The UN’s Nobel-winning panel on climate change on Friday completed a draft report that said the consequences of global warming could be far-reaching and irreversible.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global-warming issue, with the goal of guiding policymakers for the next five years.

IPCC delegates agreed on the draft summary after night-long negotiations, chief French delegate Marc Gillet went on to say.

Human activities “could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts,” the agreed text said.

The report will be officially adopted on Saturday, followed by a press conference attended by UN chief Ban Ki-Moon, delegate said.

The so-called synthesis report summarises the main points from three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril. “The synthesis is quite balanced. It is a good summary of what was described in the three reports,” said Gillet.

After Saturday, attention will shift to a meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month.

Governments will try to set down a “roadmap” for negotiations that will end in a deal to cut carbon emissions and help developing nations adapt to climate change.

Measures to be vetted in the December 3-14 conference aim at deepening and accelerating cuts in greenhouse-gas pollution after 2012, when current pledges under the UN’s Kyoto Protocol expire.

The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth’s temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, as “climate skeptics” often aver.

The impacts of climate change are already visible, in the form of retreating glaciers and snow loss in alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost, according to predictions in the three IPCC reports issued earlier this year.

By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1oC and 6.4oC compared to 1980-99 levels, while sea levels will rise by between 18 and 59 cm, according to the IPCC’s forecast.

Heat waves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 17 Nov. 2007

The world’s leading authority on climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Saturday adopted a landmark report that warns that the impacts of global warming are already visible, will accelerate this century and are potentially irreversible.

Earth is moving towards a warmer period at a faster pace and the global emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), due to human activities, have grown since pre-industrial times with an increase of 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004, IPCC cautioned.

The report from the Nobel-winning IPCC, which was not expected to change significantly, said the evidence of a human role in the warming of the planet was now “unequivocal.”

The 130-nation body, which concluded its 6-day deliberation on Saturday at Valencia in Spain, came out with a synthesis of its fourth assessment report on climate change.

“The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising average sea level,” the synthesis report said.

In a web telecast of the press conference on Saturday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon urged national governments to do more to arrest the climate change.

The report also offered blueprints to avert the worst catastrophes, he said and added that climate change “imperils the most precious treasures of our planet.”

Ban Ki-Moon said that the report would be place before forthcoming UN climate change meeting in Bali in Indonesia to review the progress made under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 18 Nov. 2007

Kyoto, it is said, used to be Japan’s capital city of tranquil and peace. Some of us may wonder whether the pious targets, exemptions and timelines of the Kyoto Protocol had something to do with this. Despite being the ‘island of Gods’ Bali promises a tough run for the negotiating teams. Bali is required to throw up the roadmap for a climate change deal that focuses on adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing. However, climate change is no longer the global environmental problem it used to be in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was conceived. Global warming has figured in far too many mega political events in recent months and has undergone a major image makeover. It is this extraordinary ‘political build up’ that negotiators in Bali will have to cope with.

For those used to viewing global warming as a scientific problem necessitating technical fixes, the newly acquired political clout of the climate change convention raises awkward issues. For long, the world has been used to multilateral environmental agreements that mentioned the ‘symptom’ of the problem than address its causal factors. Today, climate change is linked to nation state governance, natural resource policies, national security and nuclear energy.

Al Gore who achieved the grand double of the ‘Nobel’ and the ‘Oscar’ this year can be credited with an approach that looked at systemic causes of the climate change problem. In his best seller Earth on Balance published way back in 1992, Gore traced the roots of global environmental crisis (including climate change) to dysfunctional societies, religious bigotry and blind laissez faire. In reality, as events of today tell us, political conflicts, skewed land tenure systems and water rights have not only bred poverty but also induced desertification and transnational migrations by humans and animals in Africa and Asia.

