|
N E W S |
|
J U L Y |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global Warming at Gleneagles: PM for
N-option As the world seeks to address the threat of climate change, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will make a strong pitch for nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels at the summit of the eight industrial democracies this week at Gleneagles, Scotland. Along with the top leaders of China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, Singh will be joining the leaders of G-8 in Scotland to discuss practical ways to deal with the challenge of global warming. Amidst the intense trans-Atlantic squabble over global warming, there is an interesting congruence of views between India and the developing countries on the one side and the US on the other. While the Europeans emphasise on regulations and quotas for the worldwide reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions, the Bush Administration’s focus is on development of new options like nuclear power, clean coal technology and the use of hydrogen fuel for the transportation sector. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is desperately trying to bridge the divide and put together a new global consensus to address the threat posed by the burning of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide and raise global temperatures. The earlier consensus on reducing carbon emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, has been rejected by the Bush Administration. Singh will insist that the principal responsibility for the reduction of global emissions of carbon dioxide rests with the advanced countries. The G-8 countries—the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia—account for 65 per cent of global GDP and 47 per cent of world’s carbon emissions. While underlining the importance of “common but differentiated responsibility” between the developed and developing countries, Singh would argue that answers to global warming must not come in the way of economic development. Nor should the regimes of global warming restrict the use of energy use by developing countries. This was the point President Bush was making last week when he quoted former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to say poverty and under development were the greatest sources of pollution. The practical way to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol, India recognises, lies in deploying new energy technologies that will help both developed and developing nations to reduce carbon emissions. The renewed worldwide interest in nuclear energy comes at a time when Delhi has stepped up its diplomatic campaign to remove the current international restrictions against atomic energy cooperation with India. As Singh presses India’s case of nuclear energy development, President Bush has been promoting nuclear energy at home and has talked of sharing it with fast growing economies like India. Even the powerful environmental movements around the world, once sworn enemies of nuclear power, are beginning to have second thoughts. The G-8 summit is expected to broadly endorse greater use of nuclear power. That
sentiment will not be enough for India. It needs a change of current rules
to allow civilian nuclear cooperation with India. This issue will figure
prominently in the meeting between Singh and Bush at the White House on
July18. That the G-8 communiqué on climate change is disappointing should surprise no one. It is not just that the summit was overshadowed by the terror attacks in London. Climate change as an issue has always struggled to obtain the commitment to action it deserves from powerful countries that lead the world in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. For these countries, it is convenient that the issue lacks the force and immediacy of a terrorist’s bomb. It cannot match the job loss or nationalism issues associated with changes in the patterns of global trade. It cannot even muster the brooding insecurity created by the presence of hostile enemy states, or the ominous shadow of a few thousand thermo-nuclear weapons. For many years, in fact, lobbies in the Western countries have even questioned whether there is any such thing as global warming. Scientists in this area have been derided for only wanting to justify their careers and their research funds. When the body of evidence threatened to overwhelm the naysayer, climate change was finally accepted. Now the dispute is about human agency, about whether GHG emissions are really contributing to climate change. While
agonising over the appropriate phraseology in communiqués is part of
international diplomacy, witness the extent to which the United States has
gone to ensure that the `human agency’ question is kept out. The US would
like the world to believe that global warming is a mysterious phenomenon
caused, perhaps, by little green men from Mars. Not surprising,
considering that the US contributes 20 to 25 per cent of the GHG being
emitted every year (its cumulative contribution is around 30 per cent),
and it tops the table for the highest per capita consumption along with
the Gulf states, Canada and Australia. The issue has been conveniently
declared a “long-term challenge”, instead of being acknowledged as a clear
and present danger, and a new dialogue promised in November. In the
meantime, temperatures rise, seas rise, glaciers melt, rivers overflow and
cities choke, and a post-Kyoto consensus is as elusive as ever.
G-8: America Gives Way on Climate Change A historic deal on climate change which would see the U.S. sign up to cut greenhouse gas emissions was on Saturday night emerging after a day of frantic negotiations ahead of the G-8 summit. The draft text hammered out by officials meeting in London is expected to pledge the world's richest countries to wean themselves off fossil fuels — not just to save the planet, but to prevent a worldwide energy crisis. An action plan to be unveiled at the Gleneagles, Scotland, summit this week will centre on a package to clean up land and air transport, and provide green technology to developing countries through a deal brokered by the World Bank. U.S. concedes cause The first hope of a breakthrough came on Saturday as the White House finally conceded that human activity was at least the partial cause of global warming. But with British Prime Minister Tony Blair still pushing for more concrete action to clean up the planet, the final text is expected to gloss over differences between U.S. and other countries over the science of global warming by saying the changes are also necessary to prevent an energy crisis. With oil prices soaring to $60 a barrel and fossil fuel supplies finite, the U.S. President George W. Bush is understood to have been swayed by fears over energy security. "We were never going to get the Americans to accept everything on the science front or sign up to Kyoto: that was clear. But what they do accept is that there is climate change and that for reasons of energy security and just reducing pollution, they favour measures that reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels," said a Whitehall source. "The motivation might be different but the net results and the impact are the same." French threat French sources, meanwhile, suggested threats to produce a communique leaving the U.S. out had been effective, with the British and the French working together to bring the Americans on board. The text
completed on Saturday includes a pledge to cut greenhouse emissions — a
reference to the Kyoto treaty which America did not sign up to, and
recognition of man's impact on global warming. One of the central, and most contentious, issues taken up by the G8 Summit at Gleneagles is the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the context of climate change. The related questions are the responsibilities of developed and developing countries, and what to do to move the post-Kyoto process forward given the entrenched forces of opposition led by the Bush administration. Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly claimed an intention to make the United Kingdom the world leader in the area. He has taken on difficult climate change issues in the hope a via media posture could be struck by the G8 and the five ‘outreach’ developing countries — Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa — without "isolating" the United States. Unfortunately, the G8 agenda was disrupted by the murderous terrorist strikes in London. Mr. Blair had to spend much of the opening day away from the summit and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw substituted gamely, chairing the afternoon session on climate change and foreign affairs. Everyone knows that the Bush administration is a huge part of the challenge of tackling climate change issues, Mr. Blair's pre-summit assurances and post-summit spin notwithstanding. This American President has little patience with the U.N. framework convention. In 1990, his father as U.S. President signed a G8 summit statement in Houston that "climate change is of key importance" and "we are committed to undertake common efforts to limit emissions of greenhouse gases." The next year, the London summit of the G8 promised to "design and implement concrete strategies to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases." In 1992, in Munich, the group went so far as to promise "rapid and concrete action." All that went up in smoke with the rise of George W. Bush. In 1998, the Clinton administration signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. Three years later the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature. The British media made out that Mr. Bush had "conceded ground" in the run-up to Gleneagles. Only a fortnight ago, his administration was refusing to recognise any link between human activity and global warming. Some days before the summit, a White House statement set out the following "guiding principles" for the U.S. approach to G8 and beyond: "Climate change is a serious long-term issue, requiring sustained action over many generations by both developed and developing countries. Developing innovative technologies that are cleaner and more efficient is the key to addressing our climate challenge ... economic growth is essential to success ... we oppose any policy shifts that would achieve reductions by putting Americans out of work, or by simply shifting emissions from one state to another, or from the U.S. to another country. Like us, developing countries are unlikely to join in approaches that foreclose their own economic growth and development." The G8 communiqué, when it came at the end of the Gleneagles summit, proved a damp squib. It recognises global warming as a "serious long-term challenge" for the entire planet and promises a "new dialogue" on climate change. The G8 also promised to act with "resolve and urgency" to reduce the gas emissions thought responsible — but studiously avoided specifying targets or a timetable. There is widespread unhappiness over the summit outcome among the community of environmentalists. The BBC reported John Lanchbery, head of climate change at the U.K.'s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, as saying: "The U.S. was inevitably the sticking point. President Bush has refused to heed worldwide calls for measures to tackle climate change despite his own scientists and some Republican politicians demanding action, too." What is clear is that, far from seeing the Bush administration move towards the positions espoused by France, Britain, Germany, and Canada, the summit saw the non-American members cave in. Tellingly, on Mr. Blair's pet project, the recognition of the science of climate change, the communiqué says: "while uncertainty remains in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now." On the other hand, environmentalists have given a guarded welcome to the joint statement of the five large developing countries issued at the sidelines of the G8 Summit. This statement does mark out a distinctive position revolving round "the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities" and a soft demand that developed countries should take the lead in international action to combat climate change by "fully implementing their obligations of reducing emissions and of providing additional financing and the transfer of cleaner, low-emission and cost-effective technologies to developing countries." The statement cites the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol in this context. India's stand Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his contribution to the G8 Summit discussion, elaborated on the official Indian stand on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Interestingly, President Bush declared that he agreed wholeheartedly with this approach. According to a media briefing by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, this is the substance of what Dr. Singh said in the G8 (plus 5) summit discussion: The legitimate fora and proper instrumentalities for dealing with these issues are multilateral fora and multilateral agreements. In this connection, the international