Climate change has become a major security issue that could lead to “a world going up in flames”, the United Nation’s most senior environment official has warned. From rising sea levels in the Indian Ocean to increasing desertification in the African Sahel region, global warming will cause new wars across the world, said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

“People are being pushed into other people’s terrain by the changing climate and it is leading to conflict,” he said.

“Societies are not prepared for the scale and the speed with which they will have to decide what they will do with people.” The world is already experiencing its first war partly caused by climate change, he said. Dramatic changes to the environment in the Darfur region of Sudan helped lay the groundwork for today’s conflict which has displaced more than 2.5 million people and seen at least 200,000 killed.

A new UNEP report will make a direct link between climate change and the Darfur conflict. “It will be one of the most significant documents in terms of linking environment change and conflict,” Mr Steiner said. “It draws a line in the sand. It will say that climate change is now a key dimension that must be considered in conflict issues in the future.”

The roots of the four-year conflict can be found in the devastating drought that swept through Sudan and the Horn of Africa in the 1980s, the report will say. Since then rainfall in Sudan has dropped by 40 per cent, a result, claim scientists, of global warming.

Nomadic herders and farmers, who had previously shared their land relatively peacefully, suddenly found far less fertile soil to go around. Farmers began to fence off land they had once allowed nomads to pass through. Clashes over shrinking resources between nomads, who tend to be Arab, and the mainly African farmers became more widespread.

The current crisis was sparked by a rebellion launched by three Darfuri tribes, and a ferocious counter-insurgency unleashed by Khartoum, but the dramatic changes to Darfur’s ecology appear to have been a contributing factor.

“What we see in Darfur is an environmental change phenomenon unfolding that puts pressure on local communities,” he said. “Combine that with potential tensions that are either of an ethnic or a religious nature and you very quickly get a potent mix within which increased pressure can result in conflict. People have to look for an alternative or they have to displace others. The situation that emerged in Darfur will emerge in other parts of the world.” He warned of a “world going up in flames” if countries did not “wake up”.

“It is a major security issue that affects the whole geopolitical dynamics that we have today.” Earlier this year Britain used its presidency of the UN Security Council to lead its first ever debate on climate change and conflict. “What makes wars start?” asked Britain’s foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett. “Fights over water. Changing patterns of rainfall. Fights over food production, land use. There are few greater potential threats... to peace and security itself.”

The two major areas of potential conflict, Mr. Steiner said, are the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia. “In the next 35 years most of the glaciers in the Himalayas will melt. They will disappear. You are talking of 500 million people being affected by that directly and another 250 million people affected downstream.”

Rising sea levels off the coast of Bangladesh are another potential area for conflict, he said. “India has already started building a wall to stop Bangladeshis coming across. The predicted half a metre sea level rise means 34 million people not being able to stay where they are now. Where will they go? They will break through the boundaries.”

But Africa is likely to suffer most. The continent whose people own the least number of SUVs and take the smallest amount of international flights is going to experience the worst consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels could destroy up to 30 per cent of the continent’s coastline, while between 25 and 40 per cent of Africa’s natural habitats could be lost by 2085, according to the UN.

“Africa is more prone to it right now,” said Mr. Steiner. “It is the frontline of climate change and it is the least prepared for it. Examples like Darfur give people a sense of reality.” Conflicts caused by a scarcity of resources are already brewing across Africa.

In Ghana clashes between farmers and Fulani herders have become more widespread in the past two years as resources have become increasingly scarce. In the Mount Elgon region of Kenya more than 40,000 people have been displaced as different tribes have fought over access to land.

“It doesn’t take much imagination,” he said. “If the Zambezi (river) suddenly takes less water, or takes it at different times of year” it could cause provoke confrontations over scarce resources, he said.

Climate change will not only lead to more wars, Mr. Steiner said, it will also cause problems post-conflict. According to the UNEP report on Darfur the majority of those displaced by the conflict will be never able to return to their homes.

“We have reached a tipping point,” he said. “In parts of Darfur the environment can no longer sustain its population. We have moved beyond a point of return. ”

The Tribune (Chandigarh), 22 June 2007

More than a decade ago, the United States walked out of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions. Ever since, the official U.S. representatives maintained at various fora that the science of climate change was unclear and that CO2 build-up in the atmosphere could not be linked to human activities. The Americans argued that in any case the U.S. economy, the richest in the world, could not bear the cost of CO2 reduction arrived at in the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. also maintained that unless China and India committed to a CO2 reduction programme, there would be no significant reduction in overall emissions.

For the sake of perspective, we may note that world CO2 emissions in 2004 totalled 27 billion tonnes. Of this, the U.S. accounted for 5.9 billion tonnes, China 4. 7, Russia 1.7, Japan 1.3, and India 1.1 billion tonnes. All other countries were below the one billion level. If we calculate per capita annual emissions, they work out roughly to 23.6 tonnes for U.S., 13 for Japan, 10 for Russia, 4.7 for China, and one for India. At the series of meetings of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held earlier this year, a consensus emerged that manmade additions to the global atmospheric CO2 were indeed responsible for warming and that all countries should adopt measures to reduce carbon emissions. Some scientists have warned that there is indeed only a short period of time, of just a decade, to take drastic action to prevent serious and irreversible consequences. The evidence of warming is based on the occurrence of a number of very hot years in succession, increased intensity of cyclonic storms and hurricanes, abnormal rainfall patterns, glaciers feeding the great rivers of the world receding, extensive melting of Arctic ice, appearance of flora and fauna of the warmer areas in the Arctic, and so on.

