This is no time for short-term expediency,” said WWF’s UK Chief Executive David Nussbaum.
Presidential nominee Barack Obama on Thursday promised to invest $150 billion over the next decade to develop affordable, renewable energy sources, touting that as a long-term energy solution rather than new offshore oil drilling.
Tanks
Climate policies add to the cost of producing electricity, through taxes or penalties on carbon emissions, and guaranteed higher prices for more expensive solar and wind power. Utilities pass these costs on to consumers. Industry and household fuel bills are already at record levels as a result of racing oil prices.
The trick is to balance the three issues of climate change, energy security and fuel poverty, said Welsh socialist MEP Eluned Morgan, who is guiding legislation. to liberalize EU power markets through the European Parliament.
“Until very recently, climate change has been top of the agenda, but with issues in Georgia and increasing energy prices due to increased global demand, security of supply will come more to the forefront,” she said. British Business Secretary John Hutton, whose brief covers energy, told a British newspaper this week that the “first and foremost” energy priority was providing affordable and secure supplies, not climate change.
“We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear,” he told the Daily Telegraph in an interview.
Hutton added that gas-rich Russia’s brief war with Georgia and unilateral recognition of two breakaway regions highlighted the need for energy importing nations to reduce their dependence on single and unpredictable suppliers.
European parliamentarians urged caution on draft EU rules to slash the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions by up to a third by 2020, in proposals seen by Reuters on Thursday. The EU Industry Committee members were also considering amendments to the EU’s flagship Emission Trading Scheme so it had less impact on the energy bills of industries operating in global markets like steel.
A renewable energy industry which just
months ago was celebrating a rocketing oil price, because that sparked more interest in energy alternatives, now sees resulting high fuel bills as a threat to climate policies and wind, solar subsidies
In Accra, Ghana, the United Nations this week expressed optimism that agreement on a new global climate treaty would be reached in Copenhagen end-2009, on time, despite an economic slowdown and the collapse of world trade talks in July.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 30 Aug. 2008
Greenpeace Official: China, India Are Facing Up to a Climate-Challenged World
“China and India are taking action to address the challenge of developing their economies and people’s futures in a climate-challenged world. It is time for some developed countries to stop using China and India as the excuses for their own in-action and get down to business as time is running out for the planet,” Ailum Yang, Greenpeace Climate Campaign Manager from China, said here on Wednesday.
She made this remark at a press conference organised by Greenpeace on India’s ‘National Action Plan on Climate Change’.
Foresight
Welcoming the Action Plan, K. Srinivas, Greenpeace Policy Advisor, said the Solar Mission and Renewable Energy programmes showed foresight in energy planning and an intention to capitalise on the solar potential in the country.
Renewable energy
With the indicated targets of 15 per cent of renewable energy on the grid by 2020, India will be looking at approximately 42 GW from renewables as per the current plan, which is comparable with 49 GW that Greenpeace called for in the energy revolution scenario for India in early 2006.
Low-Carbon pathway
“However, the key to developing a low-carbon pathway is dependent on how much coal we can reduce in our energy mix. This can be achieved only if, in addition to expanding renewables, we also achieve clear “savings” or “efficiency targets,” Mr. Srinivas said.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has said that the action plan on Climate Change will provide an impetus to hitherto untapped segments such as solar energy.
“Facilitation of an internal market-based mechanism for energy efficiency across industrial sectors is a welcome move, and will be a great energy saver,” Harsh Pati Singhania, senior vice president of FICCI, said in a statement issued here.
Comprehensive plan
The Action Plan approach shows the enhancement in the scope of climate change action at the national level, he said adding that the plan was comprehensive and covered the broad spectrum of areas that were significant in terms of climate change mitigation as well as adaptation, and private-public partnership in the sector.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 3 July 2008
Nobel laureate and former US Vice-President Al Gore made an impassioned plea recently in Washington to all US citizens - particularly political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators and engineers - to commit to producing electricity only from renewable energy sources. To those who say a complete switch-over to a carbon-free energy grid sounds unachievable in the timeframe he sets, that is 10 years, Gore says it is a challenge that is achievable and affordable, and it has the potential to completely transform our lives. Whether or not such an ambitious target is achievable in full, Gore's timing is perfect: he has thrown down the green gauntlet when people are tuned in to the need for greater energy efficiency, to reduce pollution and maximise cost-benefit in the backdrop of rising fuel costs and falling supplies. Gore's challenge comes when the US is experiencing a fall in demand for fuel, probably one of the reasons for the drop in crude oil prices. It doesn't take much persuasion to convince the converted; yet when a popular green champion like Gore asks people to give the issue priority, he can be sure that his voice will not go unheeded.
Curiously, there is no let-up in demand for fuel in India where, traditionally, people tend to err on the side of caution. Facing the climate change and fuel shortfall challenge is something that needs global effort. Economic growth and poverty alleviation are important goals, but the thrust towards using available energy efficiently has so far been inadequate. A lot could be achieved by merely widening roads, for instance, to enable good traffic management that could cut fuel consumption by minimising idling on roads due to jams. Another easily adoptable strategy is to encourage switching over to compact fluorescent lamps that are longer lasting and consume less energy.
Gore points out that as the demand for renewable energy grows, cost will continue to fall as it did with silicon - used to make solar cells and computer chips. With economies of scale, energy generated from the sun, wind and water would
become more affordable and, eventually, all electricity generated could be from non-fossil fuel sources. All it needs to step up the green revolution in energy is a part-persuasion, part-legislation strategy with strong political leadership and individual faith and determination. Like Gore, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and opposition leader L.K. Advani should speak out and present a united front to overcome the difficulties posed by the challenge. By thinking big and green, the 10-year challenge might be met, at least in part.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 19 July 2008
Climate Talks: India, China Join Hands against Rich Countries
They are the fiercest economic rivals as well as neighbours that infrequently spar over international borders. But the 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai' bonding is hard to miss at the climate change talks in Accra. Their close coordination, bilateral understanding and strategic moves have stumped the rich countries.
The industrialized countries, such as the EU members and Japan, have over the past couple of days run a shrill campaign to draw a wedge through the powerful G77 countries and China grouping and put the emerging economic power houses — India, China, Brazil and South Africa — on the mat. But China and India's working in tandem has been a key reason for the good old divide and rule policy of the rich nations' cabal coming apart.
Both the countries have using similar tones, taken an aggressive stand against what they think is the industrialized countries' attempt to change the very character of the UNFCC — the international compact on climate change — which at present requires only the rich countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions against fixed targets. The rich countries want the four economic power houses to take commitments even though the four bear little historic burden for the crisis the world faces.
But the impacts of China and India’s coordinated moves have been visible. With rumours floating that some countries were working hard to
break the African countries out of the G77, the two have threatened that the global fight against climate change could come to naught if ‘certain’ developed countries continue to push their divisive agenda.
"All the countries to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change decided that there would be two groups of countries — the culprits and the others who are suffering because of historical and accumulating emissions of industrialized countries," Yu Qingtai, climate change ambassador of China, told TOI. The Indian delegation too, has been equally stringent in warning the rich nations to stop diverting attention from their failure to cut emissions under the existing regime- phase I of the Kyoto Protocol- and instead use varying tactics to put the onus of India and China.
“There is close coordination between China and India, Including bilateral meetings, on the issue. We are very happy with this,” Qingtai added.
The new mutual admiration club Accra first became evident when both publicly complimented each other on their respective domestic action plans, even promising to enhance cooperation on its implementation. The tango of the two Asian giants seems to have ensured that the negotiations in Accra don’t dance away from what all developing countries believe is the first and centre pin of negotiations- how much reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions the rich countries will really take in the short term.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 29 Aug. 2008
You won't win any prizes for guessing what the world's current preoccupation is: how to cope in a world where oil prices have risen dramatically. One might think that India would be as obsessed as the rest of the world is with finding alternate energy solutions. Unfortunately, there isn't enough evidence of that. But why aren't we willing to grab this potential inflection point, and with our low-cost innovation skills tip the world into the widespread use of viable alternative energy sources?
Let me focus on our approach to solar power, as an example. The good news is that the issues of solar power are definitely on the government's radar. While releasing the National Action Plan on Energy recently, the prime minister described solar power as having the potential to change the face of the nation. There is a goal to increase production of photovoltaics to 1,000 MW/ year and generate at least 1,000 MW of solar thermal power. This is a step in the right direction. But is this the best that can be done?