consensus is represented by the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Whatever is done must continue to be based on the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. All countries must accept this principle. The world shares the same environment. Problems of climate change have a global impact and cannot be limited within national boundaries. All countries have obligations to safeguard and protect the environment. But the major responsibility is that of developed countries, which have accumulated carbon emissions over a very long time. Given current trends, this is unlikely to change dramatically, unless drastic action is taken. In per capita terms, CO2 emissions by India are a very small fraction of what is seen, for example, in the United States, or even the world average. Despite this, India has done a great deal in terms of environmentally sustainable development. India is one of the few countries with a separate Ministry dealing with renewable energy. The country has done considerable research in new and environmentally friendly energy technologies. It is committed to ensuring its growth but in an environmentally sustainable manner. India has major programmes for developing two major sources of clean energy: hydroelectric power and nuclear power. The international community and international financing institutions must re-look at their lending policies for large hydropower projects. As for nuclear power, President Bush himself has pointed to the need to go forward with it as a source of clean energy. In short, climate change affects us all. But there are certain limits to what developing countries can do. What they need to achieve is the right balance between the environment and development, between protecting the environment and not perpetuating poverty. It is important that the G8 countries do not impose on developing countries standards divorced from reality. It is important that whatever is agreed upon takes into account the capabilities and preoccupations of developing countries. G8
countries, according to Mr. Blair, will meet in November for further
discussions. But for those who hoped for some kind of breakthrough in the
post-Kyoto process, there is a sense of bitter letdown. Governments have reacted to global warming in the following sequence: Incredulity, denial, anger and acceptance. Proactive heads of government and businesses have done further, they have or are putting in place checks and balances on energy consumption and release of greenhouse gases while creating public awareness and green incentive. The scientific community is looking to alternative energy and ways to repair the damage. "Climate change is a global problem that needs addressing now for the sake of future generations. The science is well established and the dangers clear", remarked UK prime minister Tony Blair at the ongoing G8 summit on climate change at Gleneagles, Scotland. The summit warns that temperatures have risen by 0.6 degree celsius in the past century; the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1991and the number of people affected by floods worldwide has already risen from seven million in the 1960s to 150 million today. In Europe alone, severe floods in 2002 caused 37 deaths and cost approximately $16 billion. The 2003 heat wave was linked to 26,000 premature deaths and cost $13.5 billion. US
president George Bush is rejecting the Kyoto-style G8 deal that seeks to
address the issue of human activities accelerating global warming. He did
concede that human activity was to blame but only "to some extent", and
did not think it was necessary to reduce consumption. The Kyoto Protocol
signatories are expected to cut back on emissions in a phased manner. Bush
continues to harp that only new technology, including
nuclear power, can tackle the impending meltdown. "The Kyoto treaty
would have wrecked the US economy", he said. Can Blair convince his buddy
Bush that global warming cannot be tackled with technology alone? As the
world's biggest and richest polluter, the US owes it to the rest of us to
help clean up the environment. And it should begin by cutting back
emissions, and stick to timetable like European countries are doing.
Scandinavia and Germany are fine examples of how environment-consciousness
has created a culture of restraint, moderation an innovation. The first
step is to recognise that urgent action is vital to our collective well
being, not carp that the onus should be on developing countries to
exercise restraint. There will be no free lunch for India when it joins, for the first time ever, the rich nations’ club called G-8 at Gleneagles in Scotland on July 7. It will be pressed to do more on Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions and provide duty-free access to African produce. As a country desperately wanting to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, though sans veto power, India will require all the skills to handle the pressure. India is among the four newly emerging economies which have been invited to the summit to be hosted by the UK. The others are: China, Brazil and South Africa. Political observers believe the pressure will be much greater on China, which is considered a bigger economy, posing greater trade and strategic challenges to the developed Western countries, especially, the USA. However, China already has a UNSC permanent seat. Economically also it is miles ahead of India. Multinational western businesses exposure in China is much greater than in India. To that extent, it will be easier for China to fend its position. Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and signed in accordance with the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was endorsed by the US but later repudiated by the present administration. Under that agreement all member countries, including developing countries, were required to cut greenhouse emissions and report to the UN about the progress made. It, however, required the developed countries such as the US to take a lead in limiting greenhouse emissions. The developed world, with only 25 per cent of the world’s population, contributes 75 per cent of the accumulated greenhouse gas pollution, the US being the single largest polluter. The US, which does not accept the scientific theory about human beings being the major polluters, did not sign Kyoto Protocol. The US President has said it is unfair to ask the US to sign the protocol when the world’s two foremost emerging economies have been exempted from the protocol. India is surprised at this comparison. It’s per capita income is extremely low at about $1 a day and, on an average, a person in India consumes as much energy in a year as an American does in a fortnight. In any case, developing countries such as India, China, Brazil and Mexico have reduced greenhouse gas emissions since 1997 through more efficient management of transport, energy and other environmental policies, while carbon dioxide emissions have increased in the USA during this period. India is in favour of further reducing these emissions. It will, however, depend on the transfer of more efficient, newer environmental friendly technologies by the developed world, especially the US, to the developing countries. These developed countries, directly or through multinational agencies, will also have to foot the bill for developing these new technologies. As far as trade concessions to Africa are concerned, it will not be fair to expect India to open its markets to African goods when India itself remains largely an agricultural country. Pitching one poor country against another, while the rich countries continue to heavily subsidise their farmers and industry cannot be called a just and fair trade. In any case both on environment as well as trade, India will not negotiate within the framework of G8, when it is already committed to the multilaterally negotiated Kyoto Protocol and the Doha round. India, China, Brazil and South Africa are not members of G8. No one should expect these countries to pledge at the summit any thing more than what they have already agreed to. During his brief visit to Britain, the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, will have some bilateral meetings with the British Prime Minister and his senior colleagues, interact with the friends of India in the British Parliament and with the Indian community in Britain. Dr. Singh will also receive an honorary degree from Oxford University. For
Britain, India is an important investor. Though India has only recently
opened up, it is the largest investor in the UK among the emerging
markets.
One day we will look back on the effort to deny the effects of climate change as we now look back on the work of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist who insisted that the entire canon of genetics was wrong. There was no limit to an organism's ability to adapt to changing environments. Cultivated correctly, crops could do anything the Soviet leadership wanted them to do. Wheat, for example, if grown in the right conditions, could be made to produce rye. Because he was able to mobilise enthusiasm among the peasants for collectivisation, and could present Stalin with a Soviet scientific programme, Lysenko's hogwash became state policy. He became director of the Institute of Genetics and president of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He used his position to outlaw conventional genetics, strip its practitioners of their positions and have some of them arrested and even killed. Lysenkoism governed state science from the late 1930s until the early 1960s, helping to wreck Soviet agriculture. No one is yet being sent to the Guantanamo gulag for producing the wrong results. But the denial of climate science in the United States bears some of the marks of Lysenkoism. It is, for example, state-sponsored. Last month the New York Times revealed that Philip Cooney, a lawyer with no scientific training, had been imported into the White House from the American Petroleum Institute, to control the presentation of climate science. He edited scientific reports, striking out evidence of glacier retreat and inserting phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about climate change. Working with the Exxon-sponsored PR man Myron Ebell, he lobbied successfully to get rid of the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who had refused to accept the official line. Mr. Cooney's work was augmented by Harlan Watson, the U.S. Government's chief climate negotiator, who insisted that the findings of the National Academy of Sciences be excised from official reports. Now Joe Barton, the Republican chairman of the House committee on energy and commerce, has launched a congressional investigation of three U.S. scientists whose work reveals the historical pattern of climate change. He has demanded that they hand over their records and reveal their sources of funding. Perhaps most pertinently, the official policy of climate-change denial, like Lysenkoism, relies on a compliant press. Just as Pravda championed the disavowal of genetics, so the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times in the U.S., and the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph in the U.K. champion the Bush team's denial of climate science. Like Pravda, they dismiss it without showing any sign that they have read or understood it. But climate change denial, like Lysenkoism, cannot last forever. Now, as the G8 communiqué shows, the White House is beginning to move on. Instead of denying that climate change is happening, it is denying that anything difficult needs to be done to prevent it. The other G8 leaders have gone along with this. Faced with the greatest crisis humanity has ever encountered, the most powerful men in the world have meekly resolved to "promote" better practice and to "encourage" companies to do better. The R-word is half-mentioned twice: they will "improve regulatory ... frameworks." This could mean anything: most of the G8 governments define better regulation as less regulation. Nowhere is there a clear statement that they will force anyone to do anything to stop destroying the conditions that sustain human life. Instead they have agreed to "raise awareness," "accelerate deployment of cleaner technologies" and "diversify our energy supply mix." There is nothing wrong with these objectives. But unless there is regulation to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use, alternative technologies are a waste of time and money, for they will supplement rather than replace coal and oil and gas burning. What counts is not what we do but what we do not. Our success or failure in tackling climate change depends on just one thing: how much fossil fuel we leave in the ground. And leaving it in the ground won't happen without regulation. They agreed to support energy efficiency, which would be a good thing if it did not rely on a "market-led approach." Otherwise, they will cross their fingers and place their faith in a series of techno-fixes, some of which work, and some of which cause more problems than they solve. They will study the potential of "clean coal," which so far remains an