At the recently concluded G8 summit in Germany, U.S. President George W. Bush departed from his earlier stand and conceded that global warming was occurring. He got the G8 to agree to a vague emission reduction programme by 2050. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated the importance of accelerated economic growth to eliminate poverty and deprivation and said India could not take on binding commitments when its per capita emissions were low. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission has stated that the first and over riding concern was economic and social development and poverty eradication. So the developing countries including India, China, and Brazil are opposed to mandatory capping of emissions as that would hinder their development. While this debate will continue at various international fora, there are may initiatives India could take as a responsible member of the international community to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing its priority of economic development.

Coal accounts for nearly half of India’s total energy use, a large part of it for electricity production. Most of the present day generators use 200 MW to 500 MW sub-critical boilers with a thermal efficiency of 35 per cent or less. Older units of 60 MW and 110/120 MW have lower efficiency. All new coal generators should use super- critical boilers in the size range of about 800 MW, which can achieve an efficiency of about 40 per cent. While most of the coal now used is domestic, imports will be needed in the decades ahead for power stations located in the south and west of India, for which port infrastructure should be built. A further gain in efficiency is possible when the integrated coal gasification technology is available. While some collaborative work with the U.S. and other countries is planned, a prototype development in India jointly between NTPC and BHEL is warranted. Removal of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration as it is called) from the flue gases of coal power stations is being studied in the U.S. and elsewhere. But as of now, the associated economic penalties are unclear. However, India should collaborate with other countries in these studies.

India must give maximum emphasis to developing the still fairly large untapped hydel potential in the North West, North, and North East. But this requires an enlightened policy of rehabilitation of project-affected people. There are also cultural factors such as submerging lands regarded as holy because ancestors of present inhabitants are buried there or for other reasons of tribal customs. People living in areas where large hydel potential exists need to be provided incentives as they may perceive that their energy wealth is going to enrich people living in other parts of the country. A similar approach is required to access the large hydel potential available in Bhutan and Nepal, beyond the needs of the populations of these countries.

A very important non-carbon energy source is nuclear power. India’ s quest to rapidly develop this source has been hampered by a very limited resource base of uranium, that too of low grade, and technological isolation imposed by U.S. non-proliferation policies. The on-going negotiations between India and the U.S. may result in an opening of the door for import of nuclear fuel and civilian nuclear technology. This will then provide for an immediate acceleration of the nuclear energy programme. However, India is pinning its hopes on the eventual use of thorium as a source of energy, as it has abundant reserves of this substance. We shall have to build a series of fast breeder reactors before significant amounts of thorium could be used to generate electricity, a process that may take some three decades. In parallel, India is participating in the International Thermo-nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which is expected to pave the way for controlled fusion energy, which may become viable in some five decades. Thereafter the heavy hydrogen, available in very small quantities in water, would be a source of energy.

Another energy option of great interest is solar energy. While it is possible to harvest solar energy using photovoltaic cells, the economics at present are unfavourable. Considering its abundance in India, the country must embark on a mission mode programme, comparable to atomic energy and space, to develop economically viable solar power systems. The Department of New Energy Sources needs to be headed by a competent scientist or technologist and sponsor new R&D in solar energy, fuel cells, bio-fuel, hydrogen production and storage, and so on. Wind energy has made good progress through the dynamism of the private sector and also needs to be underpinned with advanced R&D. Solar water heaters and solar cookers need to be promoted through better designs and incentives.

Oil and gas are the fastest growing segments of our energy basket and we should maximise their availability to run our economy. If the railway system were fully electrified and the Railways offer satisfactory services for goods movement, a big reduction in oil use would take place. Similarly all large cities must have metro railways and small cities should use electric trolley buses. An assumption that is being made is that our electric supply system will become reliable with good quality power and without interruptions. Magnetic levitation would greatly increase the efficiency in electric traction. In due course of time, motor vehicles and buses using hydrogen fuel cells would be a way of transport with no carbon emissions. But hydrogen will have to be produced using solar energy or nuclear energy.

Energy efficiency will have to be achieved in industry, transport, domestic appliances and agriculture. Agricultural pumping is notoriously inefficient due to electricity being supplied free. Similarly, power losses in transmission and distribution can be reduced drastically though investment in T&D systems and better transformers.