Thinking small would be tragic, given that the world's most abundant energy resource bestows itself generously over most of our country. Pundits say that dedicating just 0.3 per cent of India's land area for solar power could meet our entire electricity needs. Solar Thermal Electricity Generation (STEG) is a simple technology that consists of curved mirrors that concentrate sunlight onto a receiver tube to heat a working fluid flowing through it. The remaining part of the plant is very similar to a conventional power plant.
There are many reasons why STEG is surya's gift to us. STEG is one of the cleanest techno-logies available today. A 50-MW plant would save around 90-120 million kg of greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, its energy payback is merely five months compared to a useful life of more than 25 years. Most importantly, STEG technology is the only solar technology that provides "firm" power and allows plants to dispatch power when demanded. It can also work in a hybrid mode enabling solar heat to be backed by co-firing with natural gas or coal. Waste heat from the combined generation of heat and power can be used for industrial applications, district heating and cooling and seawater desalination.
What then is the rub in implementing STEG in a big way? First, it costs between Rs. 7.50 and Rs. 17 per kWh to generate electricity through STEG, compared to Rs. 1.40 for certain coal-based plants. In India, however, many consumers make their own arrangements for back-up power. The installed capacity of captive power plants in India is more than 20,000 MW, approximately 40 per cent of which are based on diesel generator (DG) sets. The real cost of generation of diesel power, therefore, comes to around Rs. 17/kWh if we add the subsidy component. So while STEG may cost more compared to conventionally generated power, these costs are competitive with peak load power costs generated by DG sets.
The cost of generation from a STEG plant is also higher compared to, say, wind power. But here, scale will reduce costs. The US Department of Energy estimates that the cost of STEG power generation may come down to Rs 1.50-2.50/kWh in the next 15 years, which would be comparable to conventional power.
Second, we give STEG only half-hearted policy support. Other countries, many of which receive half the sunlight we get, are taking the lead in successfully commercialising solar power technologies. Germany is becoming the largest PV
market in the world. The US and Spain are hot spots in the global STEG market. All this is due to policy and incentive support. However, India has a timid and incremental policy support. The MNES incentive scheme provides a maximum incentive of Rs 10 per kWh to STEG plants provided these plants are in the 1-5 MW range. This is a nice gesture, but it can hardly be said to open the floodgates for speedy development. STEG plants are cost-effective in more than 50 MW range - where the incentive doesn't apply. The policy incentive is also unavailable to plants that operate in the hybrid mode, with the back-up support of fossil fuels like natural gas. The policy kills entrepreneurial via-bility that can lead to quick commercialisation.
We are not ambitious enough. The National Action Plan speaks of a quantum leap in the share of solar energy in the national energy mix. However, the plan has set a goal of installing 1,000 MW of STEG capacity by 2017, as against India's need of 3,00,000 MW additional capacity. Such a modest goal would not significantly impact the energy mix in favour of solar power and reduce the carbon footprint.
What could be an alternative scenario? We plan around future imperatives and leapfrog to STEG. We leverage our skills of frugal innovation to make it affordable and scalable, not just for India but the rest of the world. We focus our policy support on scale and commercialisation and attract public-private partnerships. We put all plans on the fast track, and become STEG technology leaders and suppliers to the world. And get ourselves plenty of clean energy in the bargain.
Let's not revert to our old pre-reform avatar, and wait for a beneficent western power to find the solutions, and then go around with a begging bowl for 'technology transfers'. As we try to address global issues of climate change, energy security and snowballing oil prices, a commercially viable technology that is clean, scalable and utility-friendly is staring us in the face. We are endowed with abundant sunshine and a 1,70,000 sq km desert which is a natural energy generator waiting to be harnessed. What on earth are we waiting for? The time is ripe for a public-private partnership to help this technology - and India - attain its place under the sun.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 23 Aug. 2008
Challenging the Basis of Kyoto Protocol
As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming.
Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.”
Russian researchers made this discovery while studying ice cores recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres in Antarctica. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.
“We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2,” says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.
Critics of the CO2 role in climate change point out that water vapours are a far more potent factor in creating the greenhouse effect as their concentration in the atmosphere is five to 10 times higher than that of CO2. “Even if all CO2 were removed from the Earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.
The hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gases was born out of computer modelling of climate changes. Russian scientists say climate models are inaccurate since scientific understanding of many natural climate factors is still poor and cannot be properly modelled. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies, and many other Russian scientists maintain that global climate depends predominantly on natural factors, such as solar activity, precession (wobbling) of the Earth’s axis, changes in ocean currents, fluctuations in saltiness of ocean surface water, and some other factors, whereas industrial emissions do not play any significant role. Moreover, greater concentrations of CO2 are good for life on Earth, Dr. Sorokhtin argues, as they make for higher crop yields and faster regeneration of forests.
“There were periods in the history of the Earth when CO2 levels were a million times higher than today, and life continued to evolve quite successfully,” agrees Vladimir Arutyunov of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Physics.
When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” He ignored the advice and sent the Kyoto pact to parliament for purely political reasons: Moscow traded its approval of the Kyoto Protocol for the European Union’s support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation. Russian endorsement was critical, as without it the Kyoto Protocol would have fallen through due to a shortage of signatories. It did not cost much for Russia to join the Kyoto Protocol since its emission target was set at the level of 1990, that is, before the Russian economy crashed following the break-up of the Soviet Union. According to some projections, Russia will not exceed its target before 2017. Notwithstanding this, the Russian scientific community is vocal in its opposition to the Kyoto process.
“The Kyoto Protocol is a huge waste of money,” says Dr. Sorokhtin. “The Earth’s atmosphere has built-in regulatory mechanisms that moderate climate changes. When temperatures rise, ocean water evaporation increases, denser clouds stop solar rays and surface temperatures decline.”
Academician Kapitsa denounced the Kyoto Protocol as “the biggest ever scientific fraud.” The pact was lobbied by European politicians and industrialists, critics say, in order to improve the competitiveness of European products and slow down economic growth in emerging economies. “The European Union pushed through the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the competitive edge of the U.S. and other countries where ecological standards are less stringent than in Europe,” says ecologist Sergei Golubchikov.
Russian scientists deny that the Kyoto Protocol reflects a consensus view of the world scientific community. Academician Kapitsa complains that opponents of the man-caused global warming are routinely denied the floor at international climate forums.
“A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace,” the scientist says. “As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Critics concede that the thrust of the Kyoto Protocol is towards promoting energy-saving technologies, but then, they argue, it should have been just that — a protocol on energy efficiency and energy conservation. The problem with the Kyoto process, critics say, is that it shifts the emphasis away from genuine ecological problems, such as industrial, air and water pollution, to the wasteful fight against harmless gases.
“Ecological treaties should seek to curb emissions of sulpher dioxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals and other highly-toxic pollutants instead of targeting carbon dioxide, which is a non-toxic gas whose impact on global warming has not been proved,” says Dr. Golubchikov.
Russian researchers compare the Kyoto Protocol to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for phasing out freon-12 as a preferred refrigerant. It has since been proved, says Dr. Golubchikov, that chlorine-containing freon-12 destroys ozone only in laboratory conditions whereas in the atmosphere, it interacts with hydrogen and falls back to Earth as acid rain before it can harm ozone.
The Montreal Protocol brought billions of dollars in profits for U.S. DePont, which held global patent rights for freon-134, an alternative refrigerant that does not interact with ozone. “Within 10 years of the Montreal Protocol the output of refrigeration compressors in the U.S. increased by 60 per cent, whereas in Europe it declined by a similar proportion. In Russia, which accounted for a quarter of the global market of refrigerants, the industry ground to a complete stop,” says Yevgeny Utkin, Secretary of Russia’s Inter-Agency Commission for Climate Change.
The ultimate irony of the Montreal Protocol is that the new refrigerant is the most potent among greenhouse gases blacklisted under the Kyoto Protocol, and moreover is explosion-prone. The freon bubble burst when, in 1989, the ozone layer suddenly jumped to the pre-Montreal Protocol level and has since continued to rise. Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol are convinced that the greenhouse gases bubble will likewise prove short-lived.
Global cooling
Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in the Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere “growing gradually cooler for the past three decades”, “the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,” and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove “catastrophic.” Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming. “Climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth,” The Time lamented.
Russian scientists say that today’s alarmism over greenhouse gases is as baseless as concerns about man-raised dust were 30 years ago. Solar physicists claim that the Earth has entered a 30-year period of global cooling predicated upon a cyclic decline in solar activity. They cite U.S. global weather reports as indicating that global temperatures have stopped rising since the turn of the century. “The global warming in 1970-1998 was merely a phase in the 60-year cycles of natural warming and cooling,” Dr. Bashkirtsev says.