oxymoron, and accelerate the burial of carbon dioxide, which might or might not stay where it is put. They will promote "carbon offsets" (you pay someone else to annul your sins by planting trees or building hydroelectric dams), which have so far been a disastrous failure. They will encourage the development of hydrogen fuel cells, which do not produce energy but use it, and the production of biofuels, which will set up a competition for arable land between cars and people, exacerbating the famines that climate change is likely to cause. Not bad for six months of negotiations. We cannot blame only the Americans. While Mr. Bush's team has been as obstructive as possible, the United Kingdom has scarcely been doing the work of angels. Like Mr. Bush, Tony Blair will contemplate anything except restraining the people who are killing the planet. While the U.K. produces 2.2 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, companies that extract fossil fuels responsible for over 10 per cent of global emissions are listed on the London stock exchange. One of the reasons they find London attractive is that, thanks to our lax financial regulations, they are not obliged to reveal their potential greenhouse liabilities to investors. Far from doing anything about this, Mr. Blair complains that our financial rules are "hugely inhibiting of efficient business." Our problem is that, just as genetics was crushed by totalitarian communism, meaningful action on climate change has been prohibited by totalitarian capitalism. When I use this term I do not mean that the people who challenge it are rounded up and sent to break rocks in Siberia. I mean that it intrudes into every corner of our lives, governs every social relation, becomes the lens through which every issue must be seen. It is the total system which leaves no molecule of earth or air uncosted and unsold. And, like Soviet totalitarianism, it allows no solution to pass which fails to enhance its power. The only permitted answer to the effects of greed is more greed. I do not know how long this system can last. But I did see something in Scotland last week that I had not seen before. At the G8 Alternatives Meeting in Edinburgh and the People and Planet Conference in Stirling, climate change, until recently neglected by campaigners, stirred fiercer emotions than any other topic. People
are already mobilising for demonstrations planned by the Campaign against
Climate Change on December 3. I saw a resolve to make this the biggest
issue in British politics. If we succeed, the new campaign will crash
head-on into the totalitarian system. But as more people wake up to what
the science says, it is not entirely certain that the system will win. President Bush said in a Danish TV interview aired Thursday that adhering to the Kyoto treaty on climate change would have “wrecked” the US economy, and he called US dependence on Gulf oil a “national security problem”. “I couldn’t in good faith have signed Kyoto,” Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp, nothing that the treaty did not include other nations-including India and China - that he called “big polluters”. In Bush’s view, the Kyoto treaty’s mandatory limits also would not ensure that climate risks would be addressed unless countries like China also make emission cuts. He also says more study is needed to determine whether human activity is primarily to blame for rising temperature. The interview was recorded Wednesday at the White House. Bush will visit Denmark next week before going to a G8 summit in to make cutting greenhouse gas emissions a key theme at the G8 meeting. On Wednesday
Blair said it was not possible to persuade the United States to implement
the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. President George W. Bush emerged from the Gleneagles summit once again the victor on climate change, appearing to compromise but in reality giving no ground. The U.S. administration repeated in Scotland the tactics it has used at every conference where global warming has been an issue since Johannesburg in 2002. It makes minor, vague concessions, other countries claim a breakthrough, but nothing much changes. Mr. Bush, alone of the G-8 leaders, refuses to accept the consensus of the scientific community, including that in the U.S., that climate change is a man-made phenomenon and there is an urgent need to cut carbon emissions. The U.S. is the only G-8 country to refuse to sign up to the 1997 Kyoto treaty, which sets targets for curbing emissions. Expression of concern The section on climate change in the Gleneagles communique published on Friday is not fundamentally different from that contained in G-8 communiques since 1990, with lots of expressions of concern, but stopping short of proposed action: no targets and no timetable. France had been threatening in the run-up to the summit to divide the G-8 on the issue. Jacques Chirac, French President, set out five points on which he was not prepared to compromise, including an acceptance by the U.S. of the scientific evidence on climate change and a reference to the K word that Mr. Bush normally shuns: the Kyoto treaty. Partial victory On Thursday, in a break from diplomatic protocol, Mr. Chirac more or less leaked to the press the section of the communique on climate change. He admitted it was not all that he had wanted but it was a “partial victory” for which he was claiming much of the credit. But environmentalist groups such as Friends of the Earth said the communique showed that no progress at all had been made. Far from accepting the scientific evidence, it simply says that the G-8, including the U.S., would only act to stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases as “science justifies.” That allows the U.S. to continue to refuse to act until it decides, if it ever does, that the science is conclusive. There is a reference to the K word but it is not one that ties down the U.S. It is just a statement of the existing position. In other words, the seven members of the G-8 who signed it will continue to work within its framework, while Mr. Bush continues to ignore it. British Prime
Minister Tony Blair claimed on Friday that at least he had
succeeded in setting up a new forum for dialogue between the G-8,
including the U.S., and emerging countries such as China and India to
discuss climate change.
Responding to Global Warming • Why is climate change on the G8 agenda? The average global temperature has increased by 0.6C in the 20th century. Most scientists believe that emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) like CO2 (carbon dioxide) and methane, which trap sunlight in the earth’s atmosphere, have contributed to this increase. They also believe that a further increase in the emission of these gases will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the earth of about 1.4C to 5.8C by the end of the 21st century. This will lead to dramatic climate change. Since neither the problem nor its consequences are local, international cooperation, especially between industrial countries that produce most of the CO2, is required to reduce emission of these gases. In June 1992, the UN held the Earth Summit to discuss this. The G8 will discuss it at Gleneagles. • Is it just theory, or is there evidence on global warming? At one time climate change was a lot of its and thens, but now things are much more frighteningly concrete. When the idea of global warming was first proposed by British physicist John Tyndall in 1859, it was more of a speculative scenario. Today there’s enough evidence that the earth is warmer than it was 100 years ago. Direct evidence is available from melting glaciers, thawing permasnow (i.e., melting of snow in areas that were permanently frozen over), and shrinking sea ice. • Why worry? Anyone below 25 years today could face the comquences of global warming. Humankind has never known such high temperatures. Floods, droughts, the extinction of many species, and a rise in sea level by about 7 ft., destroying coastal cities like Mumbai and Chennai, are some of the possible consequences. The earth now is warmer than it has ever been in 420,000 years. We don’t fully understand what might happen. We don’t know if the heat wave in Orissa is a result of global warming, but we do know that things were never so hot for humankind before. Further, the only opportunity for solving the problem is today. Once deep forces come into play in unleashing further global warming, it won’t be possible to prevent bigger consequences. • What is the Kyoto Protocol? The Kyoto Protocol is a short name for the “United Nations” Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol is an international agreement that see targets for industrial countries to cut their GHGs by 2012. The gases include carbon dioxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. The US and Australia have not ratified the treaty. Others such as Europe and Japan are committed to reducing their CO2 emissions to a total of 5% below 1990s levels. • What is the American position? The US, which produces 25% of the world’s CO2, rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Since it is costly to adopt clean technology, the US was worried that its companies would cease to be competitive. The US says it will not commit to reducing CO2 emission. Many see this as a reflection of the influence of big energy companies in the Bush administration. The US has proposed to reduce “greenhouse gas intensity”- the ration of incremental emissions to incremental GDP. In February 2002, the US set the goal of reducing GHG intensity by 18%. This is not an answer because it does not mean an absolute reduction in CO2 levels. Ironically, most of the research on global warming has come from the US. The pressure on the international community to act on climate change also come from the US. Lately, despite the opinion of most scientists, the US administration has expressed doubts about the impact of human activity on global warming. • What is Europe’s position? European countries agreed to be represented at the climate change conventions as a single entity, the EU. The EU has accepted binding emission targets and committed to reduce GHG emissions by 8%. It has distributed its targets among the 15 members states. • What is emissions trading? The EU has set up a system, effective from Jan1, 2005, in which 12,000 industrial units have been given carbon emission permits. This covers 40% of EU CO2 emissions. If an industrial unit wants to emit more than its permit, it can buy the permit to produce some extra CO2 at a market determined price, called the carbon price, from a unit which is producing less CO2 than it is permitted to. If the cost of employing CO2-reducing technology is lower than the cost of the permit of produce extra CO2, every unit has the incentive to employ cleaner technology. CO2 permits are traded in the market. This is an elegant solution are controlled, but the market process is utilised to ensure that emission reductions are obtained from the factories where it is cheapest coke reduce emissions. • Is the Kyoto Protocol enough to avert global warming? It may not be adequate, but it is a start. The EU sees itself as providing moral leadership, so that India and China can later be persuaded to cut emissions. High costs of cleaner technology have encouraged Europe to be lenient towards industry and give generous CO2 emission permissions. The US is not expected to join the Protocol or come closer to a commitment to reduce emissions, even at Gleneagles. In that case the Kyoto Protocol will be far from adequate. • Where does India stand? Since India is not an industrial nation, it is out of the Kyoto Protocol until 2012. But the importance of India and China as CO2 emitters is rising with economic growth. India will eventually have to address this problem. India’s stance is that the world should agree on per capita emission rights. This is a fair approach because every citizen of the planet will be given an identical “right” to pollute. Emission trading could then involve Indian citizens selling their emission rights to foreigners who seek to pollute more than their permits entitled them to. Public opinion
outside the US favours India’s stance. It is argued, for instance, in an
article in the New Yorker, that supposing the total CO2 emission that can
be supported by the atmosphere were a big ice-cream cake, if the aim is to
reduce CO2 concertration in the atmosphere, then roughly half the cake has
already been consumed, and of that half the lion’s share has been
“polished off” by the industrialised world. To insist now that all the
countries cut their emissions simultaneously amounts to advocating that
industrialised nations be allotted most of the remaining slices, on the
ground that they have already gobbled up so much. In one year, the average
American produces as much GHG emissions as eighteen Indians. If
both the US and India were to reduce emissions proportionately, then the
American would continue indefinitely producing GHGs eighteen times that of
the Indians. “But,” as Elizabeth Kolbert asks in the New Yorker, “why
should anyone have the right to emit more than anyone else?”
