|
Climate Change: Such a Domestic Matter
Vikram S. Mehta
In the din of the cacophonous multilateral
dialogue on climate change and the actions that countries must take to mitigate global warming,
I am concerned that India loses sight of one simple but important fact: measures to limit
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) have a positive correlation with economic growth and
vice versa. There is no trade-off between carbon mitigation and growth.
My concern arises from the nature and content of
the international dialogue. America is refusing to be bound by global targets on carbon emissions
. They say that such targets would have limited impact if India and China refuse to accept them.
This is because both countries are potentially the largest emitters of carbon and there would
be no purpose in participating in a protocol that lacks teeth from the outset. India and China
have responded in like measure. They have made clear that America’s stand is self-serving and
even immoral. It is because of America (and the developed world) that the world is confronting
the current problem. It is because of their pattern of growth that carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 280 ppm at the time of the industrial
revolution to around 400-450 ppm today. Why should the now industrialising world bear the
burden of someone else’s extravagance? The polluter must pay and the West should offer a
compensatory package of financial and technical support to the rest of the world. India and
China have also pointed out that despite their rapid economic growth their per capita emission
of carbon is still but a fraction of the emissions from the West.
The Catch 22 conundrum into which this debate has
collapsed is not surprising. It reflects the reality that while globalisation has converged
national economies it has not dissolved competing nationalisms or parochial politics. The chances
of an international consensus on “what must be done” and “who should do what” to arrest global
warming are therefore slim.
The question arises: will this debate at the
international level dilute domestic efforts to contain carbon emissions? Will the fact that
growth (or rather the limitations on growth) is the peg on which India is hanging its objections
at the international level sidetrack it from taking appropriate domestic measures to weaken the
link between economic growth and atmospheric pollution? Is it conceivable that in the noise of
multilateralism India will lose sight of the fact that growth and carbon mitigation are positive
ly correlated; that while growth has no doubt contributed to pollution — emissions in China and
India have in absolute terms grown 5 times faster than the US since 1990 and this trend is not
decelerating — it is the condition precedent for building the financial resources, the
technologies, the infrastructure and indeed the political will to redeem its consequences.
I raise these questions because I find that most
debates on climate change in India get bogged down in denunciations of the West rather than
in studied introspection of the implications of a scientific reality. The West is of course
responsible for the current situation, but the consequence of global warming is global. We
cannot escape from these consequences and so irrespective of whether there is an international
agreement or not, we have to have a programme of domestic remediation.
India is today at an inflexion point. Growth has pushed
past 8 per cent and the prospect of a double digit number is alluringly real. The perennial
concerns of inflation, fiscal deficit, poor infrastructure, energy and slipshod governance
remain, however, major concerns. They hang over our macro economy like the sword of Damocles.
Amongst these the failure to provide reliable, affordable and accessible energy has to be
arguably the most worrisome impediment to sustainable high growth.
The government is, of course, fully cognisant of the
seriousness of this issue and it has placed energy on top of its economic agenda. The PM chairs
an Energy Coordination Committee of concerned ministers; the Ministry of External Affairs has
just announced the setting up of a division on energy security; the Planning Commission is the
fount of integrated energy policy and the independent energy ministries (petroleum, coal, power,
non conventional and nuclear) have clearly defined sector-specific agendas. The problem is not,
therefore, lack of awareness. It is in the tilt towards supply-side issues rather than
demand-side management. It is a skew that should be corrected for two reasons: one, there is
huge potential value to be unlocked through conservation and energy efficiency. For instance,
India is ranked among the most energy inefficient countries in the world. One report suggests
that next to China it is the most inefficient. This report states that for every USD 1000
increment in GDP India consumes an additional 1.5 barrels of oil whereas France, Italy and the
UK consume only 0.75 barrels for a comparable increment and the US 1.25 barrels. The second
reason is that it will reduce appreciably carbon emissions.
This does not mean that the current efforts to develop
indigenous hydrocarbon resources and secure international oil/gas through equity or long term
purchase agreements should be diluted. Nor does it mean that we should slacken our push to
commercialise renewable energy. But what it does mean is that we have to acknowledge that
supply side efforts will not be enough to remove this potential impediment to growth. It means
that given the huge scale of our economy and the lead times needed to develop new energy, bio
fuels, wind, solar will not materially replace hydrocarbons in our energy mix and that we will
remain vulnerable to the vagaries of the hydrocarbons market for the foreseeable future.
What precisely should the government do to capture
this value and through which sector can be debated — although I am sure transport and power
will offer the greatest opportunity. But what must not be debated is the potential. Demand
conservation and energy efficiency is the bridge between economic growth and carbon mitigation.
It should consequently be the centrepiece of government policy.
The Indian Express (New Delhi) 3 July 2007
|
Environment Pays Progress Price
Chetan Chauhan
India's growth towards economic prosperity has put
its environment in stress, the state of environment reports from 32 states indicate.
Completed after five years by four organisations with
the help of state governments under the aegis of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the
reports, for the first time, provide a valuable database on the level of degradation and areas
of concern at the micro level. The reports and future action for strengthening data collection
at the ground level was discussed at a workshop here on Wednesday.
The growing human population, industrial growth and
natural calamities have been cited as major reasons for the environmental degradation in most
reports. The exotic backwaters of Kerala have undergone degradation due to the tremendous growth
of tourism. Similarly, in Himachal Pradesh, the picturesque Manali and Shimla have witnessed
ecological losses because of the pressure of tourists during peak seasons.
However, in states such as Chattisgarh and Jammu
and Kashmir, law and order problems have been identified as a major hurdle to protecting and
conserving biodiversity and wildlife. For example. no tiger census could be conducted in the
Indravati Tiger Reserve in Chhattigarh as it is under the control of Naxals, state government
officials said.
Experts at the workshop said there is a need for
micro-level mapping of the losses and formulation of remedial policies. Most officials also
agreed that the environment is secondary to development for most policy formulators and its
impact can be seen in the reports.
S.P. Sharma, advisor in the ministry, said, “We want
data collection to be brought down to the lowest level in the 11th Plan.” The ministry had
allocated Rs. 6 crore for preparing these reports in the 10th Plan period but joint secretary
Sudhir Mithal said the state governments will have to come forward in a big way in the 11th
Plan to implement the second phase of the project.
Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 29 Aug 2007
|
India to Chart Strategy on Climate Change
India will prepare a national strategy on climate
change before the next round of multilateral negotiations under the UN's convention on climate
change is held in December.
The PM's council on climate change, a group of experts
and senior government officials, will meet on July 13 to start work on the strategy.
The strategy, spelling out India's official stance on
all issues impacted by climate change, will be quite on the style of what China did before the
recent G-8 meeting in Germany where the two Asian countries were under pressure to
accept some kind of a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions.
Both nations had resisted such pressure, sticking to
their traditional stance that their per capita emissions were far below that of developed
countries.
But China was able to put up a more robust defence,
claiming it had chartered a domestic action and strategy plan to check increase of the
dangerous gases and therefore did not require international oversight for its activities.
India is keen to develop a similar action plan which
will talk of the possible economic, social and physical impact. It will also discuss the methods
of adapting to the inevitable changes as well as ways to mitigate increase in the problematic
emissions.
A senior government official told TOI,"Various
ministries and departments already have a clear mandate on climate change but we have never put
it together in one place. The council's mandate is to suggest India's response to what recent
studies show us and the national strategy required to deal with it internally."
The council has R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the UN's
panel on climate change, Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment, and Prodipto
Ghosh, till recently secretary in the environment and forests ministry, as experts from
outside the government, while Ratan Tata represents the industry. Journalists Raj Chengappa
and R. Ramachandran are also on the PM's panel.
Sources within the government said that one area of
concern which the council will have to tackle is the lack of data from India and South Asia
finding its way into the UN reports on climate change.
"We need to bolster our science research within India
to have our own assessment and understand implications at a regional level," a senior official
said.
While there is no timeframe set as yet for the council,
which will in its first meeting clearly define its agenda and working, it will be working in
the backdrop of the Conference of Member-Countries of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate
Change in Bali in December.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 11 July 2007
|
How Should India Respond to Climate Change?
Kanchan Chopra
With the publication of the latest IPCC report and the
Stern review of the economics of climate change, it is relevant to ask: how is India likely to
be impacted and what should we do about it? The IPCC report (2007) states that coastal lands,
delta areas in South Asia and the monsoon will be impacted. At lower latitudes, crop
productivity is projected to decline for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C),
which would increase the risk of hunger.
The most vulnerable industries, settlements and
societies are those in coastal areas and flood plains of rivers, those whose economies are
closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, and those in areas prone to extreme weather
events, especially where rapid urbanisation is occurring.
The above implies that agricultural productivity in
some parts of India, in particular the arid and semi-arid regions, will be impacted negatively.
The anticipated change will also impact vulnerable populations in deltaic regions. India must
take a proactive stand on this, factor in climate change into medium-term development projections
and target at sustainable development using non-conventional energy sources and new
technologies.
To begin with, we can examine emerging world markets in
carbon credits and create appropriate structures to enable our industry to take advantage of
similar market opportunities. Given that a range of technologies with varying emissions are in
use in India, is there a possible fiscal mechanism by which India can create its own CDM fund?
This can perhaps be on the lines of the EU emissions trading scheme with state- and sector-
specific emission allowances over and above which credits need to be purchased and this results
in an emerging market in carbon credits. A recent survey estimated that 65 per cent of
companies in Annexe I (largely developed countries) countries are planning to buy
credits rather than cut emissions. Indian companies are also likely to respond similarly.
Secondly, opportunities for better use of by-products
(such as GHG emissions) and some productivity increasing win-win situations have been shown to
exist. For instance, Shell is pumping CO2 from a refinery in the Botlek area of the Netherlands
to green houses producing fruit and vegetables. Could we use such technologies? Similarly,
technologies for methane capture from coal fields, animal waste and perhaps rice fields should
be studied as possible win-win options.
To encourage alternative sources of energy, better
planning for integrating supply of power from non-conventional sources with that from
traditional sources can be undertaken. Regulation (such as fixed quotas from renewable sources)
can be combined with reliance on markets for competing renewable sources to create innovative
institutional structures as has been tried out successfully in California. Thirdly, planning for
cities, in particular coastal ones, needs to take into account impending possibilities a rise
in sea-levels. The Urban Renewal Mission and other initiatives on urban planning need to view
cities as “urban ecosystems”. Also, existing coastal zone regulations and related law needs to
be understood and implemented better. This, of course, is a matter of improved governance.
Finally, while the IPCC predictions with regard to
climate change based on the global state of knowledge are enough for us to initiate a pro-active
policy, more precise regional models of impact of climate change for South Asia are needed.
The IPCC reports, for instance, that “crop yields could decrease up to 30 per cent in Central
and South Asia by the mid-21st century.” This needs to be investigated further.
As we pursue these forward-looking policy options, we
shall ensure that India is viewed internationally as a fast-growing nation which also views its
commitments to the future of the planet responsibly. We owe it to ourselves and to the planet.