Russian climate researchers working in Antarctica confirm that temperatures on the sixth continent have been declining in recent years. According to geographer Nikolai Osokin, the ice cover in Antarctica, which accounts for 90 per cent of the global ice stock, has overall been growing.
This year global temperatures have been showing a distinct downward trend, and according to the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, in May “the globe was cooler than at any time since January 2000.”
This is good news for Dr. Bashkirtsev, who together with another Russian solar physicist three years ago, bet climate scientist James Annan $10,000 that the Earth would cool down over the next decade. It is more than a wage; it is a contest between two concepts of climate change. The Russian scientists believe in sun-driven climate changes, while the British researcher creates man-caused climate-warming models on the Earth Simulator supercomputer in Japan’s Yokohama.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 10 July 2008
Global Warming May Cause Kidney Stones Too
More Americans are likely to suffer from kidney stones in the coming years as a result of global warming, according to researchers at the University of Texas.
Kidney stones, which are formed from dissolved minerals in the urine and can be extremely painful, are often caused by dehydration, either by not drinking enough liquid or losing too much due to high heat conditions.
If global warming trends continue as projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the United States can expect as much as a 30 per cent growth in kidney stone disease in some of its driest areas, said the findings published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The increased incidence of disease would represent between 1.6 million and 2.2 million cases by 2050, costing the US economy as much as one billion dollars in treatment costs.
“This study is one of the first examples of
global warming causing a direct medical consequence for humans,” said Margaret Pearle, professor of urology at University of Texas Southwestern and senior author of the paper.
“When people relocate from areas of moderate temperature to areas with warmer climates, a rapid increase in stone risk has been observed.
This has been shown in military deployments to the Middle East for instance.”
The lead author of the research, Tom Brikowski, compared kidney stone rates with UN forecasts of temperature increases and created two mathematical models to predict the impact on future populations.
One formula showed an increase in the southern half of the country, including the already existing ‘kidney stone belt’ of the southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 16 July 2008
Gore Sets ‘Moon Shot’ Warming Goal
Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.
The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said Barack Obama and John McCain are “way ahead” of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.
Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by US dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create “a new political environment” that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels. “I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that’s emerging now,” Gore said. He said he fully understands the magnitude of the challenge.
The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $ 1.5 trillion to $ 3 trillion over 30 year in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.
“This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over,” Gore said. “It’s an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.”
Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made combatting global warming his signature issue, a campaign that has been recognized worldwide – from an Academy award to a Nobel Prize. “I hope to contribute to a new political environment in this country that will allow the next president to do what I think the next president is going to think is the right thing to do,” Gore said. “But the people have to play a part.” He likened his challenge to Kennedy’s pledge in May 1961 to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
Gore narrowly lost the presidential race in 2000 to George Bush after a campaign in which his views on climate change took a back seat to other issues. While dismissing a suggestion that he pulled his punches eight years ago, Gore said his goal now is to “enlarge the political space” within which politicians can “deal with the climate challenge.”
To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 18 July 2008
Burying the Bogey of Global Warming
I hope that sanity will prevail and China will resist the calls by rabid environmentalists to embark on a self-defeating and hugely expensive emissions control programme. If it continues to resist, China may prove to be the world’s saviour from the sanctimonious movement of ideological environmentalism.
It is always hard to oppose a movement, which, often in the guise of a religion, claims it has the answers to how life should be. It is harder to deal with one that claims that life itself is at stake. Environmentalism in the developed world has taken on that character and while it has often preached how people should live their lives, what they should eat and how they should dress, in the last few years it has raised the bogeyman of global warming, the result of exploiting the sources of energy that are so vital to modern living.
“Global climate change” has become a slogan for zealots because by invoking it one can blame all variations in temperature and all calamities on the same source, man-made CO2 emissions. This is often without regard to the connection between energy consumption and growth. While enviromentalists often talk about profligacy and waste of energy by developed and developing countries they omit the even more important truth: energy consumption generates wealth and well-being.
China also has to know that many of the ideologues who have criticised the country over Tibet, the Olympics and even claimed divine intervention punished the country with the recent earthquakes are also those who spew global warming rhetoric. It must be nice to live in multimillion-dollar mansions, drive Ferraris, jet around and then preach to others about how to live their lives.
None of this is to say the world should ignore pollution. Pollution, especially airborne particulate matter from the combustion of coal, is a real but tractable problem. China with its breakneck economic development has had its share of the problem. The Chinese know it and they also know they have to fix the problem and are taking the necessary steps.
The real issue is the noise about anthropogenic global climate change because of CO2 emissions. “The science is all in” – not just for proof that global warming is happening, but also in support of the notion that “almost all of it” is anthropogenic. “Scientific consensus” is cited to leave no doubt over the fact of global warming, or its causes, or its potential future effects. Scientist questioning this orthodoxy are portrayed in the press as “sceptics and “deniers”. There are many of those and they are poised to carry the argument.
We will not discuss whether global warming is an outlier from the past or a fraction or all of it is anthropogenic. Others have done so, often causing much acrimony, and much more will be forthcoming because of the socio-political implications (both domestic and international).
There will be decisive public reaction once the issue goes beyond rhetoric and becomes associated with the price tag that accompanies legislation. An undeniable element is that much of the international discussion on anthropogenic global warming is a thinly veiled criticism of the US and now China, their lifestyle, and the ancillary use of energy resources. What becomes even more unsettling are the postulated future effects of global warming. A review of the “scientific” literature shows a wide array of claims, many quite contradictory. Will global warming cause more of fewer
hurricanes, will sea levels rise by several metres or a few millimetres? The answers to these questions aren’t trivial.
What is at issue is that while alarmist prognostications pay in printing more books and articles and even launch movies, there are no alternatives to fossil fuels or natural gas in the foreseeable future. We will be a hydrocarbon-dependent world for several more decades. All other claims are either wrong or disingenuous.
We better figure out two more important issues: how to find more oil and gas without embarking on more wars and how to control real pollution such as particulate matter and nitrogen and sulphur oxides, which really harm us and the atmosphere. But that economic growth will not be negotiable should be made clear.
The Statesman (New Delhi), 24 July 2008
Faith to Global Warming’s Rescue
Like shrinking ice caps, resistance among American Christians to address the effects of global warning is diminishing, creating a once-unlikely connection between the scientific and the spiritual, representatives of national and local religious organisations said. Even opposition from evangelicals, the Christian group considered least likely to embrace warnings of climate change, might be lessening.
“Science asks what, religion answers why,” said Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, during a visit to Seattle. “People need reasons, not directives, to change their behaviour when a profound change is required.”
Those reasons are evident in scientific research on global warning, he said, and correspond with biblical mandates to care and protect the Earth. Although in agreement that Christians are to be good stewards of what God created, evangelicals generally don’t view global warning as a threat partly because of opposition to other theories that challenge their faith, Cizik said in an interview before his appearance on a panel at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington. “Evangelicals have not trusted mainstream science because of Darwin and evolution,” he said. “So there’s a deep repository of suspicion.”
Time magazine named Cizik, a native of Quincy in Eastern Washington’s Grant county, as one of the 100 most influential people in the world for 2008 for his activism, though noting his detractors “say there are more important issues for evangelicals to tackle, and there is no consensus within the community about global warming anyway.”
Cizik’s work made him a lightning rod among national evangelical leaders. “The religious right asked for my head on a platter,” he said.
Christian concern for the environment has been more typical among mainline denominations, whose top values include earth stewardship and social justice, said LeeAnne Beres, executive director of Earth Ministry in Seattle. “There is no inherent conflict between science and religion,” said Beres, a former fisheries biologist. “We have an obligation to care for creation, whether we believe life evolved or is from God.”
Peter Illyn, founder of Restoring Eden in Vancouver, sees a growing interest in environmental issues among college-aged Christians and others “tired of debating the origins of life while forgetting the degradation” of God’s creation. In her years of teaching about environmental issues at Seattle Pacific University, geography Professor Kathleen Braden said, “I have seen a huge turnaround in attitude — from skepticism to true concern — and I would say the concern is often motivated by faith and their belief that God has entrusted the world to our care.”
A study released early this year by the Barna Group, which specialises in religious surveys, found that only 33 per cent of American evangelicals considered global warming to be a major problem facing the country. (Barna regards evangelicals as a socially conservative subset of born-again Christians.)