Celebrating Environment Day is no Solution As usual, the Word Environment Day was celebrated in Dehradun on 6th June 2005 though a little differently. Besides the usual pious vote seeking populous slogans by the politicians (lacking the true concept, knowledge of what constitutes environment and what the world actually stands for), there was a fairly high level Seminars and other discussions at various places. But that Environment shall continue to suffer gravely as the concrete jungle in cities boom. Advances in technology were designed to make life easier and therefore happier to enjoy better. This is not happening because the natural environments including glaciers are receding at an alarming rate leading to desertification. The high level seminar and manyfold discussions as in the years gone by shall make no difference so long we do not build necessary brain power and leaders having the foresight and the vision for better present and future. Over use of Natural resources (forest, land, water and energy products) face serious threat from the wide spread urbanisation that creates a vast uncontrolled thoughtless concrete forests. The present day degradation of Dehradun’s God blessed Environment is no exception, due to complete lack of ethics, vision and foresight and restricted knowledge, greed and corruption prevailing in the development authorities and the unholy role played by the politicians (vested interest), bureaucrats (spine of spraw), the unscrupulous builders and land mafia, one cannot hope any thing better these days. All the laws remain on paper only. There was a time when there was no need of even a hand held fans in Dehradun because of the sublime environment that once inspired value based education and ethical leadership. Today, we have ever increasing concrete jungle raj and degradation of environments. We have ever-rising summer temperature, blowing of “loo” (hot wind), shortage of water, and electricity. All these are the direct contribution of the degraded environment as a consequence of unthinking minds of those who are holding high and responsible positions: - politicians and the “yes minister” bureaucrats. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defined environment as “the environs that conditions or influences under which any person or things live or is developed. Longfellow made it clear he said : “Let us do our work well
The emphasis of the seminars and other discussions was on pollution-air, noise, water, degradable, biodegradable waste and citizens role in maintaining clean, healthy and safe environment as the same cannot be delivered by any government, government officials or municipalities. An example of beautiful, open and clean Chandigarh was highlighted but it seems that the speaker missed the essential point that this city is a creation of vision and foresight and those responsible for the maintenance ensured proper rules and their effective implementation to teach its citizens the much required discipline by setting personal examples. Above all it must be remembered and a serious note taken that Chandigarh Administration is run by the bureaucrats under an able Administrator and “not” by bureaucrats under the politicians who are more concerned with their vote bank accounts and vested interests. The laws unless implemented faithfully in the letter spirit they were enacted remain a mere worthless piece of paper. Speakers
though sincere apparently by passed the undeniables role of politicians
and the babus of the government run institutions and development
authorities. As witnessed at the ground level, they apparently suffer from
lack of foresight, vision and common sense setting very poor and unethical
examples of unthinking mind, poor work culture and utter
irresponsibility The Art of good governance is lost and so is the love of nature and clean environment on which depends on our present well being. With all the beautification of a few roads Dehradun has become a concrete jungle and more is being added daily without effective check and control. The ever-growing shortage of water, electricity, air and noise pollution and lack of garbage disposal does not seem to matter. The only thing that matters to the minions of the administration is to destroy the God’s gift of open clean and healthy environment on which depends are well being not only of ours today but our generation to come. The role of the corrupt MDDA is over and uncontrolled sanctioning of concrete jungle, its misuse of compounding rule in over and unauthorized construction without proper road, drainage, open space and the limited role of the Pollution Control Board in preserving and ensuring a clean and healthy Environment was not even mentioned. For any meaningful development of any town or a city a master plan is a must. Master plan for Dehradun was worked out by the MDDA and some NGOs after due deliberations nearly four years ago. Factors kept in view were the ongoing unplanned over construction and making of concrete forestry and degradation of environment with no proper roads, drainage system, shortage of electricity, water and ever increasing air and noise pollution. The master plan has yet to see the daylight. What good it would do while gathering dust when meanwhile the vested interest of a handful of people is to undo the work of vision and foresight to safe-guard the environment or what has been left of its after the vote catching populist Land Ceiling Act. Time has come for the power and vote hungry petty politicians, political leadership, bureaucrats, (yes minister) and the development authorities to come out of their slumber to ensure proper master plans for the urban and rural areas. Immediate check and restrictions must be imposed on any further construction and making of concrete jungle to preserve even what is left today. Total ban must be imposed on new electricity and water connections to domestic, commercial buildings and hotels etc. Any violation would be because of corrupt practices. These must be dealt with sternly. Delhi High Court in a recent PIL has ruled that every citizen had a right to fresh air and live in a pollution free environment, haphazard planning cannot be permitted. To this must be added sanctioning and construction of any kind of building anywhere without planned roads, drainage and open space. It has been well said by some one that what intelligence plus application of mind, common sense, foresight, and vision together can achieve for the better life today and for generation to come, mere half knowledge and any action based on emotions and vested interest will not. It has been known for years that the land-grabbing, realtors, unscrupulous builders, property dealers and politicians in search for vote banks lacking wisdom have never appreciated the role of healthy environment and clean open space. They have never appreciated the sylvan surroundings, environment and ecology of Dehradun or whatever is left of it. They envy the open and healthy environments in Cantonment areas but would not hesitate to destroy it as now seen in the Sadar Bazar localities, a role played by the politicians (elected members) of the area. There is a
lesson to be learnt. The sole responsibility of degradation of
environment of Dehradun lie basically with politicians, their ever growing
vested interests and that of their minions. The big question is “are they
listening.” Scientists carrying out a study have warned that an ancient glacier feeding the Ganga may melt before the end of the 21st century because of climatic changes caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. According to R.K.Pachauri, Director General of the New Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) and Madan Shrestra, Director of Hydrology in Nepal, the effects of the glacial meltdown could stretch to billions of people in one of the most densely populated areas of the planet. A study for the U.K. Government Department for International Development (DFID) concluded that this figure was probably exaggerated because it is only in the mountains that the rivers are mostly dependent on glacial melt. On the plains, rivers are fed much more by the monsoons. Dr. Pachauri told the BBC's Newsnight programme that climate change was predicted to disrupt monsoon rains. Combined with glacial meltdown this will leave people doubly vulnerable, he said. Appealing to developed nations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Dr. Shrestra said Nepal was already suffering the effects of rapid warming in the mountains, and added that the river flow has increased because glaciers are melting twice as fast than peviously thought. He warned that he had information that some Nepali glaciers had already melted into lakes and that the water was trapped behind walls of debris sourced by the glacier. Nepal does produce carbon dioxide emissions of its own. But the average Nepali creates five per cent of the carbon dioxide produced by the average American. Nepali
campaigners are keen to get redress from rich nations for the damage