However, ‘distorted governance systems’ do not figure in negotiations connected to multilateral conventions and pacts, as nation states zealously guard their policy space, particularly in relation to natural resources. Indeed as Ban Ki-Moon remarked at the recent UN Security Council deliberations on climate change, nations and people have always fought bitter wars over natural resources. This sensitivity partly explains the inability of the Kyoto protocol to systematically address emissions from land and forests. The key question is whether the Bali negotiations will see a different approach towards the ‘Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry’ (LULUCF) issue.

In recent years the discourse about climate change and security has gained rapid strides. While the UN Security Council debated on the resource scarcity impacts of climate change on national security, there is a strand of thinking that seeks to link the war against terror to climate change. Nevertheless, given the fact that there are varying opinions on the role of climate change in facilitating or debilitating security, the process of securitising the climate change debate does not look like making serious headway. India has been of the view (and for the right reason) that the appropriate forum for discussing climate change ought to be the UNFCCC and not the UN Security Council.

The emerging linkage between nuclear energy and climate change promises to be a major undercurrent at Bali, particularly since it has a bearing on the ‘technology issue’ to be discussed at the conference. Until recently, the FCCC has not been in favour of nuclear energy as a mitigation option despite arguments about its GHG neutrality.

This position is likely to change with the emergence of high profile evangelists like French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Yvo de Boer, the FCCC executive secretary for the nuclear energy cause. This apart, recent reports about the likely adverse impacts of bio-fuels on biodiversity and food security, seem to have given a push for reviving the nuclear energy issue in the Bali negotiations.

However, anti-nuclear energy groups which question the utility, ethics and proliferation implications of using nuclear energy as a mitigation tool, backed by oil majors like Saudi Arabia (that are pushing for clean oil technologies) may work hard to stall proposals favouring nuclear energy projects earning emission credits.

The complexion of the finance game is different now than it was ten years ago. The Kyoto Protocol with its explicit provisions on emission trading, gave cap-and-trade its prominence over carbon taxes. The talk of a dedicated global carbon fund in the Bali scheme of things, however, could give a big push to the cause of a rebate-based, non-regressive carbon tax. Despite its inherent volatility, cap-and-trade will continue to have its place. However, a carbon tax cannot be ruled out for those sectors of the industry not covered by cap-and-trade schemes.

The final issue is on convergence of climate change with other conventions dealing with global environmental agreements such as biodiversity and desertification. Many developing countries fear that convergence of different conventions will destroy the distinct character of individual conventions besides reducing flow of funds. This is an understandable concern since different countries have differing priorities as far as environmental problems are concerned. Ideally, cross-cutting projects that synergise common aims of the three Rio conventions would achieve the tradeoffs. Whether Bali would seek to optimise synergies in its adaptation strategies is the big question.

Bali is not just about rebalancing mitigation obligations — much less about ensnaring India and China into emission reduction commitments. The real challenge before the Bali negotiators lies in grappling with the latent issues arising from the politicisation of the climate change problem.

It is too early to predict the shape of the Kyoto’s successor protocol. There are many undercurrents this time. Nietzsche once said ‘The end of a thing is its nature’. Seven years ago, in an interview with Rolling Stones, Gore cited this line to describe the George W. Bush presidential campaign. Does he have something different to say about the Bali outcome?

The Economic Times (New Delhi), 19 Nov. 2007

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for global action on climate change on Monday and urged the world leaders to develop “vision and determination” to rise to this new challenge.

Stressing on the importance of building a global low carbon economy, Mr. Brown pledged to put the UK at the forefront of the fight against climate change and its effects in his speech at the Foreign Press Association here.

“Our mission is, in truth, historic and world changing, to build, over the next 50 years and beyond, a global low carbon economy. And it is not overdramatic to say that the character and course of the coming century will be set by how we measure up to this challenge,” the prime minister said.

Mr. Brown outlined measures from three government bills, the Climate Change Bill, which will help the UK reduce carbon emissions and move to greener energy sources.