Two years ago, 86 prominent evangelical leaders signed a major statement to combat global warming, saying it was imperative of Christians to protect the Earth and those affected worldwide. Among the signers were Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, the Federal Way-based Christian charity, and Philip Eaton, president of Seattle Pacific University. The Rev Joe Fuiten, pastor of Cedar Park Assembly in Bothell and known for his conservative positions on social issues, takes a dim view of global warming. “Who is causing the warming on other planets in our solar system, and how can we really know how much of the current temperature rise is human caused rather than just the normal cycle of nature?” Fuiten asked. “I also wonder why previous rises in temperature were a good thing for the earth, but the current one is bad.”
Cizik said that 90 per cent of global warming was attributed to humans by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists. “It comes down to trust,” he said. “Whom do you trust?”
But Cizik said underlying troubles remain that science can’t solve.
“Loss of biodiversity, pollution and climate change are reflections of man’s greatest problem: pride, apathy and greed,” with society turning resources into commodities without replenishing the Earth, he said.
Solving global warming, he said, will “necessitate a cultural and spiritual transformation.”
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 27 July 2008
Greenland’s ice sheet represents one of global warming’s most disturbing threats. The vast expanses of glaciers – massed, on average, 1.6 miles deep – contain enough water to raise sea levels worldwide by 23 feet. Should they melt or otherwise slip into the ocean, they would flood coastal capitals, submerge tropical islands and generally redraw the world’s atlases. The infusion of fresh water could slow or shut down the ocean’s currents, plunging Europe into bitter winter.
Yet for the residents of the frozen island, the early stages of climate change promise more good, in at least one important sense, than bad. A Danish protectorate since 1721, Greenland has long sought to cut its ties with its colonizer.
But while proponents of complete independence face little opposition at home or in Copenhagen, they haven’t been able to overcome one crucial calculation: the country depends on Danish assistance for more than 40 per cent of its gross domestic product.
Climate change has the power to unsettle boundarles and shake up geopolitics, usually for the worse. But while most of the world sees only peril in the island’s meltwater, Greenland’s independence movement has explicitly tied its fortunes to the warming of the globe.
The island’s ice cover has already begun to disappear. Greenland’s fishermen are applauding return of warm-water cod. Shops in island’s capital have suddenly begun to offer locally produced potatoes and broccoli – crops unimaginable few years earlier.
But the real promise lies in what may be found under the ice. Near the town of Uumannaq, about halfway up Greeenland’s coast, retreating glaciers have uncovered pockets of lead and zinc. Gold and diamond prospectors have flooded the island’s south. Alcoa is preparing to build a large aluminum smelter. The island’s minerals are becoming more accessible even as global commodity prices are soaring. And with more than 80 per cent of the land currently iced over, the island has begun to reveal its riches.
Offshore, where the Arctic Ocean is rapidly thawing, expectations are even higher. Greenland’s northeastern waters could contain 31 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and gas.
In November, Greenlanders will vote on a referendum that would leverage global warming into a path to independence. The proposed plan for self-rule, drafted in partnership with Copenhagen, is expected to pass over-whelmingly.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 28 July 2008
Differences have persisted over climate change issues at the G8 Conference held earlier this month. Though climate change was high on the agenda, a host of worries over economic and other global problems dominated the summit held at the lakeside resort of Hokkaido Toyako in Japan. As a result, an agreement on fighting global warming has once again been put on the backburner. The summit had brought together 16 of the world’s biggest polluters together to be able to arrive at some consensus. Other than India, represented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, leaders of the eight industrialised countries, apart from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and South Africa, were present. With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012, the issue has some urgency. Climatologists had warned that this year’s summit was important as states must agree to replace this protocol. Yet consensus on the issue of climate change has again proved to be evasive. Disagreements between the nations and some of the participants continue to persist. Four members of the G8, Germany, Britain, France and Italy, had already pledged to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent of the 1990 levels, no matter what the rest of the world does, and 30 per cent if other major powers do the same. But the US, which had refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, insists on India and China being held to the same standards. This is regarded as unfair by India and China for it is essentially the G8 countries that are responsible for global warming by emitting so much greenhouse gases in the last 100 years.
In fact, the per capita carbon emissions of India and China are well below that of the developed countries. Were these two countries to agree to the same level of emission cuts as expected of the US, it would adversely affect their development as well as perpetuate the disparity in the living standards of people in the rich and poor countries. India and China would like the rich countries to commit to specific mid-term goals. The developed countries have to bear the lion’s share of capping emissions as many of them have not even adhered to existing targets. These wide divergences between the points of view of the US,
Europe and India and China have meant that the summit has not had truly meaningful results beyond well-intentioned statements. It is, however, a positive note that all countries have agreed that deep-cuts are necessary in emission rates. A package of proposals has been developed for future discussions. Hopefully, there shall be consensus before it is too late to reverse global warming.
The Pioneer (Dehradun), 16 July 2008
I am reliably told by a Bush administration official that there is an old saying in Texas that goes like this: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”
Could anyone possibly come up with a better description of President Bush’s energy policy? America is in the midst of its worst energy crisis in years and what is the big decision our decider has decided? Drum roll, please: Our decider decided to lift the executive orders banning drilling for oil and natural gas off the country’s shoreline – even though he knew this was meaningless gesture because a congressional moratorium on drilling passed in 1981 remains in force.
The economist Paul Romer once said to me that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. President Bush is well on his way to being remembered as the leader who wasted not one but two crises: 9/11 and 4/11. The average price of gasoline in the US most recently, according to the Energy Information Administration, was $ 4.11.
After 9/11, Bush had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on breaking our addiction to oil. Instead, he told us to go shopping. After gasoline prices hit $4.11 last week, he had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on clean energy. Instead, he told us to go drilling.
Neither shopping nor drilling is the solution to our problems.
What doesn’t the Bush crowd get? It’s this: We don’t have a “gasoline price problem”. We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports, widening “energy poverty” across Africa, destroying plants and animals at record rates and fostering ever-stronger petro-dictatorships in Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
When a person is addicted to crack cocaine, his problem is not that the price of crack is going up. His problem is what that crack addiction is doing to his whole body. The cure is not cheaper crack, which would only perpetuate the addiction and all the problems it is creating. The cure is to break the addiction.
Ditto for us. Our cure is not cheaper gasoline, but a clean energy system. And the key to building that is to keep the price of gasoline and coal –our crack – higher, not lower, so consumers are moved to break their addiction to these dirty fuels and inventors are moved to create clean alternatives.
I understand why consumers think we have a gasoline price problem – because they are immediately hurt by higher gas prices and the pump is where most people touch our energy system. They tend not to see the bigger picture. But that is why you have a president: to explain that and lay out a response.
Alas, we have a president and a vice president who deny that climate change is hurting our environmental body, who refuse to environmental body, who refuse to see the connection between the dollars we are shifting abroad and the rise of petro-dictators, who do not care about biodiversity loss and who are apparently untroubled by the sharp decline in the dollar, partly because of all the money we are paying for oil imports, So, they have chosen to define this as a “gasoline price crisis” – not an –addiction-to-a-fuel-that-is-badly-hurting-us-as-a-nation crisis.
If you want to know what an alternative strategy might look like, read the speech that Al Gore delivered to the bipartisan Alliance for Climate Protection. Gore, the alliance’s chairman, called for a 10-year plan – the same amount of time John F Kennedy set for getting us to the moon – to shift the entire country to “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” to power our homes, factories and even transportation.
Gore proposed dramatically improving our national electricity grid and energy efficiency, while investing massively in clean solar, wind, geothermal and carbon-sequestered coal technologies that we know can work but just need to scale. To make the shift, he called for taxing carbon and offsetting that by reducing payroll taxes: Let’s “tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.
Whether you agree or not with Gore’s plan, at least he has a plan for dealing with the real problem we face – a multifaceted, multigenerational energy/environment/geopolitical problem.
This moment - $4.11 – represents Bush’s last chance for a legacy. It amazes me how inadequate his response has been. By hectoring the nation to simply drill for more oil, he has
profoundly underestimated the challenges we face, misread the scale of the solutions required, underappreciated the American people’s willingness to sacrifice if presented with a real plan, and ignored the greatness that would accrue to our country if we led the world in clean power.
Business Standard (New Delhi), 22 July 2008
NTPC Largest Power Plant Polluter, Study
Even though the Climate Action Plan is quiet on commitments to cap India's greenhouse gas emissions, a global study-Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA)-puts the spotlight on the role India's power generators play in causing global warming.