already caused, reports the BBC. — ANI Leaders of the G-8 nations, including President Bush, agreed, at their recent summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, on a far-reaching 38-point plan of action to address the interrelated issues of climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. The G-8 agreement recognizes that global energy demands are likely to grow by 60% over the next 25 years, and aims to provide affordable, reliable and secure energy, essential to end extreme poverty and build a better and cleaner world. The plan of action affirms the need of all countries to increase their capabilities to understand how climate change will affect local environments, economies and populations, and to mitigate possible adverse environmental changes. Governments that invest in energy systems face a moment of opportunity, and it is important they act wisely: today’s decisions could lock in investment and increase emissions for decades. The agreement has several objectives: improving efficiencies in power generation, transportation, buildings and appliances; promoting the use of nuclear power, clean coal technologies, clean diesel and methane, renewable energy, bioenergy, and more efficient power grids; strengthen R&D in hydrogen-powered vehicles that emit only water, not fumes; finance the transition to cleaner energy via a fortified World Bank and national policies that support markets, remove barriers to direct investment, leverage private capital, and promote investment. The agreement also provides for managing the impact of climate change through strong funding of climate change science, improved scientific and monitoring capabilities of poorer regions and full implementation of the 10-year plan developing the Global Earth Observation System; and combating illegal logging by working with poor countries struggling to enforce their own forest management laws. The US has invested far more than any other nation for climate change programs. Since 2001, the US has spent over $20 billion on climate change activities, and proposes spending $5.5 billion more for 2006. In February 2002, President Bush committed to cut US’ greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity by 18% through 2012, and the US is on track to meet that ambitious goal, We are making real and accelerated progress on this front: this goal amounts to an annual 1.95% cut in emissions intensity. In 2003 alone, US intensity declined by 2.3%. Initial figures for 2004 suggest that GHG intensity dropped by 2.6% during a period of robust economic growth. In the last three years, the US launched a series of bilateral and multilateral initiatives to cooperate with developing and industrialized countries in adopting new energy sources, from cleaner use of coal, to hydrogen vehicles, solar and wind power, the production of clean-burning methane and less-polluting power plants. It also developed partnerships to advance the science of climate change, enhance the technology to monitor and reduce GHG, and help developing countries through capacity building and technology transfer. The US has made significant investments in advancing human knowledge about climate, its role in the environment and impact on human activities. The US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) coordinates the scientific activities of federal government agencies and departments and provides science-based knowledge to manage the risks and opportunities of change in the climate and related environmental systems. The core precept that motivates CCSP is to apply the best possible scientific knowledge in managing climate variability and change and related aspects of global change. As relations between India and the US continue to strengthen, the US Embassy and our many Indian partners including the Ministry of Environment and Forests and CII, have promoted strategies that reduce GHG. Through the end of 2004, the detrimental effects of around 12.1 million tons of CO2 have been avoided in India through higher thermal efficiency, clean coal technologies, and power from biomass. Institutions have also been strengthened, to expand these strategies. Much of this success has been due to the hard work by the US Agency for International Development, the US Department of Energy, and the National Thermal Power Corporation. We anticipate that the Energy Dialogue recently initiated under Energy Secretary Bodman and Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia will strengthen our energy security and lead to further innovations to reduce global warming. The US and
India are lands of incredible environmental diversity and beauty. We need
to pass this gift on to future generations and strengthen our joint
efforts to safeguard our environmental heritage. The Group of Eight powers meeting in Scotland declared on Friday that global warming required urgent action, but set no measurable targets for reducing the greenhouse gases that trigger it. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the deal was important because for the first time it involved both the United States and emerging economies in efforts to curb climate change. But environmentalists said the initiative was worthless without specific pledges to cut the carbon emissions that many scientists say are warming the planet. Blair made climate change a priority for the Gleneagles summit, and the final communique said G8 leaders recognised that it was “a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the planet.” The statement acknowledged that human activity contributed in large part to global warming, and said there was a need to reduce greenhouse gases - mostly the product of the fossil fuels that power much modern industry. The leaders also pledged to “act with resolve and urgency” to tackle the problem, but unlike the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, their text did not set any firm goals to cut harmful carbon emissions. Kyoto has
been ratified by all G8 members except the United States - the world’s
biggest polluter. US President George Bush has argued that Kyoto would not
only hurt the US economy, but is also hopelessly ineffective because it
exempted rapidly industrialising emerging economies. पतित पावन जीवनदायिनी गंगा के मूल स्रोत गंगोत्री ग्लेशियर का करीब 20 मीटर की दर से प्रतिवर्ष पिघलना निश्चित ही प्रदेश ही नहीं देश के लिए गंभीर चिंता का विषय है। इसकी वजह से गोमुख का पीछे खिसकना लाजिमी है। पर्यावरणविदों के साथ ही इसका अध्ययन कर रहे वैज्ञानिक भी इसे गंगा के अस्तित्व के लिए खतरे की घंटी मानते हैं। वैज्ञानिक अध्ययन से मालूम हुआ है कि पिछले 70 वर्ष में गोमुख अपने मूल स्रोत से औसतन 1300 मीटर पीछे खिसका है। इसकी बड़ी वजह ग्लोबल वार्मिंग है वहीं, इस क्षेत्र में निरंतर बढ़ रहा पर्यावरण प्रदूषण भी इसका एक मुख्य कारण है। इससे केवल गंगोत्री ही नहीं बल्कि हिमालयी क्षेत्र में वर्षों से स्थापित अन्य ग्लेशियर भी तेजी से पिघल रहे हैं। दरअसल, इन क्षेत्रों में जाने वाले धार्मिक और इको पर्यटक अपने साथ बड़ी मात्रा में प्लास्टिक और अन्य अजैवीय सामग्री ले जाते हैं और वापसी में वहीं फेंक देते हैं। जिससे यहां के पर्यावरण पर इसका तेजी से प्रभाव पड़ रहा है। ऐसे पर्यटकों की संख्या में लगातार इजाफा हो रहा है। लेकिन इस पर नियंत्रण रखने के लिए सरकारी स्तर पर कोई कदम नहीं उठाया गया है।
यह घोर
निराशाजनक ही नहीं बल्कि चिंतनीय विषय है कि ग्लेशियरों के तेजी से पिघलने के
बारे में न केवल पर्यावरणविद् बल्कि
वैज्ञानिक भी देश और दुनिया का ध्यान यहां निरंतर गिरते पर्यावरण ह्रास की ओर
दिला रहे हैं। इसके बावजूद शासन-प्रशासन इस ओर ध्यान नहीं दे रहा है। हालांकि
बढ़ते पर्यावरण
असंतुलन के
दुष्प्रभाव के मद्देनजर पर्यटकों की भीड़ को इस साल से नियंत्रित करने के लिए
वन मंत्री ने घोषणा की थी। लेकिन आधा साल बीतने के बाद भी इस दिशा में कोई
कदम नहीं उठाया गया है और पर्यटकों का वहां प्लास्टिक कचरे और अन्य अजैवीय
सामग्री के साथ बड़ी संख्या में जाना बदस्तूर जारी है। अब वन विभाग पर्यटकों
को गोमुख से करीब आठ
किलोमीटर पहले चीड़वासा में रोकने की योजना बना रहा है। इससे धार्मिक और इको
पर्यटक गोमुख नहीं जा सकेंगे। हालांकि यह कदम पहले ही उठा लिया जाना चाहिए
था। लेकिन इस
पर सख्ती से
अमल किए जाने की जरूरत है। शासन-प्रशासन को यह भी देखना चाहिए कि कोई भी
पर्यटक प्लास्टिक कचरे को अपने साथ न ले जाए। तभी गोमुख के अस्तित्व को बचाया
जा सकता है। On the site of a former hat factory in Danbury, Connecticut, a stand of genetically altered cottonwood trees sucks mercury from the contaminated soil. Across the continent in California, researchers use transgenic Indian mustard plants to soak up dangerously high selenium deposits caused by irrigation of the nation's bread basket. Still others are engineering trees to retain more carbon and thus combat global warming. The gene jockeys conducting these exotic experiments envision a future in which plants can be used as an inexpensive, safer and more effective way of disposing of pollution. ``Trees are really made for this ... we just have to trick them to do what we want them to do,'' said Richard Meagher, whose University of Georgia students went to Danbury in 2003 as part of the most advanced, open-air experiment in the United States involving trees genetically engineered to eat pollution. Biologists for decades have been trying to exploit the genetic mechanisms that let microscopic bugs survive in polluted places where most living things die. Indeed, the 1980 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed the so-called ``patenting of life'' that launched the biotechnology industry centred on bacteria genetically engineered to clean oil spills. But simply dumping engineered bugs on polluted sites has its dangers and drawbacks. Elements like mercury cannot be broken down into harmless bits like oil, so researchers have turned to engineering plants to draw pollutants out of the ground. Mr. Meagher uses genes from E. coli that enable the common bacterium to live amid mercury. He has spliced them into a variety of plants in the laboratory, where he says his results are dramatically positive. But proving genetic engineered plants work outside the lab is the real challenge — and Danbury, which at the turn of the last century reigned as the hat-making capital of the world, was a natural destination for his team. Animal pelts in the town's many factories were softened in mercury baths, and the resulting waste was dumped outside. Only later did residents understand how mercury attacks the central nervous system. By then, many longtime factory workers had suffered from the ``Danbury shakes.'' Mr. Meagher's team planted about 45 engineered cottonwood trees in a polluted lot. The trees are expected to treat the mercury as a nutrient and draw the toxic element from the soil with their roots. Some of the mercury is expected to vaporise into the air while most is stored in the tree. After several years of growth, the trees will be cut down and incinerated. Mr. Meagher expects to see results from the Danbury experiment later this year. He figures hundreds of trees per acre would need to be planted to be effective. But if his removal method works, the cost of cleaning an acre of mercury-laced soil will plummet from about $2 millions to $200,000, Mr. Meagher estimates. He agrees with critics who argue that his solution is not ideal — but he says the trees beat the current clean-up method of digging out contaminated sites and dumping the tainted soil in toxic dumps. He said
he was also hoping to someday deploy genetic engineered trees in
northern India and Bangladesh where arsenic poisoning is rampant.