There is the more general question of lifestyle options, which determine the energy intensity of a society. India must adopt, as a matter of deliberate choice, decentralised and regional development, which would minimise long distance transport of food articles, consumer goods, minerals, and industrial items. Dwellings must be located close to the work place, minimising daily commuting. Residences must be designed to be energy efficient, needing minimum or no energy for cooling or heating. Both inter-city and intra-city transport should to a large extent be in well-designed mass transport systems. More importantly, manufactured articles should have long life, not requiring frequent replacement due to planned obsolescence. The challenge before India is whether it can evolve a lifestyle paradigm different from that in the rich countries of Europe and America. India with its civilisational heritage can hopefully rise to this challenge and lead the way to save the Earth.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 30 June 2007

Can plankton help save the planet? Some Silicon Valley technocrats are betting that it just might. In an effort to ameliorate the effects of global warming, several groups are working on ventures to grow vast floating fields of plankton intended to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and carry it to the depths of the ocean. It is an idea, debated by experts for years, that sounds like science fiction — and some scholars think that is where it belongs.

But even though many questions remain unanswered, the first commercial project is scheduled to get under way this month when the Weather Bird II, a 115- foot research vessel, heads out from its dock in Florida to the Galápagos and the South Pacific.

The ship plans to dissolve tons of iron, an essential plankton nutrient, over a 10,000-square-kilometer patch. That’s equivalent to 2.47 million acres (3,861 square miles on land or 2,912 square nautical miles). When the trace iron prompts growth and reproduction of the tiny organism, scientists on the Weather Bird II plan to measure how much carbon dioxide the plankton ingests.

The idea is similar to planting forests full of carbon-inhaling trees, but in desolate stretches of ocean. “This is organic gardening, not rocket science,” said Russ George, the chief executive of Planktos, the company behind the Weather Bird II project. “Can it possibly be as easy as we say it is? We’re about to find out.”

For Mr. George, this is not just science and environmentalism but business, possibly big business. Around the world, new treaties and regulations are forcing corporations to look for ways to offset their carbon emissions, and Planktos and its competitors may be able to charge millions of dollars for their services.

And that is where this science project takes on a Silicon Valley twist, and a healthy dose of scientific skepticism. Planktos — along with Climos, a competitor started by a former dot-com millionaire whose mother is one of the nation’s top oceanographers — wants to commercialize ocean fertilization.

Their efforts underscore a growing effort to pull carbon from the atmosphere. Solutions include planting or restoring forests and, once the technology is available, capturing tons of carbon from coal burning for electricity and oil refineries, piping it back underground or burying it under the ocean. The technological solutions are starting to come from Silicon Valley, where investors and innovators are turning to environmental businesses. They are investing, too, in fossil fuel alternatives like wind, solar and ethanol power.

The financial returns for reducing carbon could be considerable, said Daniel M. Kammen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

In Europe, where there is a market for carbon credits, it is now worth only $2 to offset a ton of carbon emissions. But not long ago, that figure was 35, and it is expected to rise again as the limits imposed under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming start to bite. Planktos believes that it can make a healthy profit if it receives $5 a ton for capturing carbon dioxide.

“The cost of offsetting carbon through these technologies is less than the cost of building solar panels or windmills,” Mr. Kammen said. “There’s no question that this is going to grow,” he said of various carbon offset strategies.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 5 May 2007

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be kept at levels that avoid the worst ravages of global warming by using available technologies and strategies, a United Nations panel said, Keeping concentrations of gases at levels similar to those in the air today will cost less than 3 per cent of world economic output by 2030, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said on Friday in its third report of the year.

“We can go a long way to addressing this problem at relatively low costs with a range of options across a lot of sectors,” Pete Smith, Professor of global change at Aberdeen University in Scotland and a lead author of the study, said in an interview in Bangkok.

“We’ve got a big problem on our hands and this report provides governments with way out.” In two earlier reports this year, the panel, or IPCC, has said global warming is very likely caused by human activities including the release of gases from burning fossil fuels, and that rising temperatures will cause increased floods, droughts and extinctions of species.

The panel’s work is designed to feed into government policy on tackling climate change. Friday’s document, debated line-by-line by government envoys from more than 120 nations meeting in Bangkok, was handed to reporters before a press conference on Friday.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, told reporters in Bangkok the study is a “remarkable step forward” from the panel’s last review of climate change, in 2001. The report says that stabilisation of greenhouse gases can be achieved by changing the energy mix used around the world, introducing more fuel-efficient vehicles and appliances, improving home insulation and changing the way agricultural land is managed. Individuals can also change their lifestyles.

“An extremely powerful message in this report is the need for human society as a whole to start looking at changes in lifestyles and consumption patterns,” Pachauri said, adding that people could take simple measures such as turning down the central heating and putting on a cardigan. “This report highlights the importance of deploying a portfolio of clean energy technologies, consistent with our approach,” Harlan Watson, head of the US delegation, said in a statement.

Another tool available to government is carbon trading, according to the report. Establishing a price equal to $50 per ton of carbon dioxide could reduce emissions by more than half and a price of $100 could achieve a 63 per cent cut, because of the incentives to develop cleaner energy sources, it said. Under carbon trading, companies are set emission targets.