V. Raghuraman
Climate change knows no
political boundaries. The industrialisation of developed countries happened without restriction
on greenhouse gas emissions. As there is increasing evidence of human action influencing global
warming the development aspiration of developing nations are getting increasing attention. So
there is talk of integrating development issues into climate change framework to allow (and
enable) developing countries to pursue rapid economic growth, meet millennium developmental
goals and dedicate sufficient resources to adaptation efforts.
India and other developing countries feel that given
the historical responsibility and current capability, industrialised countries should be
obliged to meet substantive emission reduction targets. India further contends that meeting
its needs for economic and social progress will require growth in total emissions for some time
to come (even if the emission intensity of Indian economy drops).
Therefore, it is not prudent for India to accept
mandatory emission caps at this stage of development and the way forward should be based on the
principle of “common but differentiated responsibility”, where aggressive measures are taken
by rich countries to cut down their emissions and to promote climate-friendly economic
development in poorer countries.
About 830 million Indians still live below the
threshold of $2 a day income level. Over 700 million people in India still use non-commercial
sources of energy and approximately 600 million Indians are still without access to electricity.
Adding to this is the challenge of providing employment to millions of youth. Clearly enough,
India not only needs to promote economic development but also has to ensure that the growth of
manufacturing sector is fast enough to absorb its vast pool of semi-skilled and unskilled
manpower.
This certainly does not augur well in today’s climate
constrained world. India has undertaken numerous response measures, contributing to the global
climate change mitigation mandate. Her development plans balance economic development and
environmental concerns. Reforms in the energy sector have enhanced the efficiency of energy
use.
India has achieved energy-GDP decoupling at a much
earlier stage of its development cycle. During the tenth plan period (2002-07), the average GDP
growth rate was significantly higher than the projected growth rate. During the same plan
period, power capacity addition was only 50 per cent of that planned for the period. Even though
oil prices have sky-rocketed in recent years, hampering bottom-line of manufacturing companies
all over the world, industrial growth and profitability have been quite high in India;
indicating energy-GDP decoupling and energy efficiency improvement.
Several measures to contain GHG emissions have been
introduced in India — renewable energy of more than 9,000 MW is already installed. Efforts
continue in improving the air quality in major cities (Delhi has the world’s largest fleet of
vehicles fuelled by CNG); promoting energy efficiency in industrial and household sectors and
enhancing afforestation.
CII Green Business Centre started ‘the green building
initiative’ and today we have 30 rated buildings in India out of which seven are platinum rated.
Further 100 buildings have registered for certification. India has made a direct contribution
to GHG mitigation through CDM mechanism. India has highest number of CDM projects approved by
any national government and is home to the world’s largest number of registered CDM projects
(244 out of 690).
There is a need for global understanding on technology
development and transfer such as the Montreal Protocol for the CFC phase out, R&D efforts to
find global solutions. Overriding IPR considerations would make the task meaningful. Creation
of global R&D fund and establishing public-private partnership can bring about elegant solutions
and arrest global warming.
Sunita Narain
No, India should not take on
legally binding commitments to reduce emission. But, India must engage, proactively and
aggressively, to push the world and itself towards a low carbon future. We are devastatingly
vulnerable to impacts of climate change. Recent studies in the Himalaya by Indian scientists
confirm glaciers are receding, at unnatural rates. This means our northern rivers, fed by
glacier melt, will first see floods and then shortages of freshwater flows. We will also see
more heat waves, more extreme events — floods — and loss of crop productivity. And we are not
talking about the far future, but changes as early as 2030.
We should also be clear that global leadership on
climate is also high on rhetoric and low on results. In 1997, after years of negotiations,
the world cobbled together the Kyoto Protocol in which the industrialised world has targets
to cut their emissions by roughly 6 per cent over 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
This is just too little too late. It is now widely
accepted that the world needs to reduce current emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, if it wants
to avert a catastrophe. In other words, the world needs deep cuts on current emissions. However,
US emissions will in fact increase anywhere between 25-30 per cent over 1990 levels by 2008.
Figures released by the European Commission in March 2007 show that the European Union’s carbon
dioxide emissions grew 1-1.5 per cent in 2006, despite its commitment to reduce as block.
It is in this scenario that we must act. I believe our
strategy must have the following four-pronged approach. First, we must be strident in demanding
deep cuts in emissions from the rich world. We must put forward the best science that shows
adverse impacts on us, our economies and our people, to explain the costs of the rich world’s
emissions on, particularly, the poor in the world.
Second, we must use our good offices, or bad ones,
to insist the US and Australia take on emission reductions. We must immediately walk out of
the dirty deal we have signed with the US and Australia, innocuously called the Asia Pacific
Partnership. This deal was and is designed to destroy the multilateral agreement on climate
change. It is unacceptable that we should be party to it.
Third, we must be willing to engage in climate
reduction targets, not by taking on commitments, but redesigning the Clean Development Mechanism
for effective action. It is clear that countries like India and China provide the world the
opportunity to “avoid” additional emissions. The reason is that we are still in the process of
building our energy, transport or industrial infrastructure. We can make investments in
leapfrog technologies so that we can avoid pollution. In other words, we can build our cities
on public transport; our energy security on local and distributed systems — from biofuels to
renewable; our industries using the most energy and pollution efficient technologies.
It is here that we must demand action from the global
community. We must say that we are willing to reduce or avoid pollution but for this, the rich
nations must pay their climate debt. They must be willing to rework the current Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM), an instrument created under the Kyoto Protocol to invest in clean
technologies in the South, so that it is effective.
Currently the CDM is designed to get the cheapest
options for the industrialised world. As a result the price of CERs — the certified emission
reduction unit used in this transaction has never reflected the cost of renewable and other
high technology options. It is a cheap and increasingly corrupt development mechanism.
Fifth, we must create an internal entitlement system
at the national level. The rich in India also overuse the share of the climate quota. The
investments in low carbon technologies must be used to provide alternative energy and economic
options for the poor, who under-use their share of the global commons and provide the rich
‘space’ to exhale.
The Economics Times (New Delhi), 17 July 2007
|
Rise in Temperatures Will Impact Crops: Study
Gargi Parsai
Even as production of wheat shows a steady decline and
that of coarse cereals and pulses seems to have stagnated, predictions of a fall in farm
production has got the Centre worried.
An Agriculture Ministry paper quoted global studies
indicating the probability of a 10-40 per cent loss in crop production by 2080-2100 due to
rise in temperatures.
Recent studies at the Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI) indicated the possibility of a loss of 4-5 million tonnes in wheat production
for every one degree centigrade rise in temperature (estimated for 2010-2030 period).
Losses for other crops, especially kharif crops,
were expected to be smaller, the study said. Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide, are said to be responsible for global warming.
The IARI study showed that losses in wheat output
could be reduced from 4-5 million tonnes to 1-2 million tonnes if a large percentage of farmers
shifted to “timely planting” and better adapted varieties.
The study said increasing climatic variability
associated with global warming would result in seasonal/annual fluctuations in food production.
Droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy precipitation and heat waves were known
to negatively impact farm production and
the livelihoods of farmers. “The projected increase in such events will result in greater
instability in food production and threaten the livelihood of farmers.”
Increasing glacier melt in the Himalayas would affect
the availability of irrigation, especially in the Indo-Gangetic plains, which might have
consequences for food production.
Fertilizer requirement
The rising
temperatures were likely to lead to an increase in fertilizer requirement for meeting future
food production demands and, in turn, to higher emissions of greenhouse gases, the study said.
In the short-term, global warming was likely to favour production in temperate regions –
largely northern Europe and North America – and negatively impact tropical crop production in
South Asia and Africa. “This will have consequences on international food prices and trade.”
Small changes in temperature and rainfall could have a
significant effect on the quality of fruits, vegetables, tea, coffee, and aromatic and
medicinal plants, with a resultant impact on prices and trade. Global warming could aggravate
the heat stress in dairy animals, adversely affecting their productive and reproductive
performance, and reduce the area where high-yielding cattle could be economically reared.
Fish breeding
Increasing sea and river water
temperatures were likely to affect fish breeding, migration and harvests. Coral reefs in
Indian seas were predicted to decline from 2040.
The study advocated investment in research capacity,
enhanced capability for weather forecasts and applications in agriculture, and development of
contingency plans for temperature and rainfall-related risks. It also called for new land use
including development of heat and drought-tolerant crop varieties.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 26 July 2007
|
Australia Plans Wildlife Corridor
Australia will create a wildlife corridor spanning
the continent to allow animals and plants to flee the effects of global warming, scientists
said today
The 2,800 km climate “spine”, approved by state and
national governments, will link the country’s entire east coast, from the snow-capped Australian
alps in the south to the tropical north - the distance from London to Romania.
“A lot of that forest and vegetation spine is already
there. But there are still blockages,” David Lindenmayer, a professor of conservation biology,
told Reuters of the plan.
“The effects of climate change will likely to be less
severe in systems that have some resilience and that we haven’t gone in and buggered-up.”
The creation of the corridor was agreed by the state
and federal governments this year amid international warnings that the country - already the
world’s driest inhabited continent - is suffering from an accelerated greenhouse effect.
Climate scientists have predicted temperatures rising
by up to 6.7 degrees Celsius (12 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2080 in the country’s vast outback
interior.
A 10-year drought is expected to slash one per cent
from the $803 billion economy. The corridor, under discussion since the 1990s as the argument
in support of climate change strengthened, will link national parks, state forests and
government land. It will help preserve scores of endangered species.
“We are talking a very long-term vision, a land use
that values keeping the eastern forests in place over past uses like land clearing,” said Graeme
Worboys from the IUCN, the world conservation union.
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology last year said
climate change was occurring so fast in Australia that cooler southern towns were moving to
the warmer north at the rate of 100 km each year.
Lindenmayer, from the Australian National University,
said governments would need also to work with private landholders to link the corridor through
voluntary conservation agreements.
“Given only 10 per cent of Australia’s landscapes are
going to be in formal reserves, we are going to have to be far cleverer about how we manage the
country outside,” he said.
But Michael Dunlop, from the country’s top government
science organisation, the CSIRO, said the corridor would not be a silver bullet for
conservation efforts, with the country needing to do more to protect different types of climates.
“Connectivity is just one solution. Connectivity is not one of my six big hits,” he said.
The Tribune (Chandigarh), 10 July 2007
|
Bid to Subvert Kyoto Protocol
S. Faizi
The climate conference recently announced by President
George W. Bush is, obviously, another attempt by the US government to subvert the Kyoto
Protocol and to undermine the legitimate multilateral processes to address the calamitous
climate change.
In spite of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s infatuation
with the US administration and that country having an extra full scale envoy to India in
Washington at the cost of Indian tax payers, it would do well for the global environment and
the people of India if the country stayed away from this mischievous meeting.
The global community is engaged in addressing the
escalating climate change crisis through the multilateral treaty on climate change (UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC) and in particular its Kyoto Protocol that came into force
in 2005. The US vehemently refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that sets mandatory emission
reduction targets for the industrialized countries. As for the UNFCCC, while the treaty asks to
voluntarily reduce the emission level to that of 1990 by the year 2000, the US emission level
in 2000 was actually 14 per cent more than in 1990. Intolerant of the Kyoto Protocol and the
democratic multilateral mechanisms in place, the US is making a strategic attempt to belittle
and delegitimise these mechanisms by unilaterally deciding to hold the meeting of what it
describes as “major economies” on energy security and climate change.