CO2 emissions of 50,000 power plants worldwide have been compiled into a database (CARMA), which states that India emits 583 mn tonne of CO2 generated by its power plants. Of this, leading power utility NTPC alone contributes 182 million tonne of CO2 (31 per cent), giving it the dubious distinction of the largest polluter among Indian power plants. Experts say these emissions cost society about $3.6 billion in damages caused to the environment. Power generation accounts for about a quarter of total emissions of CO2, terming it the main culprit for global warming.
India, of course, is nowhere close to the world's largest power generator, the US (2.8 billion tonne of CO2), but it is the fourth largest polluter among power projects after China (2.7 billion tonne of CO2) and Russia (661 million tonne of CO2). By 2012, India is expected to overtake Russia in power generation.
Pressures are mounting on India, China, and other advanced emerging countries to set sectoral caps on emission. The Indian government has resisted these pressures successfully so far. However, many in the industry believe that an agreement of some form of sectoral cap is inevitable in the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol when it lapses in 2012.
In such a case, the power sector will be the first to go under the knife. This will affect the fortunes of many Indian companies that rely on coal for power generation, including NTPC. "Now is the opportune time for India's coal-based power companies to initiate emission reduction measures, as they will face increased public pressure both at home and abroad," said Emmanuel D'Silva, a former World Bank environmental economist.
According to D'Silva, NTPC could set internal targets for emission reduction and make this information public. NTPC officials, however, were unwilling to discuss this matter.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 1 Aug. 2008
India is the laggard on climate change challenges.” So said a senior European personality at a high-powered meeting I attended in Berlin a few weeks ago. Many luminaries attended this meeting. Ban Ki Moon, Javier Solana and Mohamed El-Baradei. For such a serious criticism of India to be made at a serious meeting attended by serious people showed that India may soon have a serious people showed that India may soon have a serious problem on its hands: to be perceived as the prime obstacle in responding to climate change.
This may well happen even though criticism of India is manifestly unfair here. The real “laggards” on climate change are America and Europe, not China or India. The reason why this is the case is astonishingly simple but if you read the Western media, you will never find this simple argument ever expressed. The failure of the Western media to report this simple argument demonstrates clearly that even though the Western media often pretend to defend global interests, in reality, their actual role is to defend Western national interests.
So what is this simple argument? Global warming is not happening today because of the new ‘flows of greenhouse gas emissions in recent decades. It is happening because of the ‘stock’ of greenhouse gas emissions that the Western industrialised countries have deposited in the atmosphere since their industrial revolution, which was also brought about by burning a lot of dirty coal.
The global analysts are absolutely right in saying that the only way to prevent global warming – which would be disastrous for all of humanity – would be to reduce the ‘flows’ of greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot reduce the ‘stock’. This is true. It is also true that the only way to reduce the ‘flows’ of greenhouse gas emissions is to put an economic price on the new ‘flows’ of greenhouse gas emissions.
Both of these propositions are true. However, there is a third proposition which is equally true but that is never mentioned in any Western analysis: if India and China are to pay an economic price the new ‘flows’ of greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn’t the Western industrialised countries also be made to pay an economic price for the ‘stock’ of greenhouse gas emissions that they have released into the atmosphere? There is fundamental principle of justice involved here. Why punish only the latest marginal contributors to a global problem and forgive the main historical contributors to the same global problem?
This problem of injustice is further aggravated by the fact that the Western industrialised countries are still much richer than China and India. According to the latest World Bank figures, GNI per capita figures are: US $46,040 in USA, US $38,860 in Germany, US $38,500 in France, US $42,740 in UK, US $2,360 China and US $900 in India. Yet, despite such economic disparities, the pressure is growing on China and India to make equal contributions.
President George W. Bush has been a good friend of India in many ways. The Indo-US nuclear accord was a clear win for India. He has also pushed for closer relations with India in other ways. But in at least one area, he has damaged India’s real national interests. President Bush fiercely opposed the Kyoto Protocol and may finally succeed in killing it. His primary reason for opposing the Kyoto Protocol was that it imposed no burden on China and India to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But the compromise reached in Kyoto Protocol was a result of an implicit acknowledgement that those responsible for the ‘stock’ of greenhouse gas emissions should assume primary responsibility. President Bush has killed that sense of responsibility.
The Kyoto Protocol is virtually dead. Let me make one confident prediction: if Barack Obama is elected president of the USA, he will make global warming a major priority. During his meeting with President Sarkozy on 25 July, 2008, Obama indicated that as president he would work toward an energy policy to curb the use of fossil fuels and work to lower emissions and reduce global warming. He also stated his commitment to participate in international conventions on global warming. Hence, when Obama takes office, we can expect a new frenzy of moralising by both America and the EU on the global warming challenge.
The frenczy of moralising may actually be good for the world. With each passing year, we are beginning to be aware that global warming will lead to many disastrous consequences. The melting of the Gangotri Glacier, a key source of water supply to the Ganges River, could lead to serious problems for India. There would also be threats to food supply. In addition, there will be an obscene scramble for the resources under the Artic ice cap as they cap continue to melt. In short, global warming is a serious issue. We cannot afford to ignore it.
However, it is also true that no solution to global warming is possible without sacrifice. All of us, those living in rich and poor societies, will have to sacrifice some aspects of our lifestyle. The real debate on the global warming issue should be how to apportion the sacrifices. Since the Western industrialised countries are responsible for the huge ‘stock’ of greenhouse gas emissions and since they remain the richest societies of the world, any natural principle of justice would dictate that world, any natural principle of justice would dictate that they have to bear the heaviest burden of any ‘sacrifice’.
What is truly shocking here is that not a single Western politician dares to use the word ‘sacrifice’ when discussing global warming. Only a retired politician like Al Gore can do so. Al Gore has proposed a one-dollar solution for America. He has correctly calculated that a dollar a gallon tax at the petrol pump would significantly reduce gas consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This solution is simple and easy to implement. Yet no American politician dares to suggest this.
Instead, the latest statement by the G8 leaders at their recent meeting shows how outrageous the Western leaders have become on the global warming issue. In an effort to look virtuous, they agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. But they specified no base year. Even worse, they suggested that the eight fastest growing countries, including China and India, should adopt a ‘shared vision’ of tackling global warming.
Such moralising by the West on global warming is going to hit a new fever pitch if Obama takes over. Both China and India, and other developing countries, will be hit by tsunami of moral posturing on global warming in 2009. It is best to begin preparations for the moral tsunami before it hits our shores.
The best way to do so is to capture the moral high ground first. So far, all the discussions on global warming have been led by Western experts, who inevitably have to defend Western interests. Even the highly praised report by Nick Stern looks at resolving the problem of global warming only through the dimension of ‘flows’ and pays little attention to the ‘stock’.
So, both China and India need to develop their own comprehensive analysis of the global warming problem. One economist who has tried to bring some balance to this discussion is Professor Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University, whose article in the Financial Times argues that “While emissions today are substantial and growing for India and China, the emission of yesterday and mainly by rich countries. The accumulated fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 1850 to 2004 shows the damage attributable to China and India to be less than 10 per cent while the EU, Russia and US jointly account for nearly 70 per cent”. However, Professor Bhagwati represents a lonely voice. India needs to marshal considerable intellectual resources to support the arguments that he has tried to make. Only this will erase the impression developing in many leading Western minds that India is the global laggard in responding to global warming.
Kishore Mahbubani is Dean, Professor in the Practice of Public Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School
of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 10 Aug. 2008
Orissa Big Offender in Global Warming
Orissa has a major share in global warming. The amount of greenhouse gases the state is producing at present is enough to unsettle the ecology of the country.
One of the major coalbearing states in the country, the state, by March 31, 2007, had 1,865 MW of coal-based thermal power stations. In the last one-and a-half years, the state government has signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with over a dozen of major developers to set up new thermal power plants. These proposed thermal units do not include the capacity of captive power plants, which will be installed by around 50 industries in the steel and aluminium sectors. These plants, which are likely to be commissioned by 2012, will produce about 20,000 MW of power.
“Taking a very conservative view, even if we expect a total installed capacity of 20,000 MW coal-based thermal power station in Orissa by 2012, they will generate at 80 per cent plant load factor, about 1,40,000 million units of electricity and emit about 152.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year to the atmosphere,” says Mr. S.K. Nanda, a leading environment expert.
Mr. Nanda, who is heading the environment panel of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), points out that excessive presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming the planet and driving the global climate change. This climate is already having devastating impact on the mankind. The climate change has adversely impacted agriculture, public health and economy.