If they undershoot those targets they’re able to sell credits to other businesses that are unable to meet their targets. Emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, are projected to rise by as much as 110 percent by 2030 if no action is taken to minimize them, the panel said. Scientists have linked the gas, produced by burning fossil fuels, to climate change. Higher emissions lead to higher temperatures, they say.

“If we continue to do what we are doing, then we are in deep trouble,” said Ogunlade Davidson, co-chair of the working group that produced the report. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are about 425 parts per million (ppm) and rising. Stabilizing greenhouse gases at 445 ppm may hold increases in global temperature since industrialization at 2 degrees Celsius, according to the report.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 5 May 2007

Climate scientists agree there have been a lot of strong hurricanes lately. They agree that warmer seas have given these storms some extra punch. But they disagree how much global warming is to blame.

With the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season about to begin, the controversy over the role of climate change in boosting hurricane intensity is a matter for debate among the researchers who watch the water and the clouds and work to figure out what makes the worst storms so furious.

"As far as I can tell, there is no dispute that higher sea temperatures mean more energy for these storms to feed on," said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, part of a consortium of U.S. universities.

Trenberth said the next logical question is, how have sea surface temperatures changed over the last 30 years or so, "and that's where the global warming aspects come in and that's where some of the dispute seems to lie."

Trenberth is convinced that global warming is a major factor in spawning the kinds of intense hurricanes that kill, and he is hardly alone.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which set out the consequences of global warming in a series of reports this year, said future hurricanes and typhoons will probably be more intense as tropical seas continue to heat up.

The world panel also drew a line between warmer seas and the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from human sources like factories, vehicles and coal-fired power plants.

However, Chris Landsea of the U.S. government's National Hurricane Center in Miami considers climate change a minor piece of the puzzle of hurricane intensity compared with long-term climate cycles that can last for decades.

When it comes to the relationship between hurricane strength and global warming, "the important question is not, is there an impact, but how much of an impact," Landsea said in a telephone interview. "When you look at all of the studies ... it's a pretty tiny sensitivity."

Landsea said hurricanes get about 2 per cent stronger for every rise of 1 degree F (.55C) in the sea surface temperature.Sea surface temperatures have risen an average of about that much in the tropical Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico -- where big hurricanes are nourished -- over the last 100 years, and only about half of that increase is due to human-caused global warming, he said.

He said that 1 per cent difference in intensity, gauged by the force of the storm winds, makes little difference, even in a storm with the devastating strength of 2005's Katrina, a top-ranked Category 5 hurricane.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 28 May 2007

As the leaders of the G8 economies put climate change on top of their agenda this week, and laudably so, it is worth taking a look at which way the dice could roll for economies like India’s. While the country has, thankfully, been able to put issues like labour standards behind it in international trade dialogue, climate norms could create even more serious challenges. The climate lobby, let’s not forget, is very well organized across the world. India was confronted with criticism on these two issues as early as 1999, at the time of the WTO Seattle talks. While labour dominated the agenda back then, environment has now come to centrestage. For effective defence, it is important for India to recognize the extent to which these concerns are interlinked.

There is no doubt that the rapid growth of India and China has put some pressure on the environment. To the extent that global warming is a man-made peril, there is some inevitability to this. If one-third of the world’s population is to start reaching for developed world lifestyles, there is bound to be some impact on the climate. But is the growth rate in these two countries the basic reason for global warming and other evils? No.

Most evidence points to prior industrialisation and greenhouse gas emissions as being the cause. Also, if both these countries have to switch over to the sort of technology that is claimed to be more energy-efficient, the costs on their growth rate could be substantial. So, who pays for that? Also, it is true that it is the EU and US, driven by their own domestic pressure groups, that have developed most of the energy-efficient technologies being hawked. Now that growth is faltering in these zones, the incentive to export such technologies to the faster growing parts of the world could be considerable. Then, there is the issue of world trade that India and China would rather not have linked to the climate change debate. India and China are among the countries that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, but have not inked any commitment to targeted gas emission cuts. Now that these countries have spotted a once-in-a-millennium chance to radically alter their economic future, it would be naive to expect them to comply with an agenda that needs to develop more broadbased international support.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 05 June 2007

This year is on track to be the second warmest since records began in the 1860s and floods in Pakistan or a heatwave in Greece may herald worse disruptions in store from global warming, experts said on Friday.

"2007 is looking as though it will be the second warmest behind 1998," said Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, which provides data to the U.N.'s International Meteorological Organization.

"It is n't far behind ... it could change, but at the moment this looks unlikely," he told Reuters, based on temperature records up to the end of April.

Jones had predicted late last year that 2007 could surpass 1998 as the warmest year on record due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and an El Nino warming of the Pacific.

Almost all climate experts say that the trend is towards more droughts, floods, heatwaves and more powerful storms. But they say that individual extreme events are not normally a sign of global warming because weather is, by its nature, chaotic.

"Severe events are going to be more frequent," said Salvano Briceno, director of the Geneva-based secretariat of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990. Last year ranked number six according to the IMO. NASA, which uses slightly different data, places 2005 as warmest ahead of 1998.