The Conference of Parties to UNFCzCC is set to discuss
measures to be adopted beyond the 2012 period of the Kyoto Protocol, in December this year in
Bali, and there are multiple multilateral meetings held as a run up to this event. One important
event to galvanise support for agreement on meaningful carbon reduction initiatives beyond
Kyoto Protocol is the meeting of the heads of governments on 24 September called by the UN
Secretary General. The Bush meeting to be held on 27-28 September is to undercut these
multilateral events in his determination not to compromise on the enormous carbon emissions
in the country.
It is universally agreed that addressing the climate
change is a common but differentiated responsibility of all countries. The differentiated
responsibility is due to the high level of historical and contemporary pollution caused by the
developed countries. It is for this reason that the climate treaty broadly divides countries
into Annex I and non-Annex I, developed and developing countries respectively. One of the
arguments for the US refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has been the exclusion of countries
like India and China from mandatory reductions, while in actual fact the per capita emissions
in these countries are only a fraction of America’s. The concept of “major economies” is alien
to the climate treaties, and this the US is introducing to remove the exemption of developing
countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and Mexico, in addition to India and China.
The guest list includes these countries as well as the Annex I countries. The developing
countries should refuse to fall into this trap by keeping away from the Bush meeting.
The US, the climate culprit who has landed us in the
climate mess must first ratify and implement the Kyoto Protocol before it seeks the world to
discuss climate change solutions. And this they vehemently refuses to do, as they refuse to
ratify the Biodiversity Convention and its Biosafety Protocol. As the US administration is
steered by lobbyists of interests groups and the concerns of the military-industrial complex,
as everybody knows, and as recently bared by Newsweek- normally an instrument of American
foreign policy - in the case of climate change refusal, the US attempt is only meant to
introduce sophisticated new impediments in reducing the use of fossil fuels. The desperation
of this patriotic American weekly only shows the worrying extent to which the climate
belligerence of US has grown, despite appeals by a large segment of the population, eminent
climate scientists, some individual states and even a section of the industry (We can perhaps
forgive this weekly now for alerting us to an impending spectre of ‘global cooling’ in a 1975
issue).Even the Hollywood that sells the world the most unsustainable form
of life style has joined the climate chorus. And now the US wants to put the rest of the world,
the developing countries on the guest list in particular, on a reactive gear, and that is what
they are aiming through the conference.
The US meeting is to divert attention from the US
refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol as well as to spoil the ongoing multilateral efforts.
This is also contrary to the G-8 June 2007 Summit decision to “actively and constructively
participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Indonesia with a view to
achieving a post-2012 agreement…” It may be recalled that Bush had insisted at this meeting
on incorporating India and China in the successor agreement to Kyoto Protocol.
While refusing to accept mandatory reduction targets
India should embark on its own domestic programs to reduce the increasing pollution from
fossil fuel use. The reckless expansion of the automobile and aviation industry in particular
should be brought under environmental checks. On the other hand, India should reform itself
to find genuine justification for not submitting to mandatory reductions. The argument that
India’s development space should be expanded to remove poverty in the country is a travesty
of the ground truth. The beneficiaries of India’s pollution estate, mirroring the global
equation, is the elite minority, while the poor pay the cost as victims of floods, droughts,
diseases and other forms of disasters. It is only fitting that India’s carbon exemption is
linked to the achievement of the millennium development goals and beyond in the country. And
since such a linkage will not come about voluntarily, given the structurally exclusionary nature
of the country’s economic system, pressure from the international civil society on this count
would be welcome.
Participation in the US conference would amount to
denying the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol and complicity in undermining the democratic
multilateral forums and processes, and therefore India and other developing countries should
stay away from the conference and instead work towards consensus on mandatory enhanced emission
reduction targets for all industrial economies to be adopted in the post-Kyoto
Protocol period, making use of the meetings of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC.
The US should be told that they cannot continue to undermine the multilateral forums. And
they should be told to adopt immediate measures to reduce carbon emissions and
pay reparations to the least developed countries and island states for
causing the climate catastrophe, if necessary with the aid of selective economic boycott.
The Statesman (New Delhi), 30 Aug 2007
|
Countering Solar Activity, Global Warming Link
It has been one of the central claims of those who
challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet’s climate
has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural
cycle — the result of variation in the sun’s output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun’s
output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data
shows that even though the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures
have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March
by the controversial UK TV Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The programme has been heavily criticised for
distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical
oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was “totally misled” by
the film makers and that his comments were “completely misrepresented.”
The new analysis is designed to counter the claim that
solar activity may be to blame for global warming.
“The temperature record is simply not consistent with
any of the solar forcings that people are talking about,” said lead author Mike Lockwood at the
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
Changed direction
“They changed direction in
1985, the climate did not ... (the temperature) increase should be slowing down but in fact it
is speeding up.” Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10
warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.
One way that the sun affects the climate is through
clouds. The sun’s magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic
rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun’s energy back into space and cool the
planet.
So if the sun’s magnetic field is high, there should
be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof. Lockwood’s data,
published recently in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun’s magnetic field
has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.
James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who was once
gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said:“The reason [this
paper] has value is that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come
up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause an indirect forcing that
is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun,” he said. “These half-bake
d notions are usually supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in
the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with recent climate change,
the half-baked notions can be dispensed with.”
Rescue attempt
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a proponent of the solar hypothesis, has tried to
rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and its effect on the Earth’s
climate. But Prof. Lockwood dismissed this as “disingenuous.”
“Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It’s only
been invoked now as a way out,” he said. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would
begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.
A spokesman for the Royal Society, the U.K.’s leading
scientific academy, said: “This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate
change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the
public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the
reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a
failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be
irresponsible and dangerous.”
Channel 4 and Martin Durkin, producer of The Great
Global Warming Swindle, declined to comment.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 12 July 2007
|
Global Study Warns India of Severe Water Shortage
An international study group has warned that the water
shortages in India and other parts of the world will be a serious problem in days to come.
“Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they
struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers
China, India and the US. More than half the world’s people live in countries where water tables
are falling,” Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has said. In India, water shortages
are particularly serious simply because the margin between actual food consumption and survival
is so precarious. In a survey of India’s water situation, Fred Pearce reported in New Scientist
that the 21 million well drilled are lowering water tables in most parts of the country.
“In North Gujarat, the water table is falling by 6
meters per year. In Tamil Nadu, a state with more than 62 million people in southern India,
well are going dry almost everywhere and falling water tables have dried up 95 per cent of the
wells owned by small farmers reducing the irrigated area in the state by half over the last
decade,” Brown has noted. “As water tables fall, well drillers are using modified oil-drilling
technology to reach water, going as deep as 1,000 meters in some locations. In communities
where underground water sources have dried up entirely, all agriculture is rain-fed and drinking
water is trucked in,” Tushaar Shah, who heads the International Water Management Institute’s
groundwater station in Gujarat, said of India’s water situation.
The situation over water is equally serious in Pakistan
whose population is growing by three millions a year and a country that is mining underground
water. “In the Pakistani part of the fertile Punjab plain, the drop in water tables appears to
be similar to that in India. Observation wells near the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi
show a fall in the water table between 1982 and 2000 that ranges from one to nearly two meters
a year,” Brown has said in his latest finding.
“In the province of Balochistan, water tables around
Quetta are falling by 3.5 meters per year. Richard Garstang, a water expert with the World
Wildlife Fund and a participant in a study of Pakistan’s water situation, said in 2001 that
within 15 years Quetta will run out of water if the current consumption rate continues,” he
pointed out.
The India Express (New Delhi), 25 July 2007
|
Global Warming Doubles Number of Hurricanes: Study
Global warming's effect on wind patterns and sea
temperatures have nearly doubled the number of hurricanes a year in the Atlantic ocean over
the past century, says a new study by US scientists.
Excerpts from the study by Greg Holland of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology were
released in the United States late Sunday.
The analysis identifies three periods since 1900,
during which the average number of hurricanes and tropical storms increased dramatically and
then remained elevated and relatively steady.
The first period, between 1900 and 1930, saw an
average of six Atlantic tropical cyclones, of which four were hurricanes and two were tropical
storms -- the next category down.
From 1930 to 1940, the authors point out, the annual
average increased to 10, consisting of five hurricanes and five tropical storms.
In the most recent period, from 1995 to 2005, the
average reached 15, of which eight were hurricanes and seven were tropical storms.
This latter period, Holland and Webster caution, has
not yet stabilized, which means the average hurricane season may be more active in the future.
The Indian Express (New Delhi), 31 July 2007
|
UN Climate Debate Tries to Kick-Start New Global Treaty
The UN General Assembly's first session devoted
exclusively to climate change closed with nations worried about the devastating impact of global
warming now and on future generations, although few countries altered their well-known
positions.
Still Britain's ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, said of
the session, which ended on Thursday, "The world is actually motivated on the issue in a way it
wasn't earlier.
"Go back to January," he said. "Nobody here was interest
ed in climate change and all people were concerned about this week was climate change."
The meeting, which spilled into a third unscheduled day
so nearly 100 nations could speak, was a preview of a summit that UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-Moon called for Sept. 24, a day before the high-level annual Assembly session begins. That
session will be followed by UN-sponsored negotiations in December on the Indonesian island of
Bali to see whether any progress can be made toward a new environmental treaty.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of carbon
emissions expires in 2012, possibly leaving the world without global warming regulations. That
pact requires 35 industrial nations to cut emissions 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Both Jones Parry and Japan's director general for
global issues, Koji Tsuruoka, said the negotiations toward another treaty would be protracted
and that developing nations would have to be included, not just industrial countries. The United
States and China, which together account for more than 40 per cent of the world's pollution,
would have to be part of the process, they said. Also needed are Brazil, Indonesia and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, where deforestation "send more emissions than all the
transport in the world," Jones Parry said.
The Bush administration has rejected firm targets for
cutting greenhouse gas emissions, maintaining this would hurt the US economy.
Tsuruoka said the Kyoto treaty had only reduced
emissions from fossil fuels by about 3 per cent, making it vital that goals of reducing
greenhouse gases had to be diverse and flexible and consider each nation's economic and
environmental concerns. While the United States and China are apprehensive about economic
growth, 37 small island states fear they may disappear under rising oceans as the Earth warms.
Said the Maldives UN ambassador, Mohamed Latheef: "In
the 21st century our independence is threatened not by invading armies but by rising
sea-levels-- not by global conflict but by global warming." Reuters
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 4 Aug 2007
|
Global Warming Will Step-Up After 2009
Global warming is forecast to set in
with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five
following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists
reported on Thursday.
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming
trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more
specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at
Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes
into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific ocean and other
fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
A forecast of the next decade is particularly useful,
because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than
human-caused global warming, study author Douglas Smith said by telephone.
In research published in the journal Science, Smith
and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming
despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade,
which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy
and business development," Smith and his co-authors noted.
The real heat will start after 2009, they said.
Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected
warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
"There is .. particular interest in the coming decade,
which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy
and business development," Smith and his co-authors noted.