Drinking water throughout the region has been contaminated by soils
polluted naturally and by spills from factories. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board (PCB) on Friday issued notice to the Coca-Cola's bottling plant at Plachimada in Palakkad district to explain why the `consent to operate' issued to it earlier shall not be renewed. The PCB's main objection to the company's request for the renewal of the licence is the unexplained presence of the heavy metal, cadmium, in the sludge generated by the company and in the well water in a colony.The plant has been closed since March 9, 2004, when the High Court delivered its order in a case filed by the panchayat complaining that the plant's operations were causing depletion of the groundwater resources. The High Court lifted the closure order on April 7, this year, after imposing certain conditions on the company on the basis of an expert committee's report on the quantum of groundwater that can be drawn by the company without causing groundwater depletion in the area. The company, however, has not been able to resume its operations till now since the `consent to operate' order issued by the PCB earlier had expired. The PCB, in an order issued on Friday, refused to renew its `consent to operate' on the basis of the details furnished by the company in its application. The PCB's member secretary S. D. Jayaprasad noted in the order that the company had not explained how a hazardous substance like cadmium was found to be present above the permissible limits in the sludge samples collected from the factory premises and in the water samples collected from nearby wells.
"Cadmium was found in concentrations in the range of 200 to 300
milligram per kilogram in the sludge from your effluent treatment plant.
The observed concentration is much above the tolerance/permissible limit
for hazardous wastes, which categorically establishes that cadmium
bearing raw materials are used in the production process or effluent
treatment... Your application does not contain the particulars of the
source of cadmium and is therefore incomplete," the order says.
Report
Finds High Levels of Toxicity in Punjab Rivers The rivers of Punjab are facing an ecological crisis as the pollution level has increased tremendously resulting in a threat to thousands of people and aquatic life. According to a report prepared by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology, “A State of Environment, 2005”, during the past two decades, rapid industrialisation and agricultural practices have heavily polluted the fresh water resources of Punjab, both in physio-chemical and biological terms. Industrial, domestic and agricultural waste accumulates in the aquatic ecosystems and then enters the primary, secondary and tertiary webs of the food chain. The report, funded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, says the Punjab Pollution Control Board has identified 15,547 polluting industries under various provisions of water and air Acts. The Sutlej, which enters Punjab near Nangal, is the most polluted river of the state. Its toxicity level is high at Nangal (due to effluents from NFL, PNFC and Punjab Alkalies), Kiratpur Sahib (due to human ashes), Ropar (due to effluents from the Ropar Thermal Plant, DCM, Swaraj Mazda and United Pulp and Paper Mills), Ludhiana (due to the confluence of the Budha Nullah) and Gidderpindi village (due to the confluence of the East Bein). The report says at the Nangal headworks the water quality is generally class “A” with sufficient dissolved oxygen content. Downstream, the river receives effluents from industries and municipal wastes. The water quality deteriorates from class “B” to “E”. At Humbran village in Ludhiana district, where the Budha Nullah falls into the Sutlej, the water quality deteriorates to class “D” or “E”. The report says the river stretch from Ludhiana to Harike has been identified as the most polluted. Two municipal corporations (Ludhiana and Jalandhar) and 27 municipal councils and notified area committees are discharging municipal wastes into the river. A report published by the Indian Ecological Society, Ludhiana, in 1984 said 56 species of fish were recorded in the Budha Nullah in 1967. Now not even a single species of any aquatic fauna exists in the stretch. The Beas is comparatively less polluted. It enters Punjab at Talwara, where the quality of water is class “A”. The water gets polluted at Mukerian (due to effluents from Mukerian Paper Mills) and Goindwal Sahib. The Ghaggar gets effluents from ABC Ltd, Hindustan Lever, Stepan Chemicals, RMI Ltd and Bharat Commerce India Ltd at Rajpura; Patiala Distillers and Hindustan Wire Products at Patiala; and Escorts and Goetze India Ltd at Bahadurgarh. Besides industrial and municipal pollution, nutrients and pesticides run off from agricultural fields during the rainy season also enter the rivers. The report says the consumption of plant nutrients per unit of gross cropped area is the highest in Punjab (167 kg/ha) as compared to other states. There
is dire need for a long-term action plan to check river pollution in the
state. पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्री श्री ए.राजा ने राज्यसभा में शुक्रवार को स्पष्ट किया कि लाओस घोषणा पत्र में भारत सहित छह देशों द्वारा पर्यावरण सुरक्षा के संबंध में जारी सामूहिक दिशा निर्देश वक्तव्य में भारत ने गैस के उत्सर्जन को रोकने के लिए कोई भी बाध्यकारी वायदा नहीं किया है। इस समझौते में अमेरिका, आस्ट्रेलिया, दक्षिण कोरिया, जापान तथा चीन के बीच हुआ यह एक आगे के लिए सोच है।
पर्यावरण
एवं वन मंत्री ए.राजा ने राज्यसभा में कांग्रेस के श्री जयराम रमेश और भाजपा
के श्री यशवंत सिन्हा द्वारा व्यक्त की गई आशंकाओं के बारे में कहा कि इस
घोषणा पत्र में कार्बन-डाईआक्साइड जैसी ग्रीन हाऊस गैसों के उत्सर्जन को
रोकने के बारे में भारत ने कोई निश्चित प्रतिबद्धता व्यक्त नहीं की है।
उन्होंने कहा की भारत क्योटो संधि पर हस्ताक्षर
करनेवाला देश है तथा यह घोषणा पत्र उसी संधि के
अनुरूप उठाया गया एक अगला कदम है। विएतनाम में एशिया प्रशांत स्वच्छ विकास
परिवेश सहभागिता सम्मेलन में भारत,अमेरिका,
चीन,
आस्ट्रेलिया,
जापान और दक्षिण कोरिया ने एक सामूहिक दृष्टि घोषणा पत्र पर हस्ताक्षर किए
हैं। सम्मेलन का प्रतिनिधित्व विदेश राज्यमंत्री राव इन्द्रजीत सिंह ने किया। This was revealed by State of Forest Report – 2003 (SFR – 2003) based on the ninth assessment of the forest cover of the country carried out by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), Dehradun – an organization under the Ministry of Environment & Forests, which assesses forest and tree cover of the country on a two-year cycle. The assessment of forest and tree cover is based on interpretation of data from Indian Remote Sensing Satellites for the year 2002. Minister of Environment and Forests, A. Raja released this report in Delhi here today. Minister of State for Environment and Forests Shri Namo Narain Meena was also present on the occasion. The total tree cover of the country has been estimated as 99,896 sq.km. or about 3.04% of the country’s geographic area, which is 18,424 sq.km. more than what was assessed in 2001. The forest cover in the country has been assessed as 678,333 sq.km., constituting 20.64% of its geographical area. Of this, the Very Dense Forest (VDF) constitutes 51,285 sq.km., (1.55%) moderately dense forest (MDF) constitutes 339,279 sq.km. (10.32%) and open forest constitutes 287,769 sq.km. (8.76%). A comparison with the forest cover assessment of 2001 reveals an overall increase of 2,795 sq.km. or 0.41% in forest covers of the country. The total volume of wood in the country is estimated to be 6,414 million cubic meter (m.cu.m) that includes 4,782 m.cu.m. inside forest area and 1,632 m.cu.m of TOF (Trees Outside Forests). SFR-2003 has been enriched by the incorporation of many new features. The most prominent one is the introduction of one more density class in the classification of forest cover. Up to SFR-2001, any forest cover with a canopy density more than 40% was classified as ‘Dense Forest’ (DF). SFR-2003 shows the forest cover with the canopy density over 70% as ‘Very Dense Forest’ (VDF); and that with canopy density between 40 and 70% as ‘Moderately Dense Forest’ (MDF). The same category has been introduced in mangrove cover assessment too. Another newly incorporated highly useful feature is the data on the growing stock of wood. The report provides information on volumes of wood not only in forest areas but also outside it. Sound statistical techniques have been used for this estimation, which is valuable for planning and management decision-making. The present State of Forest Report (SFR) provides the forest cover in the country at 1:50,000 scale using Digital Image Processing techniques. As was the case in SFR-2001, forest cover comprises of all lands more than one hectare in area, with a tree canopy density of more than 10%, irrespective of land use and ownership.