“All of us, government, business, civil society and individuals, have a part to play. Working apart we will surely fail. But working together, I have no doubt that this is a challenge to which the human spirit, and our powers of ingenuity will rise,” he added.

The UK is committed to a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 and is consulting on the possibility of raising this to 80 per cent. The UK will also commit to increasing its use of renewable energy sources to meet its share of a 20 per cent EU target by 2020. The measures being introduced to achieve climate change targets are: All new homes will be required to be carbon neutral by 2016, a supermarket forum will be convened to cut packaging waste and a new international funding framework will be set up to help developing nations switch to green technologies.

The Asian Age (New Delhi), 20 Nov. 2007

Global warming is “unequivocal” and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world’s top climate experts warned in their most authoritative report to date.

“Only urgent, global action will do,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, calling on the US and China – the world’s two biggest polluters – to do more to slow down climate change.

“I look forward to seeing the US and China playing a more constructive role,” Ban told reporters. “Both countries can lead in their own way.” Ban, however, advised against assigning blame.

Climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet” and the effects are “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do”, he said.

According to the UN panel of scientists, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world’s species. By 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortage, residents of Asia’s large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding.

Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, says the report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The panel portrays the Earth hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace and warns of inevitable human suffering.

In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period.

“We have already committed the world to sea level rise,” panel Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise.

If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 per cent of plant and animal species to extinction, the report said.

The report lays out blue prints for avoiding the worst catastrophe – and various possible outcomes, depending on how decisively action is taken.

China and India have said any measures impinging on their development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 20 Nov. 2007

Here is more proof that statistics are just a prop in the theatre of international climate change negotiations.

The US, with just 30 per cent of India’s population, emits 475 per cent more climate change causing carbon dioxide from its power plants than India, simply because it produces six times more energy than India. Yet, in individual terms, relatively inefficient Indian power companies fare badly in comparison with rich countries power generators.

Not so unexpectedly, NTPC is the world's third biggest emitter of carbon dioxide as far as power producers go.

The names of other Indian power companies that depend on fossil fuel for generating electricity also crop up in the list along with those of Chinese companies that seem be faring as bad if not worse.

This data was released by Washington-based think-tank, Centre for Global Development, timing it close to the critical UN meet on climate change in December where countries will slug it over who should own responsibility of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid disasters that climate change could cause.

"The data needs to be validated. But considering that it is valid, it only reiterates the point that rich countries, which continue to emit the highest per capita emissions and have played the biggest role in hurtling the planet to the edge of a crisis, must help developing countries like India in finding a better road to growth by financing and sharing clean technologies. This will help poorer countries to leapfrog to cleaner ways," a senior government official told TOI.

Rich countries and think-tanks that support their stands constantly talk in terms of annual total greenhouse gas emissions (because developing countries with huge populations and poorer technologies come out looking the bad boys) while poor countries prefer to hold discussions on per capita emissions (where they remain at the bottom of the pile with rich countries far ahead).

Poor and developing countries also point out that carbon dioxide typically accumulates and causes global warming over centuries.

Therefore, the historical burden also needs to be factored in when measuring responsibility for the crisis.

While the CGD data is not new, with the Indian government too sharing its emission records with the world just like all countries are expected to under the UN convention, the snazzy presentation and details of about 50,000 power plants across the world are attracting wide attention and global media coverage. The inventory on display, the think-tank claims, has been collected from all kinds of official sources from across the world.

Worst five Indian power companies in terms of total companies in terms of total CO2 emissions.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 20 Nov. 2007

The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer age at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning UN scientific panel said in a landmark report today, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction. The report also offered blueprints to avert the worst catastrophes. UN Secretary-General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet.”

The potential impact of global warming is “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do,” Mr. Ban told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after it issued its fourth and final report this year. The IPCC, following six days of sometimes tense negotiations, adopted a concise briefing paper on the science of climate change and the effects of human- produced greenhouse gases. It lays out various scenarios of future impacts, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.