To check their models, the scientists used a series of
"hindcasts"-- forecasts that look back in time -- going back to 1982, and compared what their
models predicted with what actually occurred.
Factoring in the natural variability of ocean currents
and temperature fluctuations yielded an accurate picture, the researchers found. This differed
from other models which mainly considered human-caused climate change.
"Over the 100-year timescale, the main change is going
to come from greenhouse gases that will dominate natural variability, but in the coming 10 years
the natural internal variability is comparable," Smith said.
In another climate change article in the online journal
Science Express, U.S. researchers reported that soot from industry and forest fires had a
dramatic impact on the Arctic climate, starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Industrial pollution brought a seven-fold increase in
soot -- also known as black carbon -- in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, scientists at the Desert Research Institute found.
Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the
reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly
resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of much darker underlying soil, rock and sea ice.
This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 11 Aug 2007
|
Global Warming at Brazil’s Doorstep
Larry Rohter
Alarmed at recent indications of climate change here
in the Amazon and in other regions of Brazil, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva has begun showing signs of new flexibility in the tangled, politically volatile
international negotiations to limit human-caused global warming.
The factors behind the re-evaluation range from a
drought here in the Amazon rain forest, the world’s largest, and the impact that it could have
on agriculture if it recurs, to new phenomena like a hurricane in the south of Brazil. As a
result, environmental advocates, scientists and some politicians say, Brazilian policy makers
and the public they serve are increasingly seeing climate change not as a distant problem, but
as one that could affect them too.
Brazil remains suspicious of foreign involvement in its
management of the Amazon, which it views as a domestic matter. But negotiators and others who
monitor international climate talks say Brazil is now willing to discuss issues that until
recently it considered off the table, including market-based programs to curb the carbon
emissions that result from massive deforestation in the Amazon, in which large areas are
razed each year.
“I think things have advanced, certainly, compared to
three years ago, when the government simply refused to discuss deforestation in international
forums,” said Marcio Santilli, former government official who helped start the Socio-Environment
al Institute, an environmental group in Brasilia. “There has been a change of posture which
reflects the worries of Brazilian public opinion on this issue, which in turn puts pressure on
politicians.”
For years, Brazil’s position in international climate
change talks has been that Northern Hemisphere industrial countries must shoulder the burden of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fearing a loss of sovereignty, it has resisted plans to
create market mechanisms to provide payments for reductions in deforestation and carbon emissions,
accompanied by international monitoring.
Brazil’s stance on such issues is vitally important
because by most calculations it is the fourth-largest producer of the greenhouse gases that
most scientists believe are the principal cause of global warming. Three-quarters of those
emissions result from deforestation, the overwhelming bulk of which occurs here.
The government’s new, slightly more nuanced position
is not a result of a sudden burst of green awareness on.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 11 Aug 2007
|
Global Warming and the Future of Lighting
Global warming is a key concern across boundaries.
In order to ensure that our future generations enjoy this planet as much as we do, a lot of
efforts are needed to keep this planet habitable. Lighting, a key ingredient for development,
accounts for 19 per cent of the global electricity consumption. This is one sector where a lot
can be done to improve efficiencies and reach. To discuss the way forward for lighting
industries and its impact on the global ecology, ET in association with Philips recently
organized a Think Turf event to mull over such issues under the banner, “Global Warming
and the Future of Lighting.”
The panel was perfect blend of industry leaders and
government policy formulators. The discussion was kicked off by Antony Pearce, Director of
Marketing, Philips Electronics, Asia Pacific. Philips is the leading player in the lighting
industry. He pointed out that Philips is spearheading several initiatives for energy
conservation and global warming in different parts of the world. However, involvement of
several parties is imperative to further the cause. Development in any part of the globe
is usually associated with increasing energy consumption. But rising energy costs, both
economic and ecological, act as impairment to growth and development. The session was moderated
by T.K. Arun, Senior Editor, The Economic Times. Ravi Singh, Secretary General and CEO. WWF-India
, reiterated the necessity of ensuring security in availability of water, food and energy for
the development of any society. He emphasized the need to take conservation to the small towns
and villages of India, to ensure widespread change in the consumption patterns. He urged the
industry to reach out to the masses in a manner that they can afford to help to reduce the
carbon footprint and to improve the aspect of education and awareness.
H.S. Mamak, Adviser, ELCOMA, pointed out that human
endeavor in developing countries can only increase if it is allowed to continue work in a
lighted environment. To ensure that enough power is available to foster development, we not
only need to focus on production but also only how that power is delivered and
consumed. Efficiencies in these two will allow countries like India to close the gap between
availability and demand of power.
Elaborating on the topic of efficiency,V. Raghuraman,
Principal Advisor & Chief Coordinator, energy, environment and natural resources, CII, said
that more than conservation, efficiency needed to be focused on to enable growth without
hindrance. He further added that CFLs are not the panacea for lighting and ten years down the
line when LEDs come into the picture, CFLs will need to be replaced with LED based lighting
that would be even more efficient. LEDs would also he able to address the issue of mercury in
CFLs that is even now a major concern for environment friendliness. 55 per cent of India that
does not have electricity even now could provide India with an opportunity to leapfrog directly
to LEDs without using CFLs. Industry needs to incentivize its employees to switch to more
efficient appliances and lighting solutions to make maximum use of available energy. If energy
is available cheaply, the need for efficiency is reduced. This needs to be rectified.
Energy availability in India is another major concern,
according to Shubhranshu Patnaik, Executive Director, PWC. There is an average shortfall in
availability of around 15-20 per cent of peak power demand in most states of India.
Conservation is the need of the hour and needs to be inculcated in consumers. Agriculture and
domestic segments, nearly 30 per cent and 20-25 per cent of our total energy consumption, are
both subsidized and the need and potential for conservation is also the maximum here.
Leena Srivastava, Executive Director, TERI, emphasized
the need for initiatives from the government on energy conservation. She said that more signals
were needed from the developed world that they are serious about energy conservation. In
countries like India energy costs are already quite high when compared to developed countries.
A lot of the concerns for global warming would be addressed when inefficiencies in
lifestyles are addressed. More than 50 per cent of India does not have access to electricity
and electrical lighting. Over 90 per cent of rural India uses biomass for cooking. These areas
do not necessarily have to be addressed through traditional methods of centralized power
generation and electricity grid expansion, which would take time, but through
immediate solutions that work now.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 22 Aug 2007
|
To Combat Global Warming, Catch Them Young
The Worldwide Fund for Nature has joined hands with
Tetra Pak Industries to launch the “Young Climate Savers” programme beginning next month under
which a series of workshops on climate change will be conducted in schools across the country.
The workshops are aimed at educating and motivating
students to contribute towards reducing global warming. Students will be taught to promote
energy-efficient lifestyles and eco-friendly attitudes.
WWF (India) Chief Executive Officer Ravi Singh said:
“This is a unique initiative and is possibly the largest single activity on climate change
among students in India. The programme aims at reaching out to over 50,000 students in 200
schools in one year and make them aware about the issues of climate change and the importance
of energy efficiency.”
Climate change is one of the most critical environmental
challenges the world is facing today. The climatic changes that are taking place are largely
human-induced.
By burning fossil fuels inefficiently we release
increasing amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere every year, beyond nature’s
capacity to absorb them through natural processes. This causes global warming, which has led to
climate change.
Tetra Pak India Managing Director Peter Hane-Weijman
said: “As a company we have set goals on energy reduction, moving towards green energy plus
recycling of post-consumer (used) cartons. Global warming is going to impact every single
person on earth. It is in our hands to stop the effects of global warming. There is no better
way than educating young children who can bring about a change with their passion and ingenuity”.
The Hindu (New Delhi) , 25 Aug 2007
|
On Climate Big Ideas Will Require Big Money
Global warming is a big-enough problem to create the
kind of necessity that fosters invention. And plenty of big ideas are out there to address it,
some that may even lead to substantial enterprises. But the ideas being backed in the United
States are things like bio-fuels and carbon emissions trading. These are good approaches, but
they may not hold much potential for actually staving off climate change. James E. Lovelock,
a British scientist whose 2006 book, “The Revenge of Gaia,” argued that most of humankind is
doomed, does not think much of renewable energy.
At a panel on climate change at the University of
Cambridge this summer, Mr. Lovelock was asked what would be the most effective action people
could take. Because humans and their pets and livestock produce about a quarter of the carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, he said, “just stop breathing.”
Now there’s a fine idea. But even
Mr. Lovelock thinks that all is not lost. He supports replacing coal-powered
utilities with nuclear power, but he also extols largely untested processes, like shooting
particles into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. He also endorses sucking carbon dioxide
out of the sky and burying it, a process known as carbon sequestration.
These are big ideas, but they are too costly
for individual inventors or even companies to pursue.
Howard J. Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology is a proponent of carbon sequestration. The basic technologies are already used in
the energy business. For example, oil companies pump carbon dioxide into old fields to force
out more oil.
But we don’t know if it can be done on a scale that
will let us keep up with the growth in coal-fired power plants, for instance, or if the carbon
dioxide will stay put. To find out, Mr. Herzog estimates that it will take $1 billion a year
over the next 8 to 10 years to build a large test project.
The trouble is that of about $2 billion the Department
of Energy is spending on research, only about $100 million is available for carbon landfill
research.
“I do find it somewhat surprising how little funding
sequestration has received,” David M. Reiner, a lecturer on technology policy at the Judge
Business School at the University of Cambridge, wrote in an e-mail message.
It is little wonder that more exotic ideas get even less money.
For instance, how about capturing solar power in space
and using satellite-based lasers or microwaves to zip it back to earth? Martin I. Hoffert, an
emeritus professor of physics at New York University, estimates that it would take $5 billion
to build a plant that would generate enough power for a small city.
J. Roger P. Angel, a physicist at the University of
Arizona, has proposed using millions of small spacecraft to create a sunshade that would
deflect about 10 per cent of the sun’s light from the earth. It would take 25 years and several
trillion dollars to build.
Then there’s the idea of geoengineering, which
involves shooting particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. This has
a number of proponents, partly because it appears to work: every time a major volcano erupts,
producing a similar effect, temperatures decline over large regions.
But John Latham, a senior research associate
at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that there was simply no money for
geoengineering. It would probably cost a billion dollars to research, and venture capitalists
can’t bet that much money on a single project. Nor can commercial companies or public utilities
put that sort of money into something that is way more research than development.
Mr. Reiner at Cambridge expects that climate change
will eventually become a public research priority, as the 0 space program and the Manhattan
Project did. The problem won’t go away. Neither will the ideas.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 25 Aug 2007
|
Climate Fight Brings Mega Profits to EU Power Firms
European power companies are making billions of Euros
in excess profits in the European Union's battle to beat global warming by cutting emissions
of carbon gases, and consumers are paying for it, economists say.
The electricity generators are given, free of charge,
permits to emit millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide which are currently worth around 20 Euros
a tonne, but are then charging consumers as if they had been made to pay for the permits.
Michael Grubb, Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust
and Director of Climate Strategies, calculates that this practice which he says is economically
justifiable gives the industry windfall profits of some 20 billion Euros ($27.14 billion) a
year.