Among extreme events, more than 500 people have died in storms and floods in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India in the past week. Temperatures in Greece reached 46OC (114.80OF) this week as part of a heatwave across parts of southern Europe. Parts of China have also had a heat wave in recent days. And torrential rains have battered northern England and parts of Texas, where Austin has had its wettest year on record so far.

The U.N. climate panel, drawing on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year that it was "very likely" that human activities led by use of fossil fuels were the main cause of a warming in the past half-century.

It gave a "best estimate" that temperatures will rise 1.8-4.0OCelsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.

Briceno told Reuters that the world had to work out better policies to prepare for disasters, saying that climate change was adding to already increasing risks faced by a rising human population of about 6.6 billion people.

Irrespective of warming, many people were cramming into cities, for instance, settling in plains where there was already a risk of floods or moving to regions vulnerable to droughts.

"We need to reduce all the underlying risk factors, such as by locating communities out of hazard-prone areas," he said. "We now have a clearer picture of what is going to happen and it's urgent that governments give this higher priority."

In Germany, average temperatures for the 12 months to May 2007 smashed records for the past century, raising questions about whether climate change was quickening, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said.

"If this trend continues in the near future, we will be experiencing an acceleration of global warming in Germany so far unexpected by climate scientists," it said in a statement.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 30 June 2007

While the debate over global warming is generating more and more heat, successes notched up so far in cutting down on greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are going unnoticed. For example, the success of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer has contributed to the GHG emission reduction many more times (at least five times) than the first target being chased by the Kyoto Protocol by 2008-2012, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It’s because most of the ozone depleting substances (ODS) are also GHGs

The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty for the protection of the six-mile high ozone layer in the stratosphere. It seeks to phase out the production and use of nearly 100 ODS like cholorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, commonly used in refrigeration, air-conditioning, fire fighting equipment and agriculture.

Their use depletes the ozone layer and leads to an increase in ultraviolet–B radiation, which can cause skin cancer and cataract. Says Michael G. Kimlin of the Australian Sun and Health Research Laboratory, “There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of solar radiation. Solar radiation causes cutaneous malignan t melanoma and non-melanocytic skin cancer.” He is quoting from the International Agency for Research in Cancer 1992. Kimlin has worked extensively on skin cancers and ultraviolet radiations. Since, the Montreal Protocol was opened for signature in 1987 and came into force in 1989, 191 signatory countries have phased out more than 95 per cent of all ODS. And the fact that the ozone layer has stopped getting thinner and is on the way to recovery makes this protocol the most successful global environment treaty.

Its success has been estimated to have averted skin cancers in significant numbers. For example, the US alone estimates that more than 6.3 million skin cancer deaths would be prevented by 2165, saving the country $4.2 trillion in healthcare costs between 1990-2165, according to the UNEP. The protocol’s success owes much to its Multilateral Fund, which has so far supported ODS-phase out activity worth more than $2 billion in developing countries. It includes $198,510,123 for 406 projects in India to phase out 52,791 ODP tonnes of production and consumption of ODS. By December 2005, 23,245.5 ODP tonnes were phased out in India.

India is on track with its ODS phase out plans and in compliance with the Montreal Protocol,” says a spokesperson of the Multilateral Fund.

But the challenges remain as the 2010 deadline approaches for the complete phase out of CFCs, methyl bromide and halons, barring for essential purposes like inhalers.

For example, the use of transitional ozone friendly alternatives like HCFCs is on the rise. They have a global warming potential 1,600 times more than carbon dioxide and have been growing at a steep rate of 30 per cent, mainly because of their widespread use in room air conditioning.

Developed countries can produce and import HCFCs till 2030 and developing countries can do so till 2040. Moves are already underway to advance the deadlines, though.

Says Paul Horwitz, deputy executive secretary, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP, “HCFCs, including HCFC 22, currently have a phase out date of 2030 in developed countries, and 2040 in developing countries. There have been six separate proposals submitted by parties this year to require interim reductions or to advance the phase-out dates by at least ten years.”

It’s all the more important because clean development mechanism (CDM) projects that plan to incinerate HFC 23 (with a global warming potential of more than 10,000 than carbon dioxide), which is a byproduct from the production of HCFCs, offers “perverse incentive” to the producers to continue to manufacture HCFCs and sell carbon credits to the developed countries.

There are four CFC producers in India that have received grants from the Multilateral Fund to shut down their CFC producing facilities. “Though such grants ($80 million) are intended to be compensation for the loss in business due to shutting down their CFC facility, these companies have corporate social and environmental responsibility for not taking perverse advantage of CDM mechanism, which may indirectly promote production of HFCs that contribute to the climate change,” says Rajendra Shende, chief, OzonAction, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, UNEP.

Industry has its own point of view, though. Says Deepak Asher, group head (corporate finance), Gujarat Flourochemicals, “The reports about perverse incentives caused by the destruction of HFC 23 on increased HCFC 22 production are unfortunately not accurate. The methodology, which governs these projects, does not permit any issuance of carbon c redits on increased production of HCFC 22. Carbon credit issuance is limited to maximum historical production of HCFC 22 till 2004. Hence, there cannot be any question of “perverse incentives” since even if a plant were to increase HCFC 22 production, it would not get any carbon credits on such increase.