“The glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating at an average rate of 50 feet per year, consistent with rapid warming recorded since 1970. The Khumba glacier on the popular climbing route to the sum mit of Mount Everest has retreated by 5 km since 1953. The Gangotri glacier is also retreating at 98 feet per year. At this rate, scientists predict, the loss of all central and eastern Himalayan glaciers by 2035,” he observes.
Global warming has started to show its
results on the coastal areas in West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. The rising ocean level has flooded about 18,500 acres of mangrove forest in Chokaria, Sunderban, in West Bengal in the past three decades. Sea inundation has been a regular phenomenon in Puri, Konark and Kendrapara in Orissa, threatening human habitation on the coast.
Increase in the average temperature of earth is causing more water to evaporate.
The presence of sufficient water vapour in the atmosphere leads to some vapour condensing to cloud, releasing heat to the atmosphere, which makes the air parcel warmer, forcing it to rise again. This process continues and becomes the cause of thunderstorm and lightening. Thunderstorms are caused when an air mass becomes so unstable that it overturns violently. The increase in the frequency of thunderstorm and lightening in the 21st century is caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing. More than 1,000 people have been killed in Orissa due to lightening alone during the past decade.
In Orissa, the official death toll figure due to lightening in 2006 was 202. This figure crossed 300 mark in 2007. This year, at least 150 have been killed in lightening so far.
“If this figure is compared to the death toll 10 years back, which was much lower, even less than 100, the great danger due to the global warming and climate change can be well conceived. Similarly, sunstroke has also taken a huge number of lives during the past few years, which was almost unknown in Orissa 10 years back,” adds Mr. Nanda.
The environmentalist suggests the policymakers, industrial houses and the world leaders should focus on the use of clean and green energy to save the Earth from the imminent deluge that threatens to devour the entire human civilisation.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 13 Aug. 2008
Scientists: Cities to Bear Brunt of Rise in Temperature
Research conducted by scientists at Pune’s Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology has revealed that temperatures would rise by 3-4 degrees by 2050.
A team at IITM, led by Krishna Kumar, used what is known as “A1B scenario” to pick a curve against which greenhouse emissions are calculated. The A1B scenario refers to a UN accepted set of changes in the world economy that drive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It presumes a global economy growing by 3 per cent annually with high rates of investment and innovation, use of varied sources of energy and an economic convergence between the developed and developing countries.
With the emission growth curve drawn from the A1B scenario, Kumar and his team used data relevant to India in complex climate models to generate future projections for dozens of climate parameters that allowed them to map out how temperatures and monsoon would change if emissions rose. The results of their work will now be used by other experts to calibrate how vulnerable the country could be on different fronts if these projections come true. The study is an eye-opener. It says the rise of temperatures would be far more over northern India than the peninsular region. The temperatures would begin rising in northern and western regions initially and then the pattern would shift eastward. The increase would occur in both night and day time temperatures. Global modelling results have been suggesting that average annual precipitation in the country may see about an 8-10 per cent increase. The pattern of increase in rainfall too is predicted to move from north and north-west India towards the east. But in case of rains, the devil lies not in annual averages but in intensity of precipitation and the
timing of the monsoon which are critical to India’s seasons and food productions. Here, the portents are quite ominous. With time, the rains would become more intense, pouring more water down each day when it does rain, while the total number of rainy days decrease. The consequences are easy to see- cities like Delhi that are not able to handle the occasional heavy shower even today, as was the case this year, could get flooded rapidly. The scene may not be much better for cities like Mumbai which are used to heavy rains but still struggle with their drainage systems. The onset of monsoon- and its advancing pattern may be altered, the research shows.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 14 Aug. 2008
Only a few days ago came this warming from Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): There is a need to prepare for at least a four-degree rise in temperature over pre-industrial levels by 2050. The Defra chief made a case for the UK to take appropriate steps to reduce that projection figure by two degrees to minimise risks. A similar policy is in place in the European Union. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change headed by K. Pachauri had issued a similar warning in its fourth assessment report released in 2007 where it talked of a possible four-degree increase in global temperature. Now Indian scientists engaged in computing climate models at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology are taking of a four-degree temperature rise over current levels in India after 2050.
A four-degree rise in temperature for India would mean, among other things, that the rainfall pattern in the subcontinent would become heavier but less regular. This would disrupt agriculture. In addition, the rising temperature would adversely impact power, water resources and biodiversity. It
could displace thousands of people living in the Himalayan foothills and in coastal areas, as these areas are more vulnerable to global warming on account of melting ice, floods, landslides and rising sea levels and storms.
It is said that we are all related, only six degrees of separation exists between one individual and another, no matter where one lives and to which social strata one belongs. Whether this is a fact or not, every form of life in the biosphere is connected with others through the environment. The relationship could be close enough for us to worry about the consequences of irresponsible behaviour. The four-degree increase in temperature that scientific projections are warning against might well mean that no country or individual can be totally free of responsibility or escape the effects of any such increase.
It would be prudent to prepare to adapt to such as change as well as to implement policy initiatives that seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions through various measures including greener transport and buildings, efficient energy use, using renewable and alternative energy and stepping up nuclear energy generation.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 20 Aug. 2008
Even if all industrialized countries were to reduce emissions to zero by 2050, without any action by developing countries to reduce absolute emissions, the world will not be able to prevent 2oC of global average warming, a level considered dangerous by many scientists.
That’s a pretty powerful statement and one of the reasons why the UNFCCC is convening another set of climate talks this week, this time in Accra, Ghana. It’s also the starting point for Carter Bales and Rick Duke’s article on “Containing Climate Change” in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
“Containing climate change will require reducing the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions not only in the United States and other wealthy countries but also in rapidly developing nations such as China. The international community must therefore urgently implement a durable global strategy to address the climate threat.”
This is what the article sets out to do. It gets many things right and is definitely worth reading. Need for US leadership at home and internationally? Check. Inadequacy of Clean Development Mechanism and most sectoral approaches? Check Importance of a global trading system? Check. It also mentions something close to “Clean Investment Budgets” in all but name. How do you convince developing countries to take caps on emissions and join a global trading system? Use the limited atmospheric room left under a global emissions reduction pathway that prevents 2oC of average warming. The snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is decreasing quickly and is extremely valuable. At
the moment, there’s something like 100 gigatons of CO2 equivalent emissions left under that cap. At $ 30 per ton, that’s 3 trillion dollars.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 26 Aug. 2008
The G8 summit held in Hokkaido last week did not generate major expectations and, therefore, did not perhaps result in any great disappointment. The chair's summary issued at the end of the summit undertakes the usual tour across major issues and hotspots across the globe. However, the most important part deals with the subject of climate change, on which the G8 leaders agreed to a common vision of reducing by 2050 global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 50 per cent.
The language presented, however, states that “the G8 leaders seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50 per cent reduction of global emissions by 2050”. Yet, there is no mention of the base year from which this reduction would be measured. It could, therefore, be taken to apply to the 1990 level specified in the Kyoto Protocol or 2000 or perhaps even from the date when the summit concluded. This is clearly a flaw in the statement, the result of which would be to create doubts on the resolve of the G8 leaders in bringing about a stabilisation of the Earth's climate.
Even more significant, however, is the lack of any reference to the Bali action plan which called for “deep cuts” in GHG emissions by the year 2020 in keeping with assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While it would have been unrealistic to expect any agreement on a target for reduction of emissions by 2020, perhaps a statement supporting the intent of “deep cuts” in emissions would have been appropriate and effective in mobilising global support for negotiations that are underway for coming up with an agreement by the end of 2009, an important part of which would be actions to be taken in the immediate short term.
Why actions in the short term are important can be understood from the impact of climate change even in the period immediately ahead. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC examined a number of scenarios for stabilisation of the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, which in turn result in climate change and warming of the earth. If, for instance, average global temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels was to be limited to between 2 and 2.4 degrees centigrade then the world would have to ensure that the year when CO2 emissions peak would be no later than 2015.
Clearly, limiting emissions will not be possible unless very clear targets are established for the year 2020 that would allow a beginning of reductions by 2015. Not taking early action in reducing GHG emissions would lead to severe impacts of climate change being experienced in different parts of the world. Unfortunately, the worst consequences of these impacts will be felt by some of the poorest communities and countries, who have had hardly any role in contributing to the evolution of this problem. GHG emissions have come overwhelmingly from the developed countries, but the heaviest price in terms of impacts of climate change is being paid by some of the poorest countries.