"It is free money,” he told Reuters. "It's how you'd
expect companies to behave, but politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify
making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions -- with consumers footing the
bill."
But Chris Rogers, head of European utilities at Morgan
Stanley, says this understates the scale of excess profits because it is based on coal-powered
generation and ignores the low carbon generators such as nuclear and wind who nevertheless get
the carbon-inflated price for their electricity.
"Let's just say that in Phase II of the EU trading
scheme the power utilities will still be making very healthy profits. The compact they have to
strike with governments is that they will invest this in clean energy," he said.
Under Phase I of the EU's emissions trading scheme
running through 2007 smokestack industries including power generators were allocated free
permits to emit carbon and allowed to sell any surplus to those who exceeded their ceilings.
Under Phase II which runs from 2008 to 2012 ceilings
have been reduced and a small percentage will be auctioned, although the vast majority will
still be handed out free.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 25 Aug 2007
|
The West’s Global Warming Racket
On September 27, US President George W. Bush will
finally come in from the cold over global warming. On that day he will host a conference in
Washington to be attended by what he has defined as the world's 15 most polluting nations.
He intends, for the first time, to commit the United States to slashing its carbon emissions.
That, anyway, is the positive spin. Alternatively,
one might put Bush's multilateralist initiative like this: he is fed up with being depicted as
the bad boy of climate change. Rather than keeping the US out of the world's efforts to reduce
carbon emissions, as he did when he withdrew from the Kyoto treaty, he has seen an opportunity
in joining the process: to suppress industrial competition from the Third World. He has already
made clear his price for committing the US to cutting carbon emissions: to impose similar cuts
on the developing nations invited to the conference, which include China, India, Mexico, Brazil
and Indonesia. It isn't only President Bush who appears to think that it is the duty of the
world's poor to carry the can for the fossil fuel-guzzling habits of the West. The West's
policy on global warming is rapidly evolving into a giant protectionist racket against the
developing world.
When the Kyoto treaty was signed in 1997, developing
nations were exempt from targets obliging them to cut their carbon emissions. The argument for
excluding them was thoroughly logical: their percapita carbon emissions were only a fraction
of those of the developed world. It was the duty of the rich nations to set an example in
cutting their own emissions before any targets were imposed on developing nations.
Since 1997, western efforts to cut carbon emissions
have come to almost naught. US carbon emissions are now 15 per cent higher than they were in
1990 - the baseline level used for all Kyoto targets. Yet in spite of this record of
non-achievement the West is increasingly hectoring the developing world on its carbon
emissions.
The International Energy Agency recently made the
prediction that China's carbon emissions would overtake America's by 2009. That may or may not
happen, but even if it does, it doesn’t quite mean that the Chinese are as culpable as
Americans for carbon emissions, because rather ignores the fact that China has five times
the population. Head for head, in 2003 the Chinese emitted 3.2 tonnes of carbon and India
1.19 tonnes. The US, on the other hand, emitted 19.8 tonnes, Germany 9.8 tonnes and France,
which has a high proportion of energy generated by nuclear power, 6.4 tonnes. But even those
figures are highly misleading, because they ignore the fact that much of China's rising carbon
emissions are being spewed out in the name of producing goods for western consumers. These are
emissions, of course, which used to come from chimneys in Birmingham and Manchester, before our
manufacturing base was reduced to a shadow of what it was.
Somehow, I doubt whether President Bush will recognise
this at his conference in September. He won't be suggesting, for example, that China be allowed
to emit extra carbon emissions to compensate for the fact that the country now produces 43 per
cent of the world's cement. Neither will he be negotiating a target which would limit China to
the same per-capita carbon emissions as the US. Rather he will attempt to make a deal which
will effectively cap China's emissions permanently at a fraction of those of the US. In other
words his aim will be to institutionalise the gap in wealth between rich countries and poor
ones, and give the US an inbuilt advantage against Chinese producers.
While this will cause outrage in India and China,
those countries shouldn't expect a great deal of sympathy from Gordon Brown, who has already
made it his ambition for Britain to benefit from global warming at the expense of the poor.
Imagine if you were a Third World peasant listening, on a crackling, windup radio set, to the
then Chancellor's pre-budget report last December: "I can report that following the Stern
Review, 31 countries in the EU and EFTA have already signed up to emissions trading as the
first step to this global framework. And we are bringing together the major financial
institutions: our aim, to make London the world's trading centre for carbon trading."
In other words, the driving force behind the Prime
Minister's great mission to extend carbon trading worldwide isn't so much to prevent climate
change as to boost the profits of the City. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme forces companies
and organisations which emit more carbon than their agreed targets to buy carbon credits from
those who undershoot their targets.
That it is a bizarre piece of bureaucracy which
enriches those good at negotiating their targets at the expense of those who are less
good should already be obvious following the revelation that Shell has made
a £49.9 million profit and BP a £43.1 million from selling their unused allocations, while
the NHS has made a net loss of £6 million.
But it will be even more absurd when industries
undergoing expansion in developing nations are forced to buy carbon credits from shrinking
industrial operations in Europe, helping in the process to buy Porsches for big wheels in the
City.
Take the concept of "food miles," which has made its
way on to the packaging of supermarket food in Britain.
The idea is to make western consumers feel guilty about
buying food flown in from halfway across the world and persuade them to choose more
environmentally friendly locally grown nosh instead. Yet there is only a tenuous connection
between the distance a foodstuff has travelled and the carbon emitted in its production and
distribution. For example, a New Zealand study recently revealed that lamb raised in that
country and transported 11,000 miles to Britain causes 688 kg of carbon emissions per tonne.
Lamb produced and eaten in Britain, on the other hand, causes 2,849 kg of carbon emissions per
tonne, the greater efficiency of farming in New Zealand more than making up for the energy
consumed in transit. A separate study by Cranfield University revealed that roses produced in
the Netherlands and transported to Britain cause 35,000 kg of carbon emissions per 12,000 stems,
against 600 kg of carbon emissions per 12,000 stems of Kenyan roses: the carbon cost of flying
the roses to Britain being more than countered by the manual nature of farming in Kenya.
What the concept of food miles does achieve, on the
other hand, is very neatly to discriminate against farmers in the far-off Third World and
in favour of local farmers.
It is a straightforward protectionist device.
That so few "enlightened" western consumers seem able to see this is worrying,
but not as depressing as the failure of consumers to see through the carbon-offsetting
business.
"Neutralising" one's carbon emissions has expanded
from Hollywood stars planting a few trees on their estates to a multimillion pound business
much patronised by politicians out to earn brownie points.
At least the naivety of the Hollywood stars who thought
they could neutralise the emissions of fossil fuels by planting trees (which store carbon only
for the 100 years or so in which they are alive) was less damaging than some of the carbon-
offset schemes on offer now. Delegates to the 2005 G8 summit at Gleneagles, for example, were
given a certificate to say that the emissions from their flights had been offset by a scheme
to replace the tin roofs of huts in a shantytown suburb of Cape Town with a more insulating
material. In other words, you burn airline fuel, while a South African peasant saves heating
oil.
What could possibly be wrong with that? Quite a lot,
actually. It stands to reason that the carbon emitted by delegates' flights will only continue
to be offset for as long as the occupants of the huts carry on living in shanty-town conditions.
If, in a couple of years' time, they better themselves
to the point that they can afford a home just a little closer to the standard enjoyed by the
average resident of the First World, they will replace their insulated shacks with much more power-hungry bungalows.
It is the same with carbon-offset schemes to provide
Kenyans with dung powered generators, replacing Indians' kerosene lamps with solar-powered
lamps or all the rest. As acts of charity they are one thing, but as carbon-offset schemes
they only work if the recipients continue to live in very basic conditions. Once they aspire
to western, fossil fuel-powered lifestyles, then the scheme is undone. Needless to say, carbon-
offsetting schemes only work in one direction: one can only imagine the reaction if a middle-
class Kenyan tried to offset the carbon emissions from his swimming pool by buying Al Gore a
dung-fired stove.
None of this is to say that the theory of global
warming is wrong, or that mankind isn't facing a man-made climatic disaster. It is just that
increasingly the politics appears to be shifting the burden of cutting carbon emissions on
to the world's poor: they must be kept in a state of noble peasanthood so that we can carry on
living pretty much as before.
The Asian Age (New Delhi), 26 Aug 2007
|
Merkel to Push G-8 Climate Pledge in 5 - Day Trip to China, Japan
German Chancellor Angela Merkel embarks on Sunday on
a five-day trip to the Far East, where she aims to enroll the help of Japan's Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe in pressing China to do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Merkel, who has put tackling climate change at the
center of Germany's presidency of the Group of Eight leading nations, is canvassing China and
the US to support a successor to the Kyoto Protocol at a United Nations meeting next month,
a Merkel aide told reporters in Berlin yesterday on terms of anonymity.
Japan, which takes over the G-8 presidency from
Germany in January is seen as a key ally in getting China on board, the aide said. Merkel is
scheduled to hold talks in Beijing on August 27 with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier
Wen Jiabao, before traveling to Tokyo to meet with Abe Merkel has already met Abe three times
this year in Berlin.
The Chancellor won “deserved plaudits” at a G-8 summit
at the Baltic resort of Heiligendam in June for winning members’ pledges to cut carbon-dioxide
emissions, Claudia Kemfert, and energy economist with the Berlin-based DIW Economic Institute,
said in an interview. “Yet, without concrete commitments from the US, Russia and China, the
euphoria may be short-lived.”
Kyoto, the main global treaty for cutting emissions
of greenhouse gases, expires in 2012, and Merkel wants to forge consensus on a replacement.
She travels to Kyoto, where the treaty was signed in 1997, on last day of her visit. Next month’s
meeting in New York is meant to help “launch negotiations” on an extension to Kyoto at a
UN- sponsored climate-change conference on the Indonesian island of Bali in December,
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said in Germany in June.
Abe has said that Japan and the European Union will
lead effort to develop a new global climate plan and speed up efforts to export energy-saving
technology.
Germany and Japan share concerns that their respective
trade deficits with China will deteriorate further as both countries move to adopt stricter CO2
reduction targets, burdening industry with extra costs, the German aide said.
That may provide an opportunity for both countries,
as they seek to persuade China of the compatibility of rapid industrial growth and the
adoption of energy conserving technology. Exports of environment – friendly technology may
help narrow Germany’s trade deficit with China, which reached $21 billion last year, according
to the aide.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 25 Aug 2007
|
Abe Merkel Pledge Leadership on Climate Change
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and visiting German
Chancellor Angela Merkel reaffirmed a pledge to lead efforts on combating climate change after
the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. "We agreed to make an effective framework'' to tackle
global warming post-Kyoto, Abe said at a joint briefing in Tokyo on Wednesday after meeting
with Merkel.
"Every country needs to take a flexible variety of
measures on climate change,'' in line with its responsibility, he said.
The European Union, Japan and Canada pledged at a
summit of the Group of Eight leading nations in June to halve carbon- dioxide emissions by 2050,
while the US and Russia only promised to take part in talks on a new treaty to combat warming.
global
Merkel, who arrived in Japan today after a three-day
visit to China, has put tackling climate change at the center of Germany's G-8 presidency and
is canvassing China and the US to support a successor to the Kyoto treaty at a United Nations
meeting in New York next month.