Differences apart, there is a unanimity on putting in more effort to go the last mile to save the ozone layer and also slow down global warming as the Montreal Protocol marks its 20th anniversary coming September. Emphasises atmospheric scientist David W Fahey “Any delay in phasing out current ODS emissions would contribute to climate change.” Fahey works with chemical sciences division, NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory, in the US, and has contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 14 May 2007

Latest scientific estimates show that large dams in India are responsible for about a fifth of the country’s total global warming impact.

The estimates also reveal that Indian dams are the largest global warming contributors compared to all other nations. Brazil comes second with the emission of methane from its reservoirs being 21.8 million tonnes per annum, which is 18.13 per cent of the global figure. This estimate by Ivan Lima and colleagues from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE) was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal, according to the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

The study titled, "Methane emission from Indian Large Dams" estimates that total emissions from India's large dams could be around 33.5 million tonnes per annum, including those from reservoirs (1.1 mt), spillways (13.2 mt) and turbines of hydropower dams (19.2 mt). Total generation of methane from India's reservoirs could be 45.8 mt. " The difference between the figures of methane generation and emission is due to the oxidation of methane as it rises from the bottom of a reservoir to its surface," says the report.

The study estimates that emission of methane from all the reservoirs of the world could be around 120 mt per annum. This means that of the total global emissions of methane due to all human activities, contribution from large dams alone could be around 24 per cent. The study does not include the emission of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from large dams. If all these were included, the global warming impact of large reservoirs would go up further.

The methane emission from India's dams is estimated at 27.86 per cent of the methane emission from all the large dams of the world, which is more than the share of any other country of the world.

"It is unfortunate that Lima's study has come too late to be included in the recent reports from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Patrick McCully, Director of the International Rivers Network. Emission of carbon dioxide from reservoirs is already part of the mandatory reporting formats of IPCC. Reporting of methane emissions is suggested, but not mandated.

These latest round of studies help shatter the myth that power from large hydropower projects was "clean."

Indian hydropower projects are already known for their serious social and environmental impact on the communities and environment.

The fact that these projects also emit global warming gases in such significant proportion should further destroy the myth, pointed out Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

"The Indian Government has been blind to this issue so far, even though it has been known for more than a decade now that reservoirs in tropical climate are significant source of global warming gases. Neither the Central Water Commission, nor the Central Electricity Authority, has assessed the global warming impact of India's large dams and implications there of," he said.

Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 20 May 2007

If things go according to plan, posterity may not remember Bill Clinton only for his internal affairs at the White House. Rather it may tip its hat to the former president of the United States for setting up the Clinton Climate Initiative which is committed to a business-oriented approach to tackle global warming. The idea is to help finance 40 of the world’s largest cities- including New Delhi and Mumbai- and building owners for retrofitting their facilities with energy –efficient upgrades. Since buildings account for nearly 40 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, this will typically lead to energy savings of 20 to 50 per cent. To this end, CCI has tied up with five of the world’s largest private banks to provide up to $1 billion each in loans that cities or landlords could use at no net cost, in order to upgrade energy-hungry heating cooling and lighting systems in older buildings. It will also enable them to pay back the loans plus interest with the savings accrued through reduced energy costs, thanks to the building retrofits. In the process the Initiative believes, they will save money, make money, create jobs and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once.

The entire exercise belies the belief that environment friendly makeovers have to be mammoth undertakings. Or that only a consortium of nations working with internationally ratified protocols can orchestrate any sustainable effort. Because not only is the initiative’s procurement plan a financially feasible proposition which keeps the bottom line healthy, it also brings the collective responsibility level down to single buildings. This means that small groups of people can actually start making a difference now. However, having said that, one question still remains: can fixing energy -wasting buildings alone stave off global warming? Obviously not. For a lot of developing countries, including India and China, where a gigantic construction boom is on, there is a vital need to make sure new buildings, power plants and transport systems are made energy and emission- efficient too. For this and other measures to combat the growing menace of global overheating, advanced technology needs to be developed and transferred urgently. Someone will have to foot the bill for this, and developing countries don’t have the resources . Massive government as well as non-government initiatives, emanating primarily from developed countries, will be needed.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 23 May 2007

If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would have liked to forget about global warming, he could not. If he thought he could escape from the 40 degrees-plus furnace that New Delhi was this forenoon, Berlin turned out to be palpably warm, with the afternoon temperature well above the normal average, as he arrived on a three-day visit for meetings with leaders of the G8, the informal grouping of the industrialised nations, and of four other emerging economies.

While deliberations on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to dominate the summit, the pick of Dr. Singh's meetings is expected to be his short session with the United States President, George Bush, on the sidelines of the summit on Friday, where the proposed deal on civilian nuclear cooperation is expected to figure.

Official-level talks on the issue have been on sticky ground in recent weeks, especially with regard to India getting the freedom to reprocess spent uranium fuel, and on assurances of continuity of fuel supplies.