To this extent at least the G8 leaders have either proved unaware of or insensitive to the vulnerability of the worst affected societies. There are several examples of the impacts on vulnerable regions and communities. In Africa alone by 2020 about 75 to 250 million people will be affected by water stress resulting from climate change and there is likely to be a 50 per cent decline in agricultural yields in certain countries. This would expose some of these societies to the danger of famine and massive malnutrition. Even today, over 50 countries regularly import food to meet their basic needs. With a decline in agricultural yields, an unprecedented increase in global food prices and oil, there would be very little capacity or economic means available with these nations to be able to stave off large-scale starvation, with the prospect of disruption of peace and security.
The discussions and positions adopted in the G8 this year are a step beyond what was agreed to at Heiligendamm last year and in several respects even the intention to act has been much more clearly specified. The Hokkaido statement acknowledges for instance "our leader-ship role and each of us will implement ambitious economy-wide mid-term goals in order to achieve absolute emissions reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible". However, here again time scales have not been indicated and no specific range of targets was discussed nor was there any reference to the IPCC report, which had a major role in defining the discussions and final outcome at the Bali conference.
The five so-called outreach countries — Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa — challenged the G8 countries to cut their GHG emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050. They also urged the developed countries to commit to an interim target of a 25-40 per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2020.
This summit leads to the conclusion that the rate of progress on critical issues between successive summits is questionable. The leader-ship of the richest countries in the world needs to reflect their responsibility to the global community at
large and the expectations that are aroused, which call for bolder measures and major changes in the interests of protecting the planet and all species living on it.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 14 July 2008
EU, Greens Urge Bush to Back 2050 Emissions Target
The European Union and green groups piled pressure on the United States on Monday to agree to a target to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century and back the need for rich countries to set 2020 goals as well.
Climate change is high on the agenda for the G8 nations meeting at a luxury hotel on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido from Monday to Wednesday. But green groups fear the summit will end in failure by not committing to a pledge to slash emissions by 2050.
Leaders from China, India, Brazil, Australia and other big carbon polluters will also meet G8 members during a separate gathering of what is known as the Major Economies Meeting.
An EU source said on Monday Group of Eight countries had made progress on climate issues, including emissions targets. So far we have seen progress, difficult progress, said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. This year’s G8 meeting would be considered a failure by Brussels if there was no agreement to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, the EU source said, adding that there was already common ground on other issues.
These included the use of market mechanisms, including emissions trading as the way to go and I think that is quite useful and it has been signed up by all the G8 members, he said.
Earlier on Monday, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the meeting would be a success if there was agreement on a clear-cut 50 per cent reduction by 2050 and agreement on the principle of a mid-term (target). If we agree among ourselves (in the G8), then we are in a much better position for discussions with our Chinese partners and others, Barroso said.
China and India, whose rapidly growing economies produce about a quarter of mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions, have refused to commit to fixed targets to curb emissions unless rich
nations, and particularly the United States, do so. Developing nations also want more financial aid and transfer of clean energy technology and a commitment from rich nations to mid-term target to cut emissions. The G8 emits about 40 per cent of mankind’s greenhouse gas pollution, about half of that alone coming from the United States.
President George W. Bush has refused to back any fixed numerical targets to cut emissions unless developing nations agree to binding commitments to curb their carbon pollution. Green groups have low expectations of an about-face from the Bush administration at this year’s G8 and say the bloc hasn’t made progress in fighting climate change over the past year.
A top Bush official wouldn’t say if a 2050 target would be in the final G8 text. We have indicated already that we will give serious consideration to 50 by 50, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told reporters at the G8. We have been pushing hard, and we think we’ve made good progress, so hopefully the declaration will reflect this, on the need for common systems of measurement, he said.
Meanwhile, the G8 powers told African leaders on Monday that they would call for more sanctions against Zimbabwe unless quick progress was made to deal with a presidential election the West sees as illegitimate, a senior Canadian official said. There was a statement by G8 leaders, including the prime minister (of Canada), that unless progress were made on this very quickly, increased sanctions would be called for, the official told reporters.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was declared reelected after a run-off in June in which he was the only candidate after the opposition candidate withdrew.
The Indian Express (New Delhi), 8 July 2008
Carbon Emissions Put India Inc. in a Tight Spot
The question of climate change could be casting a shadow all over the world but in India, companies are yet to take an active role in tackling the menace. But that doesn’t mean they are not aware of the issue.
A recent KPMG study on climate change to find out how Indian firms are responding to the issue finds an overwhelming 83 per cent of the respondents claiming to have a fair understanding of the problem.
However, just under half of them said they did not have a clear strategy in place to tackle the issues.
The report shows 41 per cent of the respondents indicate they have at least some quantified goals for carbon reduction to be achieved by 2010 while a significant 38 per cent have no goals. The report also brings to light the lack of appreciation of the tools and capabilities required to
contain climate change.
The most widespread measure that businesses engage in or plan to employ in order to tackle climate change is the usage of energy-efficient appliances (94 per cent), followed by educating and training employees on environment friendly practices (77 per cent).
A lot fewer businesses are engaged in other primary drivers of emission reductions. Only 29 per cent of firms review and update their global supply chain to achieve energy efficiency and merely 25 per cent have discontinued high energy services.
The report on climate change looks to assess the preparedness of India Inc towards this global phenomenon. The study also attempts to understand the Indian business leader’s appreciation of the climate change context, its implications for the economy and their businesses along with their readiness to respond to the impending change.
A total of around 70 business leaders at the CEO/CXO level were interviewed for the study. The principal ambition of ‘KPMG’s Global Green Initiative’ will be to reduce the member firms combined carbon footprint by 25 per cent by the year 2010 from a 2007 baseline, through emission reduction schemes and the use of renewable
energy in its member firms.
Speaking on the release of the report Arvind Mahajan, national industry director, energy, infrastructure and government, KPMG, said “Developing countries like India and China are under increasing international pressure to undertake measures to limit their aggregate emission levels. While the government on its part has recently announced the national action plan on climate change, the onus is now on private businesses to do their bit”.
“Merely good intentions with regard to environment awareness are not enough, what is needed is a structured and measurable plan. The first step to the process is measuring the current carbon footprint. Secondly, companies should seek to benefit from opportunities brought by climate change. For instance, the global market for low carbon energy efficient technologies is estimated to be $3 trillion by 2050,” Mahajan added.
Global awareness on climate change is far greater. Most companies in the developed world have measured and announced their baseline carbon footprint, and also their reduction targets over 5-10 year periods. KPMG is committed to addressing climate change first and foremost, by acting as a good corporate.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 24 July 2008
Cut Carbon Emissions Before Its Too Late: Pachauri
R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has asked the developed nations to get serious about reducing carbon emissions before it is “too late.”
“Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to further [global] warming of 1.8 degree Celsius to 4 degree Celsius over the 21st century,” he said while speaking at a Seminar on Global Warming and Climate Change Challenge — Issues and Challenges for India, organised by the union personnel, public grievances and pensions ministry here on Saturday.
“The world can at best allow emissions to increase up to 2015 for an equilibrium temperature increase of 2-2.4 degree Celsius,” Mr. Pachauri said.
He expressed dismay over the recently-held G8 Summit at Japan where leaders failed to set any target date to cut the emissions and he had expected them to come out with a statement. “Lack of political will has marred the purpose of the summit.” he said.
Elaborating on the wide range of climate change challenges that confront the global community, Mr. Pachauri said that if mitigation steps were taken adequately for the world as a whole, the Gross Domestic Product loss would be only less than three per cent which would not be a high price to pay.