"Climate change will be one of the key issues at the
next summit'' of the G-8 in Japan, which takes over the rotating presidency from Germany in
January, Merkel said. “I expect significant steps” to be made on cutting greenhouse gases.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reiterated a pledge to Merkel
earlier this week to work with Germany and other developed nations to cut industrial emissions and
lessen China's impact on global climate change.
China, the world's second-biggest emitter of carbon
dioxide behind the US, is a signatory to the 1997 UN-backed Kyoto treaty, though is exempted
due to its developing-nation status.
The Kyoto Protocol, the ony international treaty that
sets specific targets for emission reduction, binds 35 nations to curb carbon emissions by 5.2
per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.
The US and Australia have refused to sign the protocol.
Merkel is scheduled to visit Kyoto, where the treaty was
signed, on Aug. 31, before returning to Berlin the following day.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 30 Aug 2007
|
Why Hot Air Could Be Big Business
Neasa MacErlean
Joggers may think running is healthy but it has deadly
side effects. The problem lies in the shoes: they contain a man-made chemical that eventually
turns into a greenhouse gas 23,900 times more dangerous, in climate-change terms, than carbon
dioxide.
Trainer technology has developed fast in the last 15
years — particularly in the creation of thick, light, foam-based soles to cushion runners’
feet. But these soles contain a substance called sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). While methane,
also a greenhouse gas, lasts about 12 years in the atmosphere, SF6 has virtually no natural
decomposition process and will stay in the atmosphere permanently. That is why its use is now
being banned. New regulations come into force on Wednesday prohibiting the sale of this type
of footwear in the European Union.
Just as the new technology of carbon capture and
storage is being developed to reduce CO2 emissions, we need to develop ways to reduce our
release of other, even more potent, gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and SF6.
Carbon capture and storage could be worth £4 billion
a year in a country the size of the U.K., according to Edinburgh University, and the value of
businesses associated with these other gases could also run into billions.
The International Energy Association calculates that
greenhouse gases other than CO2 account for 20 per cent of emissions. The Netherlands has
progressive policies for reducing these other gases.
Erik Ter Avest of Senter Novem, the Dutch sustainable
development agency, says reducing non-CO2 emissions can be done cheaply. Methane is released in
coalmining, gas extraction, and from landfill, cattle and various other sources. Some energy
firms — including Centrica — are considering methane capture, a process that is already in
large-scale operation in the United States and Australia.
Methane levels in the atmosphere have doubled since
the Industrial Revolution. But if captured, methane has serious commercial value: it is the
main ingredient of natural gas.
Many industries will become involved in the non-CO2
emissions reduction campaign — whether by changing their processes, building up expertise in
the new technologies, buying cleaner energy or thinking about how they handle their waste.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 2 July 2007
|
US Extols India, China on Emission
Kounteya Sinha
India's plan to generate 30 per cent of its power from
renewable energy sources in order to cut down on emissions of dangerous greenhouse gases, while
meeting growing energy demands, has earned praise from the US. US, in fact, is planning to
project India as the "example to be followed" for other nations attending the crucial polluters'
meeting in Washington next month.
Called by President George Bush as a run-up to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Bali in December
2007, the September 27-28 meeting will be attended by officials from 13 highest polluting
nations of the world, including US, India, China and Brazil.
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice will host
the talks and Bush will address the meeting. Signifying a clear shift from its past behaviour
and tone, US came out in open support of developing countries like India and China for leading
the fight against global warming and climate change.
Highlighting India's inspiring role, Harlan Watson,
chief negotiator and head of the US delegation at this week's 158-nation climate change meeting
here, told TOI, "India is a global leader in using technology to generate renewable energy.
By cutting down on the use of coal, it is trying
to meet its emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However, very little credit is being
given to it."
Gustavo Silva Chavez, climate change policy analyst
of NGO Environmental Defence, said, "US has softened its tone. This is the first time that
they have acknowledged the effort being made by developing countries to cut down gas emissions."
India is the fourth biggest generator of wind energy.
It has also started to aggressively trade in carbon credits with Western nations to help them
meet their emission targets. Today, 62 per cent of India's electricity is powered by coal.
US, on the other hand, is the world's largest
greenhouse-gas emitter, releasing about 6.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
China emits about 4.1 billion tonnes a year. Japan, the world's second-biggest economy,
emits around 1.3 billion tonnes each year. Addressing a press conference on Wednesday, which
many thought would see America finally reveal by how much it plans to cut emissions, Watson,
on the contrary, made it clear that further talks were required for the US to reach a concrete
commitment.
Asserting that US and Europe are working together to
tackle global warming, deflecting growing criticism within the EU and the developing world over
Washington’s perceived goit-alone stance, Watson told TOI, “We are working on chalking out a
domestic programme to cap carbon emissions keeping in mind the specific needs of our country
The Times of India (New Delhi), 31 Aug 2007
|
UN Meet Mulls Tax on Air Tickets to Fight Climate Change
Kounteya Sinha
Air travel may become a little more expensive. An
additional tax on airline tickets globally is one the options being discussed by officials
under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a means to raise funds for
programmes aimed at fighting climate change and global warming.
The proposal is expected to come up for consideration
at next month’s high level meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
in Montreal.
UNFCCC executive secretary Yvo de Boer told TOI that
if the proposal is accepted, the UN organization hoped to raise US $10-15 billion through this
cess annually.
“We are looking at additional sources of funding our
programme meant to control global emissions. An airline tax is one of the suggestions that has
come up from researchers and is being extensively discussed at the Vienna talks. The ICAO
meeting in Montreal will discuss and finalise a target that the airline industry can adopt to
support us,” de Boer said.
A similar tax on airline tickets was recently
implemented by France and 18 other countries, with the money raised through it being used to
purchase life-saving drugs against HIV, TB and malaria.
These countries hope to raise $300 million annually by
the end of this year and $500 million by 2009. A request that came from France’s foreign
minister Philippe Douste Blazy earlier asking India to levy a similar tax was, however, turned
down by the latter. Blazy had suggested that India could either make it mandatory or voluntary
for passengers to pay the tax.
So it is highly unlikely that India will agree to
charging air passengers an additional tax to raise funds for climate change. Some experts also
feel that a global airline ticket tax coming through to support climate change initiatives is
unlikely. Erik Haites, president of Margaree Consultants and a close partner of UNFCCC, said,
“ICAO is usually not in favour of taxes. So is unlikely to support this proposal. But the
airline industry has to make itself accountable as it accounts for 2.5 per cent of the total
global emissions which is constantly growing. It will be absolutely critical in the long run.”
European Union officials were also earlier considering imposing a tax on airline fuel to make
carriers reduce their impact on the environment.
Air line officials have been discussing for long how
to address climate change and not to face the risk of additional levies.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 31 Aug 2007
|
Climate Change to Cast a Spell on Agri
Ashok B. Sharma
Climate change is set to take a toll on Indian
agriculture unless adaptive measures are put in place. There may be severe droughts at places
and enhanced intensity of floods in other parts of the country, according to the secretary
general of World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Nitin Desai.
In the context of emerging scenario in the near future
Kutch and Saurashtra which occupies about one fourth of the area of Gujarat and 60 per cent of
Rajasthan may face acute water scarce conditions. River basins of Mahi, Pennar, Sabarmati and
Tapti shall also face water shortage conditions. River basins belonging to Cauvery, Ganga,
Narmada and Krishna shall experience seasonal or regular water-stressed conditions. River
basins belonging to Godavari, Brahmani and Mahanadi shall not have water shortages but are
predicted to face severe flood conditions.
The periniel sources of surface water would dry as the
Himalayan glaciers that feed seven great Asian rivers—Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra, Salween,
Mekong, Yangtze and Huang Ho—were fast retreating, he cautioned.It has been marked that 67 per
cent of glaciers are retreating at a startling rate in the Himalayas and the major casual
factor has been identified as climate change, he said.
The Khumbu glacier, a popular climbing route to the
summit of Mt. Everest, has retreated over 5 km from where Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay
set out to conquer the world’s highest mountain in 1953.
The rate of retreat of the Gangotri glacier in the
past three decades is three times higher than the rate for the previous 200 years
“Accelerated melting of glaciers will cause an increase
in river levels over the next few decades, initially leading to higher incidence of flooding
and land-slides. But, in the longer-term, as the volume of ice available for melting diminishes,
rivers will have lesser and lesser water. In the Ganga, the loss of glacier meltwater would
reduce July-September flows by two thirds, causing water shortages for 500 million people and
37 per cent of India’s irrigated land,” said Desai.
He said that India’s per capita emissions of carbon
dioxide has grown at 3.8 per cent a year in the period 1980-2004 and energy forecasts says that
it would quadruple by 2050 from 2004 level of 1.1 tonne per capita.
The European Union has committed itself to cut its
emissions by half by 2050. If this happens then Europe’s carbon emissions would fall to around
4 tonne per capita, the same as China in 2004 and what India would be before 2050, he said.
Desai was in India at the inivitation of The Oceanic Group.
Desai said that global emissions should start declining
from 2015-2020, even if the goals are set for 2050. The US has indicated that it will not
accept any commitment unless India and China are brought in.
The growing consumer sensitivity about climate change
could lead to market pressures akin to those that prevail on labour issues, he said.
“Even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, the Earth
will be warmer by a further 0.5 to one degree celsius over coming decades due to the
considerable intertia in the climate system,” he said and added the World Bank has suggested
an annual investment of $ 1,500 billion in developing countries to tackle the problems of
climate change.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 3 Aug 2007
|
UN: Warming to Trigger 18 Per Cent Drop in Grain Output
Climate change is likely to trigger a “risk of hunger”
in India by affecting cereal production by as much as 18 per cent because of floods and
droughts, a UN agency has warned.
Food and Agriculture organization (FAO) said India
could lose as much as 125 million tones of its rainfed cereal production. “Rainfed agriculture
in marginal areas in semi-arid and sub-humid regions is mostly at risk,” an FAO statement
quoted FAO statement quoted FAO director-general Jacques Diouf as saying.
In contrast, the industrialized countries are likely
to gain in production potential, Diouf said, “Crop yield potential is likely to increase at
higher latitudes for global average temperature increases of up to 1 to 3 degree Celsius
depending on the crop and then decrease beyond that,” he said. “On the contrary, at lower
latitudes, especially in the seasonally dry tropics, crop yield potential is likely to decline
for even small global temperature rises, which would increase the risk of hunger.”
Greater frequency of droughts and floods would affect
local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes, Diouf added.
He said science and technology must spearhead agricultur
al production in the next 30 years at a pace faster than the Green Revolution did during the
past three decades. Advocating the use of biotechnologies, Diouf said the technologies such
as in vitro culture, embryo transfer and DNA markers can be exploited to supplement
conventional breeding approaches.
The Times of India (New Delhi), 17 Aug 2007
|
Global Warming May Cut Agri Production by 25 Per Cent, Say Expert
Soil erosion and drying of rivers resulting from
global warming can reduce agricultural production by nearly 25 per cent, a conservation expert
has said.