On Thursday, Dr. Singh will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

When he meets the G8 leaders on Friday, Dr. Singh will be drawn into a discussion on what India may do to contain greenhouse gas emissions. German Chancellor and summit host Angela Merkel has been working in recent weeks to get fellow G8 leaders to agree to limit global warming, and not let temperatures rise more than two degrees Celsius, a plan which would require halving greenhouse emissions by 2050. But she has met with embarrassingly lukewarm response, especially from the U.S. While greenhouse emissions in the U.S. have risen 1.6 per cent a year since 2000, those in the other G8 countries have enlarged by two per cent each year.

Dr. Singh is likely to point to the hopelessness of the effort without a concerted effort from the industrialised world.

He is expected to speak about India's own earnestness to raise the efficiency of energy use, drawing attention to the National Environment Policy of 2006, from which several initiatives have flowed.

A background paper prepared by the External Affairs Ministry noted that while India has 17 per cent of the world's population, it emits only four per cent of the global greenhouse gases. Per capita emissions are thus relatively small, just one-quarter of the world average, and four per cent of that in the U.S.

While the rate of growth in the gross domestic product has exceeded eight per cent a year, the rate of increase in primary energy consumption has been just 2.76 per cent.

What India hopes to seek from the developed world is free access to energy saving technology that the developed nations have and which are protected by patents. This would be similar to the one that allows countries struck by epidemics to license the production of patented drugs.

New Delhi Special Correspondent writes: India believes it has a common responsibility, along with other countries, to protect the global commons in the face of climate change but this can only be on the basis of "differentiated" commitments based on the respective capabilities of developed and developing countries.

In a statement issued just before his departure to Germany for the summit of G8 and Outreach Countries on Wednesday morning, Dr. Singh said he would present India's viewpoint on all the global issues identified by the G8 for special focus.

"Our viewpoint, and the viewpoint of much of the developing world on these issues, is that while addressing them due care must be taken not to allow growth and development prospects in the developing world to be undermined or constrained," Dr. Singh said.

Fundamental principle

"At the summit, I will speak on issues related to climate change," the Prime Minister said.

"I will emphasise the need not to lose sight of the fundamental and universally accepted principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities between the developed and developing worlds. It is also a fact that more and not less development is the best way for developing countries to address themselves to the issue of preserving the environment and protecting the climate."

The Hindu (New Delhi), 07 June 2007

With the US finally climbing onto the global warming bandwagon at last week’s G-8 meeting, India and China will come under pressure to curb their energy use and carbon emissions. China will overtake the US as the biggest carbon emitter by 2008, and India will follow in two decades.

India and China currently resist curbs on energy use, saying they are poor countries needing more energy to develop. They emit a tiny fraction of US emissions in per capita terms. But that will not let them off the hook: global warming is caused by total emissions, not per capita emissions.

I regard catastrophic global warming as a plausible hypothesis, not a proven fact. But Western popular pressure for immediate action to check warming is enormous, and probably irresistible. Moral pressure on India and China will soon be buttressed by economic pressure, maybe even sanctions.

Is there a low-cost way to respond to this looming threat? Yes indeed. India should learn from research by Dr. Govindasamy Bala and his colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California. Most climate models calculate the impact of different gas concentrations on global temperature. But Bala’s model goes further, including the impact of photosynthesis (by which grass and plants grow, extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere).

Trees are dark in colour, and so absorb sunlight, causing warming. But trees also absorb water from the ground and send it into the atmosphere through their leaves (transpiration). This aids cloud formation, diminishing warming. On balance, tropical trees cool the world.

The opposite is true in cold forests at high latitudes. Tree growth and transpiration there are slow. If temperate forests are cut, much more snow will be exposed in winter, and this snow will reflect back sunlight instead of absorbing it. This produces cooling through reflection the so-called albedo effect.

Now, if all the world’s trees are cut, Bala’s model shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will double by 2100. A disaster, you might think. Yet, the model shows that global temperature will actually fall by 0.3 degrees Celsius.

How can the world get colder despite double the carbon emissions? The model shows that deforestation will heat up the tropics, but the albedo effect of snow reflection in high latitudes will produce a huge cooling effect. On balance, the cooling albedo effect will exceed the warming effect of doubling carbon in the atmosphere.

Bala and his colleagues conclude that tree growth needs to be promoted in the tropics rather than temperate latitudes. But a more important implication is that the world should seek to increase the albedo effect, not just aim for carbon reductions.

We can increase the albedo effect in many ways. The most obvious is to convert vast man-made surfaces across the world from dark colours to white, reflecting more sunlight.

The albedo effect of painting every roof in the world white will be substantial (though the roof area will be less than that of all temperate forests). White roof tiles will be more expensive but more durable than white paint. Broken white china could cheaply be used in India’s flat cement roofs. The resultant cooling will reduce the use of fans and air-conditioners.

We use millions of vehicles of all sorts. The albedo impact of painting white If all cars, trucks, railway carriages and ships are painted white, they will reflect a lot of sunlight.