There are many co-benefits too, such as energy security, better health and local environment protection, he added.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 28 July 2008
पर्यावरण को बचाएंगे बहुमंजिले खेत
कृषि ने हमारी दुनिया की तस्वीर को काफी बदला है।
इस कोशिश में वर्षा वाले जंगल भी कटे है हैं और उष्ण कटिबंधीय जंगल भी। इनकी जगह ले ली है गेहूं, मकई और खाद्य पदार्थों की दूसरी लहलहाती फसलों ने। यह तस्वीर बदली है दुनिया की बढ़ती जरूरतों को पूरा करने के लिए। अनुमान है कि दुनिया में इस समय जितनी जमीन पर खेती हो रही है, वह पूरे दक्षिण अमेरिका के बराबर है। इसमें चारागाह और चारा उगाने वाले खेत भी शामिल हैं। खेती के जो फायदे हैं, उनसे इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता, लेकिन उसके लिए हमने जिस तरह से अपनी दुनिया को बदला है, उसने कई तरह से नुकसान भी पहुंचाया है। हालांकि ऐसा हमारा इरादा नहीं था। इससे हमारी ईकोसिस्टम और उसकी भूमिका को काफी नुकसान पहुंचा। इसी के चलते पर्यावरण परिवर्तन भी काफी तेज हुआ।हमारी धरती फिलहाल अपने गरम दौर से गुजर रही है। हम कृषि और फॉसिल्स ईंधन के इस्तेमाल पर काफी निर्भर हैं। अमेरिका में तो फॉसिल्स ईंधन का पांचवां हिस्सा फसलों में ही इस्तेमाल होता है। इसके चलते पिछले बीस साल में पर्यावरण काफी तेजी से बदल रहा है। इसका एक बड़ा कारण वातावरण में बढ़ रही ग्रीन हाउस गैसें खासकर कार्बन डाईआक्साइड है। जैसे-जैसे आबादी बढ़ती है तो लोगों को बसाने और उनके लिए अनाज उपजाने का एक अच्छा तरीका जंगल को उजाड़ना ही हो गया है। कार्बन डाई आक्साइड का उत्पादन लगातार बढ़ रहा है और उन्हें पचाने वाले पेड़ कम हो रहे हैं, इसलिए यह गैस वातावरण में ही रह जाती है और सूरज की रोशनी को रोकती है।
जिसे हम पर्यावरण परिवर्तन कहते हैं, वह दरअसल खाद्य पदार्थों की लगातार आपूर्ति बनाए रखने की हमारी कोशिशों का ही नतीजा है। यह ऐसा परिवर्तन है जो मानव जाति की दीर्घायु होने की संभावनाओं पर भी प्रश्न चिन्ह लगा रहा है। क्या इस चक्र को धीमा करने या उल्टा चलाने के लिए कुछ किया जा सकता है?
जंगलों को अगर एक बार फिर हरा-भरा होने का मौका दिया जाए तो इस परिवर्तन को रोका भी जा सकता है। एफ.ए.ओ. यानी खाद्य व कृषि संगठन ने इस बात का अनुमान लगाने की कोशिश की है कि फिलहाल जो कार्बन डाईआक्साइड उत्सर्जन है, उसके लिए कितनी तादाद में जंगलों की जरूरत पड़ेगी। संगठन का कहना है कि इस साधारण और प्रभावी तरीके को फिलहाल हम नहीं अपना सकते तो उसकी वजह सिर्फ यह है कि खेती का क्या होगा। अल गोर और वंगरी मट्ठाई जैसे नोबेल पुरस्कार विजेता भी इससे सहमत हैं।
अगर हम विश्व स्तर पर बनी हुई इमारतों में वर्टिकल खेती करें तो हम अपने जंगलों को पुरानी स्थिति में पहुचाने की कोशिश कर सकते हैं। इससे हमें कार्बन डाईआक्साइड को कम करने का कुदरती तरीका मिल जाएगा और हम पर्यावरण परिवर्तन पर भी ब्रेक लगा सकेंगे। ऊंची इमारतों में खेती करना न सिर्फ मुमकिन है बल्कि इसके कई फायदे भी हैं।
इसके आलोचकों का कहना है कि पेड़ों को उगाना और जंगल बसाना एक धीमा सिलसिला है। बीज से बड़ा पेड़ बनने में बीस साल तक का समय लग जाता है। फिर इसे प्रभावी बनाने के लिए उन सभी राष्ट्रों के तालमेल की जरूरत होगी जहां भारी पैमाने पर जंगल काटे गए हैं। अगर यह बात सही भी है तो भी कुछ न करने का अर्थ तो हार मान लेना ही है। मान लीजिए कि हम पर्यावरण परिवर्तन का चक्र उल्टा चलाने के लिए कुछ करें ही न। तो उसके बाद भी हमें खाद्यान पैदा करने का कोई और तरीका तो ढूंढ़ना ही होगा वर्ना इंसान का नाम भी उन जानवरों की फेहरिस्त में जुड़ जाएगा जो विकास यात्रा में लुप्त हो गए। अगर हम कुछ नहीं करते तो भी आगे चलकर बहुमंजिली इमारतों में खेती करना ही एकमात्र प्रभावी विकल्प रह जाएगा। ऐसी दुनिया में जहां कोई भी जमीन खेती के लायक नहीं बचेगी, पर्यावरण के बदलाव इस धरती पर कहीं भी फसल उगाने को नामुमकिन बना देंगे। वहां फिर और कौन-सा तरीका बच जाएगा? अगर हम मौजूदा अत्याधुनिक तकनीक का इस्तेमाल करें तो बहुमंजिली इमारतों में खेती कर सकते हैं। यह मौजूदा तरीकों के मुकाबले कई तरह से फायदेमंद भी रहेगा। इससे एक के ऊपर एक कई स्तरों पर खेती होगी जो बहुत सारे खेतों को मुक्त कर देगी। मसलन एक एकड़ में बनी इमारत के अंदर इतनी स्ट्राबेरी पैदा हो सकती हैं जितनी तीस एकड़ खेतों में। इसके अलावा फायदे यह होंगे कि मौसम खराब होने पर फसल से हाथ धोने का खतरा खत्म हो जाएगा। दूसरे इससे फॉसिल्स ईंधन का इस्तेमाल काफी तेजी से घटेगा। किसी तरह की बरबादी नहीं होगी क्योंकि सारे पानी की रीसाइक्लिंग हो जाएगी। बाकी बची हुई कृषि भूमि को जंगल आबाद करने और पर्यावरण को हुए नुकसान की भरपाई करने के लिए छोड़ दिया जाएगा।
हमारे पास नियंत्रित वातावरण में फसल उगाने की बहुत सारी तकनीक उपलब्ध हैं। हाइड्रोपोनिक्स, ऐरोपोनिक्स, ड्रिप इरीगेशन ऐसे ढेर सारे तरीके हमारे पास आज भी मौजूद हैं, जिन्हें हम भारी तादाद में उत्पादन के लिए आज भी इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं। ये सभी फसलें विशेष कार्बनिक परिस्थितियों में उगाई जाएंगी। इसके लिए वे रसायन इस्तेमाल किए जांएगे जो उस फसल के हिसाब से मुफीद हैं।
इस तरह की इमारतों के भीतर होने वाली खेती का एक महत्वपूर्ण बाईप्रोडक्ट होगा पीने का शुद्ध पानी। यह पौधों के वाष्पन से बनेगा। एक और चीज होगी वह ऊर्जा जो पौधों के ऐसे हिस्सों की रिसाइक्लिंग से तैयार होगी जो खाने के लायक नहीं हैं। और फिर जिन शहरों में बहुमंजिली इमारतों वाले ये खेत होंगे, उन्हें अपना राशन पानी इन्हीं खेतों से मिल जाया करेगा। यानी इस मामले में वे पूरी तरह से आत्मनिर्भर होंगे। उम्मीद यही है कि खाद्य संप्रभुता की इस राह पर जो सबसे पहले चलेगा, उसे बढ़त के साथ ही कई तरह के अर्थिक फायदे मिलेंगे।
हिन्दुस्तान (नई दिल्ली), 10 July 2008
कैसे हो जलवायु परिवर्तन पर नियंत्रण
शहरी जीवन पद्धति कार्बन डाइ आक्साइड तथा अन्य ग्रीन हाउस गैसों को बढ़ावा देने वाली है। वर्तमान में शहरों में जिन उपकरणों का उपयोग किया जाता है उनमें से अधिकांश कार्बन डाइ आक्साइड व ग्रीन हाउस गैसों का उत्सर्जन करते हैं जिससे मौसम में परिवर्तन, विशेषकर असमय वर्षा, गर्मी तथा समुद्री जलस्तर में वृद्धि होती है। लगातार बढ़ता यह शहरीकरण जलवायु परिवर्तन को और बढ़ावा देगा और बढ़ती शहरी जनसंख्या के कारण तमाम शहर गंभीर रूप से प्रभावित होंगे। शहरी क्षेत्रों के विस्तार के कारण उपजाऊ भूमि इमारतों के निर्माण हेतु उपयोग हो रही है तथा पेड़-पौधों की संख्या तेजी से कम होती जा रही है। अकेले भारत में ही 1955 से 2000 के बीच करीब 2.3 लाख हैक्टेयर खेती तथा वन भूमि आवासीय उपयोग में आ चुकी है। इसके कारण भी जलवायु परिवर्तन में वृद्धि हो रही है।
जलवायु में बदलाव से सूखा
, बाढ़ व तूफान आदि में वृद्धि तो होगी ही, इससे कृषि उपज पर विपरीत असर पड़ेगा। भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान संस्थान के अनुसार मात्र एक डिग्री से&#