Speaking at a lecture series on the topichere, G.M.
Pillay, director general of World Institute of Sustainable Energy, said the disastrous
consequences of the ozone depletion, triggered by global warming included inter-alia, impact on
the health of mankind, extinction of some rare species of plants and birds and animals, spread
of diseases through air and water, erratic behaviour of rains, reduced forest cover, heavy melting
of glaciers and loss of surface storage of dams.
“In addition to reduction in farm production, the
quality of agricultural produce too would be adversely affected,” he warned.
Stressing the need to find out alternative means of
energy, Pillay pointed out that existing sources comprising oil, natural gas and coal amounted
to 65 per cent emission of carbon.
He listed measures to off-set effects of global
warming which include green energy power projects, change in man’s lifestyle, economical
use of fossil fuel, canvassing the use of biomass and a thrust on renewable sources of energy.
The Financial Express (New Delhi), 11 Aug 2007
|
Dryland Farmers and Climate Change
Vikram S. Mehta
This year, the global community was alarmed by the
prospects of global warming and climate change when the former United States
Vice President Al Gore’s movie, The Inconvenient Truth, won the Academy Award. The movie
sparked debates, but more importantly, brought global attention to the issue of climate change.
At the International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), we believe climate change will make dryland agriculture even more
risk-prone especially in the developing world. Thus, for farmers struggling under the burden of
cultivating land under the ever-present threat of drought, floods, mid-season dry spells, land
degradation, and water scarcity, such problems associated with climate change will have to be
answered more frequently.
Unless the livelihoods and resource base of such
vulnerable rural communities can be made more resilient, coping with climate change may be next
to impossible for poor dryland farming communities. Working over decades with poor farmers in
the drylands of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, ICRISAT’s research shows that a combined effort
to deal with current climate uncertainty, land degradation, and water scarcity is the only way
by which the resilience of these communities can be brought about.
With improved tools becoming available in studying
climate uncertainty, it has now become possible for decision-makers and investors to formulate
a development agenda integrating short, medium, and long-term timeframes. Short-term seasonal
forecasting enables farmers and other stakeholders to plan more effectively and fine-tune their
strategies for the coming season. Medium-term understanding enables them to predict the impact
and profitability of improved agricultural practices. Long-term understanding helps them
predict the likely impact of climate change on rain-fed farming systems, and their future
development and productivity.
This integrated climate risk assessment and management
framework is fundamental to ICRISAT’s collaborative research on managing climatic uncertainty
and adapting to climate change. This will enable investors (governments, donors, researchers or
farmers) to understand better the risks and opportunities and get greater returns from more
diversified and targeted investments.
Overcoming land degradation
Land degradation,
which is a persistent problem in the drylands of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, can be further
worsened by climate change. ICRISAT has been working with partners for years on combating land
degradation in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The following are some of ICRISAT’s effective
interventions:
Desert Margins Programme: Working with five other
Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research ( CGIAR ) and other
partners, it is a collaborative initiative among nine African countries — Botswana, Burkina
Faso, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. This programme is
guided by the principle that desertification in areas bordering deserts can be avoided and
reversed by enhancing the resilience and biodiversity of the agro-ecosystem; and improving
farmers’ livelihoods through more productive, profitable, and stable land management.
Fertilizer microdosing: Research has shown that poor
soil fertility is a major food production constraint across much of the West African Sahel.
When plants are malnourished, their roots cannot collect enough rainwater. Microdosing is the
practice of providing the growing crop with the appropriate quantity of fertilizer at the
right time. Microdosing is a technique that enables farmers to measure the right amount of
fertilizers in the caps of soft drink or beer bottles and placing these along with the seed.
This innovative technique has reintroduced fertilizer use in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South
Africa, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso.
Drylands Eco-Farm: An innovative trees-crops-livestock
system for rain-fed crop production, it involves intercropping fast-growing trees with annual
crops. Also included in the system are livestock that are appropriate for the agro-ecosystem.
Profits from the eco-farms are three to five times higher than the current farming systems.
Increasing water scarcity
In agricultural
research, water is often considered in two distinct categories. “Green water” represents the
moisture contained in the soil profile from rain or irrigation, whereas “blue water” accounts
for the run-off from rain or irrigation and contained in water bodies such as dams, rivers,
lake, and aquifers. Climate change is expected to make some regions of the globe even drier —
that is, make water even scarcer.
Lack of water is also the cause of major food crisis,
like the one experienced in Niger because of drought in 2005. This type of crisis is a “green
water” crisis, and is usually an extreme consequence of an erratic rainfall pattern in the
semi-arid tropics. It is rendered more acute with current climate change trends, where soil
moisture limits yield and eventually reduces food supply. Green water scarcity can be
compensated by blue water if irrigation facilities and water are available. Unfortunately,
given the limited volume of blue water available, the scope for increasing the area already
under irrigation is limited. Agriculture in these areas will likely remain rain-fed.
At ICRISAT, we work to promote rain-fed agriculture
in the drylands, and generate innovations that ensure food security and income generation,
adapted to the limited green water availability, and capable of coping with extreme climatic
conditions. Our research, which focusses on integrated genetic and natural resource management
(using conventional and biotechnology-assisted crop improvement along with soil and water
management), has been working to optimise both blue and green water, so that the dryland
farmers can increase agricultural productivity.
ICRISAT’s watershed development programme, which has
become a model for up-scaling in India, China, Vietnam, and Thailand, has optimised the
conservation and use of blue water. While run-off water is harvested through small water
conservation structures, the optimal utilisation of this resource is ensured through suitable
crop rotation.
Working on generating more crop per drop of green
water comes naturally for ICRISAT since its mandate crops are those that grow in the drylands
— pearl millet, sorghum, chickpea, pigeonpea, and groundnut. These crops have built-in
capacities to grow in water scarce environments. However, ICRISAT’s continuing research
efforts are to breed improved varieties and hybrids that can cope with lesser water availability.
Whenever climate change in a longer timeframe is
discussed, there are global debates whether the changes in average temperatures, water