Significantly, Forest Survey of India Dehradun has also estimated the
area under tree cover, which is below 1 ha, using a new methodology
based on high-resolution remote sensing data. By this method one can
identify a tree vegetated land as small as 0.1 ha on the ground. Thus,
on the pattern of last report, a complete picture of forest and tree
cover in the country has been provided in the SFR-2003 also. Besides
providing information on current status of country’s forest and tree
cover to policy makers, foresters and other users, SFR 2003 contains a
wealth of scientific data and statistic, which makes it a very useful
document for academicians, statisticians, research scholars and forestry
students. It is heartening that Delhi has actually gained 58.84 sq. km. of forest cover, but the news for the rest of the country is not so encouraging. ‘The State of Forest Report - 2003’ released on Tuesday says that 26,245 sq. km of ‘dense’ forest cover was lost during the 2001-2003 period. The overall tree and forest cover has shown a negligible increase of 0.6% to stand 23.68% of the geographical area. As the ministry itself has admitted, reaching the goal of 33% cover by 2012 is near impossible, even if the estimated Rs 8000 crore per annum needed for afforestation programmes becomes available. The lose of dense forests suggests that the phenomenon owes less to the pressures of legitimate urbanisation and economic development, and more to the presence of illegal tree-felling mafias and poaching networks, mismanagement and corruption in forest administration, and apathy towards making the effort to optimise the development conservation trade-off. Conservationists look upon the tiger as an ‘umbrella species’ - protecting the tiger protects not only a whole range of other species living in its habitat, but the habitat itself. Similarly, certain ‘ecological hotspots’ like the Nilgiri biosphere reserve needs to be made completely off-limits for developmental activity. Of course, climate change is increasingly being shown to be a factor in shrinking forests, but that cannot be an excuse to stop the damage being done directly. The
ministry’s intention to adopt a ‘multi-stake holder’ approach has to be
followed through and implemented as part of a coherent plan. The forest
service is sorely in need of a revamp, with a staggering personnel
shortage of over 40,000. Those who are in service are aging and
vulnerable. A separate service for ecological hotspots along the lines
of an old plan being considered in the 70s may well be needed. It is a
pity that nothing much has been heard from the National Forest
Commission formed in February 2003, which was supposed to submit a
report in two years. Every citizen is a stake-holder in the effort to
conserve the green cover.
Afforestation Gets Top
Priority With a 33.3 million hectare shortfall in forest entry cover prevailing in India, the endeavour of the Ministry of Environment and Forests is now to sensitise the common man and enhance his participation in forestry-related activities. Aiming at achieving one-third forest cover as per the National Forest Policy, the Forest Department has managed to achieve 1.5 million hectares in the last one year. The
Deputy Inspector-General of Forests, Mr Sanjay Kumar, who was here to
attend a one-day workshop at Pinewood Barog, told The Tribune on Friday
that as per the mandate of the national forest policy the hill and plain
areas should have 66 and 33 percent forest cover,
respectively. He said concerted efforts of the department had enabled it
to regenerate an area of 17 million hectares across the nation. This, he
emphasised, had been made possible with the active involvement of the
common people.
Referring to the forest development agencies (FDAs) scheme, he said it
would fetch self-employment opportunities to the people. With a budget
of Rs. 1115 crore, it would generate work worth 104 million mandays. The destruction has carried on for six years and, despite the adversities that the December tsunami tossed up, no lessons seem to have been learnt along the Kutch coast. The mangrove forests that form a natural protective wall against such disasters are still facing the axe, sparing no thought to leaving the land vulnerable to havoc wreaking tsunamis and cyclones, and also depriving fishermen the source of their livelihood. The mangrove forests in Kutch are in fact the last arid mangrove species left in the world. For the past six years, in 100 kms along the Mudra coast at Bocha and Abhanwadi, excavators can be seen systematically clearing large stretches of the mangrove cover. “Ironically, the Bocha island area which was supposed to be left undisturbed as the per the March 18, 1999, environmental public hearing, is also being cleared,” says environment activist Sandeep Virmani. Boacha is the only region considered good for mangrove preservation, says Y.D. Singh, director, Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology (GIDE). “The Tamil Nadu government, after the tsunami disaster, undertook a massive mangrove plantating drive, taking inspiration from villages of Indonesia and Philippines that survived disaster owing to its mangrove cover,” says senior expert at GIDE Vijay Kumar, adding, “Unfortunately, a significant portion of the Gulf of Kutch is being cleared of this natural wall for developmental purposes.” The GIDE director adds this vegetation cover prevents coastal erosion. Till fifteen years ago, there were as many as eight varieties of mangroves that attracted 100 species of fish to the shores, now that number has reduced to three – Avacenia Marina (Cher), some patches of Rhizophora (Kharod) and Ceriops, he says. An ISRO Remote Sensing Application (RSA) report of 2001, prepared by the Marine and Water Resource Division, has clearly stated that increased port activity and human interference has reduced the cover of mangroves significantly from Gujarat coast. A study of the Mundra region revealed that the mangrove cover reduced from 600 hectares in 1988 to about 340 hectares in 1999. “The destruction is pretty systematic as labourers first construct bunds around plots of mangroves to trap saline water from the sea. This in turn chokes the trees to death. The mudflats on which the mangroves grow are eventually rendered useless, but can be reclaimed as wasteland from the forest or revenue department,” admit officials. They point
out that nearly 5,000 hectares of mangrove cover under the revenue
department and nearly 8,000 hectares under the forest department are yet
to be surveyed properly in Mundra and adjoining areas. For fisherman, maritime borders between India and Pakistan don’t matter. They will venture anywhere for a good catch. And this is one of the main reasons why many Gujarati fishermen have landed in Pakistani jails in recent years. Some of the best fish including prawns and other crustaceans are no longer available in abundance on Gujarat’s coast, thanks to deforestation. The reason? Pakistani authorities have not chopped off the mangroves lining their coast, while Gujarat government has turned a blind eye to their felling. Experts say the mangroves are the nursery of premiere variety of prawns, crabs, shellfish, tiger prawns, pomphret, lobsters and squids. “Fishermen from Jhakau often find a good catch in Pakistani waters, thanks to the rich mangrove cover between Karachi and Baluchistan,” says vice-president of All Gujarat Fisherman Association Velji Masani. “In fact, we have made several representations to the Gujarat government to plant more mangroves here.” Masani’s
stand, which is seconded by former deputy commissioner of fisheries N.D.
Chhaya, revealed in a recent study that just 100 cubic metres of
mangrove area would attract at least 54,600 prawns.
The Many Colors of Green Fuel In 1900, Rudolph Diesel unveiled his first diesel engine in Paris. That first engine ran on peanut oil. The world has come full circle and is again exploring the use of biodiesel, as fossil fuel prices rule at all-time highs. Western countries (except the US) have signed the Kyoto Protocol that binds them to use 2% biofuels like biodiesel in their motor fuels by 2005 and 5-75% by 2010. Most of these countries neither have sufficient land nor suitable climate to grow biodiesel trees. India can export biodiesel to them. China also has an ambitious plan to use 10% biofuels by 2010 and increase it to 12% by 2020 to take care of its rapidly rising energy requirements. Western countries have earmarked a budget of $52 billion to help reduce emissions worldwide. The going rate is $5 per CER (Certified Emission Reduction). The use of biodiesel leads to a reduction of 67% in hydrocarbons, 47% in carbon monoxide and 100% in sulphur compared to diesel. We can grab a large portion of this budget by taking up a drive to plant biodiesel trees. In 2004, our own diesel consumption was 46.97 millions metric tons (mmt). It is expected to rise by 5% or by 2.5 mmt. every year. It will be prudent to meet this incremental demand with 20% blend (B20) or straight 100% (B100) biodiesel, which can be easily produced locally. Neem, karanji, jatropha, ratanjyot, mahua, hirda, mirwa and rohitak are biodiesel trees, Jatropha tree plantations have recently been promoted. Other plants of Indian origin should also be considered. That will ensure biodiversity. The seeds of these trees, when crushed, give out oil. Upon trans-esterification, this oil becomes biodiesel. Well-equipped companies can be licensed to set up oil extraction and esterification plants in districts that take up biodiesel tree plantation in a big way. Using indigenous technology, the cost of a 300-tonne plant could be contained within Rs. 40 crore. Oil companies could sell biodiesel through roadside biodiesel pumps to trucks, tempos and agriculture pump sets. That would save on distribution costs. Each Indian village has, on an average, 100 hectares (ha) of non-cultivable fallow land. This land can be leased to 100 families of landless labourers living below the poverty line. Each family would get a one-hectare plot to plant biodiesel trees, build a small house and live there. Family members would water these trees, manure them and nurture them to maturity. Biodiesel trees, manure them and nurture them to maturity. Biodiesel trees need only a small quantity of water. Each family, in one year, can collect oilseeds from the trees planted on its plot valued at Rs. 50,000-70,000 at today’s prices. These oilseeds will yield three tones of oil. Advances in biotechnology will increase this yield further to six tones per family or 600 tonnes per village. These 100 plot holders should form a cooperative society, with a local ex-service-man as its chairman. He should organize rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation, collection and delivery of oilseeds to the oil extraction plant, payment from the oil extraction plant and distribution to plot holders in proportion to their supply of seeds. He can be paid a fixed salary plus some commission on the collection. In time to come, society members should be encouraged to raise milch cattle, do dairy business, and also set up a gobar gas plant to produce biogas and biofertiliser. A part of biofertiliser could be used for nurturing biodiesel trees and the balance sold in the market. The oilcake that remains after oil extraction is rich in caloritic value. It can be used as fuel for cooking meals or as an energy source for converting dairy milk into value added produce like khoya, ghee or sweets. A population of 300 million can rise above the poverty line – 100 families per village in six lakh villages. They can produce 360 mmt of biodiesel to meet eight times the current requirement of diesel. We have enough non-cultivatble wasteland for biodiesel tree plantations on such a massive scale. The government plans to start biodiesel tree plantation on four lakh hectares in eight states, which will produce one million tones of biodiesel. Banks like the State Bank of India give loans for biodiesel tree plantation. The government also gives an incentive for biodiesel trees plantation under Employment Guarantee Scheme. Further, it should give full exemption in excise duty, sales tax and income tax to encourage biodiesel production and sales. To begin with, we should aim to meet incremental demand through biodiesel, to protect government revenue at the current level. Hence, the government need not flinch from giving these exemptions. The US
consumes eight times as much energy as we do. Our requirement will shoot
up eight times down the line, which can be met only by producing
biodiesel. We have no options but to face this challenge. We do possess
the necessary wherewithal. The government should declare its biodiesel
policy and set targets, like the US, the EU or China.