Asphalt used in roads and airports is black, and absorbs sunlight. Cement is somewhat less dark. Why not mix white colour (chalk might suffice) in all asphalt and cement used in external surfaces?

White is not the only colour that reflects sunlight. Silver paint could be as effective, and maybe some metallic colours. But white will be the cheapest.

Some imaginative folk want to float huge arrays of white planks on the oceans to reflect sunlight. Others suggest launching massive white parasols, the size of several football fields, into outer space, to block sunlight. We must study possible undesirable side-effects of such ideas. Some day, such ideas may prove both cost-effective and safe. But for starters, white paint is the simplest, cheapest way for India to do its bit to check warming. It is obviously a very partial solution. If global warming is a real threat, it needs to be tackled by a dozen strategies, ranging from energy conservation and biofuels to solar energy and carbon capture. But increasing the albedo effect should be one such strategy, much simpler and cheaper than capping carbon emissions.

The government could mandate mixing white colour in asphalt/cement in public works, and white roofs in building standards. And it could offer subsidies to paint existing houses and vehicles white. This will not cost much if it qualifies for carbon credits under the Kyoto Agreement.

I foresee opposition from ideologues for whom carbon reduction has become an end in itself, and from industrial lobbies seeking profits from carbon reductions. Remind them of Bala’s research finding in California: even if carbon in the atmosphere doubles, the albedo effect can actually reduce global temperatures.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 17 June 2007

जेब पर भारी नहीं पड़ेगी पृथ्वी की हिफाजत

ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग का बढ़ता खतरा बेशक  पूरी दुनिया के लिए गहरी चिंता का विषय है। खासकर तब जब इससे निपटने के लिए संसाधनों और भारी खर्च की दुहाई बार-बार दी जा रही हो। लेकिन इस मसले पर बैकॉक में हुई दुनियाके 120 देशों की बैठक के नतीजों ने साबित कर दिया है असल समस्या संसाधनों की कमी या खर्च न जुटा पाने की नहीं बल्कि इच्छाशक्ति की कमी की है। इस सम्मेलन का नेतृत्व करने वाले अंतराष्ट्रीय पैनल की रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि पेट्रोलियम ईंधन के इस्तेमाल में कटौती, वैकल्पिक ऊर्जा स्रोतों के विकास और कृषि क्षेत्र को प्राथमिकता देकर दिन-ब-दिन सुरसा की तरह मुंह फैलाती इस समस्या से आसानी से निपटा जा सकता है। इंटरगवर्नमेंटल पैनल ऑन क्लामेट चेंज (आईपीसीसी) की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक अगर दुनिया की कुल आमदनी का तीन फीसदी हिस्सा भी ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग से निपटने पर किया जाए तो 2030 तक तापमान वृद्धि को दो डिग्री सेल्सियस तक सीमित किया जा सकता है। इस सम्मेलन में आईपीसीसी ने चेतावनी देते हुए कहा है कि जलवायु परिवर्तन के दुष्प्रभावों से बचने के लिए व्यापक स्तर पर राजनीतिक पहल की आवश्यकता है। ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग से पैदा होने वाली समस्याओं पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए अगले 50 वर्षों तक ग्रीनहाउस प्रभाव और गैसों के उत्सर्जन को नियंत्रित करना होगा। जलवायु परिवर्तन के अध्ययन के लिए गठित संयुक्त राष्ट्र का यह पैनल नीति निर्धारकों को आवश्यक सुझाव देने का काम करता है। रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि पेट्रोलियम ईधन के इस्तेमाल में कटौती, वैकल्पिक ऊर्जा स्रोतों के विकास और कृषि क्षेत्र को महत्व देकर इस संकट से उबरा जा सकता है। हालांकि, चीन ने इस पर चिंता जताते हुए कहा है कि इतने बड़े पैमाने पर खर्च का आर्थिक विकास पर असर पड़ेगा। विज्ञानी पहले भी यह चिंता व्यक्त कर चुके हैं कि अगर इस संदर्भ में तुरंत कुछ नहीं किया गया, तो दुनिया को बचाना बेहद मुश्किल हो जाएगा। उनका कहना है कि अगर एकबार वातावरण में परिवर्तन शुरु हो गया, तो उसको सामान्य बनाना नामुमकिन हो जाएगा। उनका कहना है कि तापमान को 2 डिग्री के भीतर सीमित करने के लिए आवश्यक है कि वर्ष 2050 तक कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड गैस को 50-85 फीसदी के बीच नियंत्रित किया जाए। संयुक्त राष्ट्र  की ओर से जलवायु परिवर्तन पर जारी रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक दुनिया में सौ से भी ज्यादा ऐसे देश है, जिन्होंने पर्यावरण संबधित कोई विशेष नीति निर्धारित नहीं की है। संयुक्त राष्ट्र का कहना है कि ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग की समस्या से निपटने के लिए मौजूदा नीतियां पर्याप्त नहीं है और प्रत्येक देश को इसमे भागीदारी देनी होगी।

अमर उजाला (देहरादून) , 5  May 2007

धरती का चढ़ता पारा