availability, and crop growing conditions will actually occur or whether the claims are
exaggerated.
Even while this debate continues, farmers in the
drylands of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa face the day-to-day reality of climate uncertainty,
land degradation, and water scarcity.
ICRISAT’s research empowers these farmers to meet
present day uncertainties. Armed with the ability to deal with present day realities, the
farmers of the drylands will find it easier to deal with future climate change, when it
happens.
The Hindu (New Delhi), 30 Aug 2007
|
बायोईंधन भरोसे
ही नहीं सुधरेगा
पर्यावरण
जलवायु
में
हो
रहे
परिवर्तन
को
अब
शंकालु
लोगों
ने
भी
स्वीकार
कर
लिया
है,
तो
इसका
जवाब
ढूंढ़ने
की
कोशिश
की
जाने
लगी
है।
ग्रीनहाउस
गैसों,
जीवाश्म
ईँधन
के
आलावा
वनस्पति
ईंधन
के
मुद्दे
पर
सबसे
अधिक
बहस
चल
रही
है।
दुर्भाग्यवश,
जिस
तरह
इस
बेहतर
विचार
को
लागू
करने
की
दिशा
में
काम
किया
जा
रहा
है
वह
आसमान
से
टपके
खजूर
पर
अटके
वाली
बात
है।
बायोईंधन
दो
तरह
का
होता
है।
एक
गन्ने
या
मक्के
से
तैयार
होने
वाला
इथेनॉल
है
और
दूसरा
बायोडीजल,
जिसे
बायोमॉस
से
तैयार
किया
जाता
है।
बायोईँधन
सबसे
पहले
यूरोप
में
बना,
जिसका
लक्ष्य
2010 तक
छह
फीसदी
वाहनो
और
2020 तक
दस
फीसदी
वाहनों
में
ईंधन
के
तौर
पर
प्रयोग
करने
का
है।
बायोडीजल
की
अधिकतर
मात्रा
का
उत्पादन
घरेलू
किस्म
के
रेपसीड
से
होता
है।
ब्राजील
और
अर्जेंटीना
में
सोयाबीन
से
यह
ईँधन
तैयार
किया
जा
रहा
है,
और
इंडोनेशिया
और
मलेशिया
में
खजूर
के
तेल
से
इसे
बनाया
जा
रहा
है।
अमेरिकी
राषट्रपति
जार्ज
बुश
ने
अपने
देश
को
2017
तक
132
बिलियन
लीटर
बायोईंधन
तैयार
करने
का
निर्देश
दिया
है,
जिससे
विदेशी
ईंधन
पर
निर्भरता
खत्म
हो
सके।
अमेरिका
का
पसंदीदा
ईंधन
मक्के
से
बनने
वला
इथेनॉल
है।
दुनिया
का
सबसे
अधिक
इथेनॉल
का
उत्पादन
करने
वाला
ब्राजील
इसे
तैयार
करने
में
गन्ने
का
प्रयोग
करता
है।
अनुमान
के
मुताबिक,
आने
वाले
वर्षों
में
अमेरिका
के
घरों
में
उपयोग
होने
वाले
मक्के
की
आधी
से
अधिक
मात्रा से
इथेनॉल
बनाया
जाएगा।
साथ
ही,
बायोईंधन
इंडस्ट्री
ईंधन
के
लिए
सोया
के
अलावा
दूसरी
फसलों
का
प्रयोग
ऑटोमोबाइल
इंडस्ट्री
में
करेगा।
बदलाव
का
प्रभाव
पहले
से
ही
दिखने
लगा
है।
पिछले
साल
मैक्सिकों
में
लोगों
का
तब
गुस्सा
सामने
आया,
जब
एकाएक
मक्के
का
दाम
दोगुना
हो
गया
।
तेजी
की
वजह
थी
वाहन
ईंधन
के
रुप
में
उभर
रहे
नए
बाजार
की
संभावनाएं
और
इसमें
कारपोरेट
अमेरिका
की
दिलचस्पी।
लेकिन
इसके
विरोध
में
लोग
सड़कों
पर
आंदोलन
के
लिए
उतर
आए
थे।
इस
मामले
में
आर्चर
डेनियल्स
मिडलैंड
नामक
कंपनी
ने
मक्के
और
गेहूं
के
बाजार
में
मुख्य
रुचि
दिखाई
और
पूरे
क्षेत्र
में
सबसे
अधिक
इथेनॉल
का
उत्पादन
किया
।
साथ
ही,
आर्थिक
इनाम
के
तौर
पर
टारटिला
बनाने
और
गेहूं
को
रिफाइन
करने
वाली
मेक्सिको
की
कंपनी
को
साझेदार
बनाया।
जाहिर
है
कि
जब
मक्के
का
दाम
बढ़ेगा
और
इसकी
वजह
से
लोग
मक्के
की
जगह
गेहूं
का
इस्तेमाल
करेंगे
तो
भी
कंपनी
को
फायदा
होगा
।
दूसरे
शब्दों
में
रुझान
खाद्य
से
ईंधन
की
ओर
जाएगा
।
वर्तमान
परिदृश्य
में
गेहूं,
सोया,
खजूर
तेल
जैसे
खाद्य
पदार्थों
का
दाम
जिस
कदर
बढ़
रहा
है,
इसका
प्रभाव
व्यापक
तौर
से
गरीब
उपभोक्ताओं
पर
पड़
रहा
है।
खाद्य
पदार्थों
के
दामों
में
उछाल
20-40
फीसदी
होने
की
संभावना
है
और
यह
सिर्फ
इस
परिवर्तन
के
कारण
ही
होगा।
समस्या
यह
है
कि
इस
सबसे
पर्यावरण
में
होने
वाले
बदलाव
पर
बहुत
कम
असर
पड़ेगा।
यह
साफ
है
कि
पूरे
विश्व
में
बायोईंधन
जीवाश्म
ईंधन
की
खपत
होने
से
बन
रही
खतरनाक
स्थिति
को
रोकेगा।
अमेरिका
में
यदि
मक्के
की
पूरी
फसल
से
इथेनॉल
बनाया
जाए,
तो
भी
वर्तमान
में
प्रयोग
हो
रहे
गैसोलीन
को
सिर्फ
12
फीसदी
ही
बदला
जा
सकेगा।
अमेरिकी
विदेश
विभाग
की
एक
पत्रिका
के
मुताबिक
95
लीटर
शुद्ध
इथेनाल
बनाने
के
लिए
200
किलोग्राम
मक्के
की
आवश्यकता
होती
है,
जो
पूरे
साल
एक
व्यक्ति
को
पर्याप्त
कैलोरी
दे
सकती
है।
ईंधन
के
निवेश
की
बात
करें
तो
बायोमास
को
ऊर्जा
में
बदलने,
ट्रैक्टर
चलाने
के
लिए
डीजल,
उर्वरक
बनाने
के
लिए
प्राकृतिक
गैस,
रिफाइनरी
चलाने
के
लिए
ईंधन,
बायोईंधन
ऊर्जा
का
पर्याय
नहीं
है।
अनुमान
के
मुताबिक,
मक्के
से
बनने
वाले
ईंधन
का
सिर्फ
20
फीसदी
ही
नए
ऊर्जा
में
तब्दील
हो
पाता
है।
यह
पानी
पर
निर्भर
नहीं
करता,
बल्कि
नई
फसल
को
उगाने
पर
निर्भर
है।
इस
बात
के
भी
पर्याप्त
सबूत
हैं
कि
वन
वर्षा
से
सोया,
गन्ना,
खजूर
के
तेल
के
उत्पादन
को
बढंने
से
रोकता
है,
जो
जलवायु
परिवर्तन
को
काफी
प्रभावित
करते
हैं।
मुझे
गलत
न
समझा
जाए,
मैं
बायोईंधन
के
पक्ष
में
हूं।
लेकिन
यहां
यह
सवाल
पूछा
जाना
चाहिए
कि
ग्रीनहाउस
गैस
को
रोकने
में
यह
किस
तरह
इस्तेमाल
किया
जा
सकता
है।
वर्तमान
में
हमलोग
सिर्फ
कार्पोरेट
के
लाभ
को
बढाने
में
लगे
हैं
और
सहज
तौर
से
विश्वास
करने
लगे
कि
इससे
सामाजिक
ध्येय
पूरा
हो
गया
।
पहली
बात
तो
यह
है
कि
जीवाश्म
ईंधन
का
स्थान
बायोईंधन
नहीं
ले
सकता।
लेकिन
इससे
कुछ
बदलाव
लाया
जा
सकता
है
यदि
बायोईंधन
का
सीमित
दायरे
में
नहीं
प्रयोग
किया
जाए।
अमेरिका
और
यूरोप
की
भांति
बायोईंधन
के
लिए
फसल
उगाने
पर
सरकार
द्वारा
छूट
दी
जानी
चाहिए।
सड़क
पर
लगातार
बढ़
रही
वाहनों
की
संख्या
कम
कर
ईंधन
के
खर्च
पर
अकुंश
लगाने
का
प्रयास
किया
जाना
चाहिए।
यदि
इस
काम
को
अंजाम
दिया
गया,
तो
नए
बायोईंधन
काफी
हद
तक
ग्रीनहाउस
गैस
को
निकालने
से
रोकेगा
और
बदलाव
लाएगा।
अन्यथा,
हम
सभी
खुद
को
ही
मुर्ख
बनाएंगे
।
दूसरा
सवाल
यह
है
कि
बायोईंधन
का
प्रयोग
कहां
होगा
?
प्रभावशाली
तरीके
से
बायोईंधन
क्रांति
सिर्फ
धनी
देशों
के
लिए
नहीं
है
जहां
वाहन
चलाएं
जाएं,
बल्कि
भारत
और
अफ्रीका
के
गांवों
में
भी
इसका
प्रयोग
हो।
यहां
स्थिति
यह
है
कि
घर
में
रोशनी,
खाने
बनाने
में
ईंधन,
वाटर
पंप
चलाने
के
लिए
जनरेटर
सेट
और
वाहन
चलाने
के
लिए
ऊर्जा
की
कमी
है।
कोई
दूसरा
विकल्प
न
होने
की
दशा
में
जीवाश्म
ईंधन
की
लगातार
मांग
बढ़ना
लाजिमी
है।
भारत
में
जैट्रोफा
जैसे
जंगली
पौधे
से
बायोईंधन
बनाया
जाता
है।
यह
बंजर
भूमि
पर
उगता
है
और
इसके
द्वारा
ईंधन
बनाए
जाने
पर
लोगों
को
रोजगार
भी
मिलेगा।
ईंधन
का
बाजार
एक
अलग
किस्म
के
बिजनेस
मॉडल
की
मांग
करता
है।
इसे
खुले
बाजार
के
उस
मॉडल
पर
नहीं
चलाया
जा
सकता,
जो
इकोनॉमी
ऑफ
स्केल
पर
आधारित
है।
यह
मॉडल
बाजार
से
प्रतियोगिता
को
खत्म
कर
देता
है।
वर्तमान
मॉडल
में
कंपनी
फसल
उगाने,
तेल
निकालने,
रिफाईन
करने
से
लेकर
ग्राहकों
तक
पहुंचाने
के
सारे
काम
खुद
करेगी।
नई
तकनीक
वाले
बायोईंधन
के
व्यापार
को
फैलाने
की
जरुरत
है।
इसमे
लाखों
उत्पादक
और
लाखों
डिस्ट्रीब्यूटर्स
और
प्रयोग
करने
वाले
भी
लाखों
की
संख्या
में
हैं।
जलवायु
में
परिवर्तन
महज
तकनीक
की
बात
नहीं
है,
यह
राजनैतिक
चुनौती
है।
बायोईंधन
नए
भविष्य
का
एक
हिस्सा
है।
हिन्दुस्तान
(नई दिल्ली),
2 Aug
2007
जलवायु
परिवर्तन
के
कारण
बढ़ानी
होगी
परमाणु
बिजली
देश
में
जलवायु
परिवर्तन
के
खतरे
के
मद्देनजर
भारत
को
कार्बन
प्रदुषण
में
कटौती
के
ठोस
प्रयास
करने
होंगे
जिनमें
परमाणु
बिजली
की
हिस्सेदारी
बढ़ाना
शामिल
है।
टेरी
के
महानिदेशक
आर.
के.
पचौरी
ने
हालांकि
मंगलवार
को
यहां
संबाददाताओं
से
कहा
कि
भारत
से
कार्बन
उत्सर्जन
में
कटौती
के
लिए
कहना
ठीक
नहीं।
लेकिन
हाल
ही
में
जापान
के
प्रधानमंत्री
शिंजो
अबे
ठोस
संकेत
दे
चुके
हैं
कि
भारत
को
क्योटो
परवर्ती
समझौता
वार्ता
में
कटौती
के
लिए
प्रतिबद्ध
किया
जाएगा
।
वार्ता
इस
साल
के
अंत
में
शुरु
होनी
है।
जापान
में
होने
वाली
अगली
जी-8
शिखर
वार्ता
में
जलवायु
परिवर्तन
प्रमुख
मुद्दा
होगा
।
अबे
पहले
से
ही
अपना
विश्वव्यापी
कूल
अर्थ
– 50
अभियान
छेड़े
हुए
हैं,
जिसके
तहत
2050 तक
कार्बन
प्रदूषण
को
1990 के
स्तर
से
आधा
करने
का
लक्ष्य
है।
प्रधानमंत्री
मनमोहन
सिंह
ने
इस
बारे
में
कहा
है
कि
भारत
अपनी
क्षमता
के
अनुसार
कार्बन
उत्सर्जन
में
कटौती
करेगा,
लेकिन
असली
मुद्दा
कानूनी
प्रतिबद्धता
का
है
जिसके
लिए
वैश्विक
तौर
पर
भारत
पर
दबाव
बनाया
जाएगा।
जानानी
प्रधानमंत्री
भारत
को
विश्व
में
पांचवा
सबसे
बड़ा
प्रदूषक
करार
दे
चुके
है।
अमेरिका
विश्व
में
नंबर
एक
तथा
चीन
दूसरा
सबसे
बड़ा
प्रदूषक
है।
आम
जानकारी
है
कि
विश्व
में
30 प्रतिशत
कार्बन
उत्सर्जन
की
वजह
बिजली
उत्पादन
में
कोयले
का
इस्तेमाल
है।
यही
वजह
है
कि
परमाणु
बिजली
को
खतरनाक
करार
देने
के
लंबे
दौर
के
बाद
अब
विश्व
भर
में
इसे
स्वच्छ
बिजली
माना
जाने
लगा
है।
विश्व
के
समस्त
बिजली
उत्पादन
में
परमाणु
बिजली
का
हिस्सा
17 प्रतिशत
है,
लेकिन
भारत
में
यह
केवल
साढ़े
तीन
प्रतिशत
है।
अमेरिका
से
परमाणु
करार
संपन्न
होने
के
बाद
निश्चित
रुप
से
इस
हिस्सेदारी
को
बढ़ाया
जा
सकेगा
वरना
इस
प्रतिशत
में
कम
से
कम
दो
दशक
तक
निरंतर
कमी
आती
आएगी
क्योंकि
यूरेनियम
की
किल्लत
की
वजह
से
भारत
को
परमाणु
बिजली
के
हल्के
लक्ष्य
भी
पूरे
करने
में
कठिनाई
होगी।
हिन्दुस्तान
(नई
दिल्ली),
29 Aug
2007
भारत
ग्रीन
हाउस
गैसों
का
सबसे
बड़ा
उत्सर्जक
नहीं
भारत
ने
इस
बात
को
सिरे
से
खारिज
कर
दिया
कि
वह
ग्रीन
हाउस
गैसों
का
सबसे
बड़ा
उत्सर्जक
देश
है।
ग्लोबल
वॉर्मिंग
के
लिए
जिम्मेदार
ठहराई
जाने
वाली
इन
प्रदूषक
गैसों
का
भारत
में
प्रति
व्यक्ति
होने
वाला
उत्सर्जन
दुनिया
के
औसत
के
मुकावले
एक
चौथाई
है।
भारत
ने
विकसित
देशों
पर
यह
भी
आरोप
लगाया
कि
उन्होंने
जलवायु
परिवर्तन
से
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