Fuel
Does Grow on Trees The burning of fossil fuels at the current rate is likely to create an environmental crisis. In India, bio-diesel, an alternative and renewable source of energy, is gaining momentum. Bio-diesel burns cleaner and is available from natural, renewable sources such as tree-borne oilseed and animal fats. Like petroleum diesel, bio-diesel operates in compression and ignition engines. Blends of up to 20% bio-diesel (mixed with petroleum diesel) can be used in nearly all diesel and most storage and distribution equipment. These low-level blends (20% and less) generally do not require any engine modifications. Bio-diesel can provide the same payload capacity as diesel. India consumes about nine million tones of petrol and 42 million tonnes of diesel, the crude import bill in the region of Rs. 1,10,000 crore. A blend of ethanol in petrol and bio-diesel in diesel will, therefore, make a big difference both in our import bill as well as in the environment impact. Bio-diesel has 10% built-in oxygen and properties that would help it burn efficiently, which would, in turn, lead to less use of fossil fuel. As a tree-based source, it would mitigate the greenhouse effects. Jatropha curcas has been identified for India as the most suitable tree-borne oilseed for production of bio-diesel, in view of the non-edible oil available from it and its presence throughout the country. The capacity of jatropha curcas to rehabilitate degraded lands by improving the land’s water retention capacity renders it suitable for up gradation of land resources. This oil needs to be converted to bio-diesel through a simple chemical process called trans-esterification. While large plants would be useful for centralized production, smaller plants can also be started at the village level. Jatropha plantation on wasteland can rebuild our afforestation programme. One plant of Jatropha can offset 0.15 tonne of carbon dioxide per year. Assuming the presence of 200 plants in a hectare, a lakh hectares of wasteland planted with jatropha can fetch 27 million carbon credit points for the country. The current annual petro-diesel consumption in the country is 40 million tones. For blending 5% bio-diesel in petro-diesel, India needs around two million tones of bio-diesel annually. By January 2006, India’s demand for petro-diesel will touch 52 million tones. For 5% blend bio-diesel, we will need 26 lakh tones of bio-diesel. The land area required for Jatropha plantation would be 2.5 million hectares. If we can further increase the use of bio-diesel to 20%, the figures projected for January 2011 are 67 million tones of petro-diesel, 134 lakh tones of bio-diesel and 13 million hectares of land. We need to push bio-diesel in the market. The use of bio-diesel is hampered by ad hoc production and high cost that lowers demand. If we ensure steady flow of demand, it would build up sustained production and supply and bring down the cost. Farmers are not encouraged to grow Jatropha when the demand for bio-diesel is low. The vicious cycle of high price leading to low demand and non-establishment of a supply chain, which in turn results in high prices, can be broken by an assurance of steady purchase by the government, especially oil companies. Initial incentives have been given to promote green fuels through various methods. It is proposed that a limited subsidy be given on a reducing scale for a limited period. This would help in establishing supply chains quickly. The proposed model of subsidy envisages the purchase of bio-diesel at a landed price of Rs. 40 per litre for the first six months, then Rs. 35 for next six months and Rs. 30 for another six. There after, it may be purchased at a minimum support price of Rs. 25 per litre. The Petroleum Conservation Research Association (PCRA) has already established a national biofuel center, with a strong website means to work as an information bank. PCRA has developed institutional linkages for research and development in the field of biofuels with Indian Oil Corporation, Delhi College of Engineering and other R&D Institutes. What is
required now is to propagate bio-diesel as a viable crop to farmers and
as a viable fuel to auto users.
Shisham, Kikar Trees
Disappearing Shisham and Kikar, two of the most significant tree species under the social forestry programme, are recording a severe decline all over the Indian subcontinent. Although several national and international seminars have been organised to assess the causes of mortality in these commercially valuable species, no specific cause has yet been ascertained. The problem is grave, not only in North India where mortality has touched 100 per cent in some areas, but also across the border in Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar and Bangladesh where fungus Fusarium is said to be the main cause behind the malady. In the last regional symposium on “Mortality in Shisham and Kikar in Northern States of India” held in Bathinda in March, 2002, scientists had urged the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) to undertake a coordinated project on this issue of national significance. Accordingly, the ICAR identified some centres of research in different states so that a database could be generated. Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana, has been assigned a major role in this context. Dr. S.S. Gill, Head of the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, PAU, confirmed that PAU had started fresh experiments to determine specific factors threatening the trees, otherwise famous for their drought resistance and high timber quality. Both shisham and kikar belong to the primary group of multi-purpose trees, extensively planted under the afforestation programmes. They are good for fuel, fodder, site rehabilitation and improvement in soil through nitrogen fixation. No wonder, farmers, until lately, treated them as “live bank accounts” to make money in crisis situations. But no longer. These trees are disappearing from the natural landscape of the region. Dr. S.S. Gill explains, “Shisham and kikar are dying everywhere — along highways and canal banks; in arid areas and in areas with high water table. There is a need to compare the existing plantations with new ones and isolate every factor — from insect/pest attack to erratic weather conditions, including long foggy spells in winter. The soil factor must also be studied if the exact cause of mortality is to be determined.” Recently, a team of Pakistani scientists, on an informal visit to PAU, shared a similar concern. Dr. Gill said pathologists, physiologists, entomologists and soil specialists in Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh are also engaged in extensive research to crack reasons behind the mysterious mortality. In India these trees are well distributed in the northern states. However, in the recent past they have registered a massive decline, which is still continuing. “These trees are dying within three to four years depending on age and site. The malady is 10 years old in shisham and only five years old in kikar, but in the latter it is more alarming,” said Dr. Gill. In Punjab mortality is higher in western districts, which are comparatively arid in nature. About 50 per cent trees have died in Bathinda and Faridkot. In Sangrur and Patiala, some places have reported 100 per cent mortality in kikar and 80 per cent mortality in shisham. The Haryana Forest Department confirms that 1,26,000 sisham trees died in 1997-98; 2,01,000 died in 1998-99 and 2,64,000 died in 1999-2000. The figures are swelling, with less mortality in the dry districts of Sirsa, Bhiwani, Mahendragarh and Rewari, and very high mortality in the Karnal, Kurukshetra, Jind, Rohtak and Sonepat. In Uttar Pradesh, the situation is grimmer in the eastern Tarai region (Gorakhpur, Gonda, Behraich and Balrampur) than in the eastern plains. In Bihar mortality has touched 20.8 per cent. The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is also alarming with the overall mortality of shisham reaching 15 per cent. Scientists researching the problem have made an interesting observation, “This mortality is species-specific. Only shisham and kikar are drying up while trees of other species adjacent to them are unaffected.” The drying up of shisham is being linked to various factors by scientists of research organisations like FRI, Dehradun; Regional Centre of National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, Solan; Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana; Haryana Agricultural University and Rajendra Agricultural University, Samstipur. They say the most important cause can be the change in land use pattern, which has caused destruction of the natural drainage system through the levelling of agricultural land and laying of road networks. In the canal-irrigated areas, there has been an increase in the watertable. Shisham, says Dr Gill, thrives well in sandy loam soils having good drainage but it cannot tolerate water-logging for long periods as its roots die of asphyxiation. In Punjab the worst affected are Ferozepore, Faridkot, Muktsar, Sangrur and Bathinda. Two ends of Chandigarh also present different responses. Shisham and Kikar in Ropar (on one end of Chandigarh) are dying, but the same trees in the other end (district Panchkula) are normal. Alarmed by the situation the Forest Research Institute of Dehradun organised a National Symposium on Shisham Mortality on January 11, 2000. Another international seminar on kikar was organised in Nepal in April, 2000. The seminar was meant to assess the extent of mortality in kikar (babool) and suggest measures to stem the rot. The
workshops suggested the creation of a database, recording of climatic
and hydrological variables and adoption of a multi-disciplinary
approach. But only general guidelines could be issued as no specific
cause was known. The challenge persists.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||