The summary for policymakers, and a longer version called the synthesis report, distills thousands of pages of data and computer models resulting from six years of research compiled by the IPCC. It will be a how-to guide for policy makers meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia, who will begin discussing a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial countries to reduce carbon emissions by an average 5 percent from 1990 levels by 2012.

UN experts say a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a smooth transition when the Kyoto terms expire.

Opening with a sweeping statement directed at climate change skeptics, the summary declares that climate system unquestionably have already begun to change.

Greenhouse gases
United Nations International Maritime Organisation today called for accelerating the agency’s work on greenhouse gas emissions from ships adds SNS. IMO Secretary-General Mr. Efthimios E. Mitropoulos said he would present a plan to accelerate work to the Marine Environment Protection Committee when it meets in March of next year. Mr. Mitropoulos spoke about the increase to control of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and “of the globally expressed wish to act, and act now,” the agency said in a news release.

The Statesman (New Delhi), 20 Nov. 2007

Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and TERI (The Energy Resources Institute) Director General R.K. Pachauri on Tuesday emphasised the need for active cooperation among cities to tackle the problem of climate change. They were addressing a Conference on Planet City: Partners in Globalisation, here.

At the conference, Mr. Livingstone also launched the Tree Planting Database for London which builds on the work that is already being done in the field by Delhi. The project has been inspired by Delhi’s massive tree planting initiative that has helped secure its reputation as one of the world’s greenest capital cities.

The London Mayor, who had launched “Right Trees for London’s Changing Climate Project”, which will allow professionals to access data on a range of suitable tree species, also highlighted the comprehensive programme London is undertaking to cut emissions by 60 per cent through its climate change action plan that includes imposition of a congestion charge and green homes programme.

“Urban areas are responsible for over three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions, so the battle to prevent catastrophic climate change will be won or lost in cities,” said Mr. Livingstone, adding that, “by working together, cities are putting themselves at the forefront of the challenge to mitigate and adapt to climate change”.

Ms. Dikshit told the conference about the strategy behind Delhi’s tree planting programme and how efforts were being made to improve the city’s air quality through the world’s largest network of eco-friendly CNG fuel buses, as well as recycling and water initiatives.

The Chief Minister said her government was committed to taking the most feasible practical steps for mitigation of carbon emissions in Delhi. She said the International Conference on Climate Change -- wherein mayors of the top 40 cities of the world had participated -- had commended Delhi’s efforts in becoming one of the greenest cities in a short period of nine years. She also said that the upcoming Commonwealth Games-2010 had provided a great opportunity for Delhi and would be critical in its bid for the Olympics in 2020.

Public transport
Stating that public transport would substantially improve in the years to come, she said a time would come when people would like to travel in city transport despite owning vehicles.

She also used the opportunity to state that greening of the Bhatti mines area in South Delhi was a success story that had transformed terrain rocks into a green area.

Dr. Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had won the Nobel Peace Prize this year with AI Gore for their joint efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, spoke about the measures that are needed to tackle this change in climate that is causing a lot of concern to all.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 21 Nov. 2007

Following public disagreement over how to deal with human rights in Myanmar, the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have found concord in climate change. "It's one of the few issues where we got a very good common position to start off,'' said Ong Keng Yong, secretary general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. "At least now we have an Asean baseline position,'' Ong said, prior to a United Nations Climate Conference in Bali next month.

The ASEAN summit in Singapore has been marred by conflict over Myanmar, the group's newest member. Myanmar insisted that its recent crackdown on anti-government protesters not be discussed at the meeting, and ASEAN agreed. It also insisted that United Nations Special Envoy to Myanmar, Ibrahim Gambari, not be allowed to address the 10 nations' leaders as a group.

Today the 10-member ASEAN, along with India, China, South Korea, Australia, Japan and New Zealand, will agree on an "aspirational'' goal of reducing energy intensity, or energy used to produce gross domestic product, by 25 per cent by 2030, according to a draft seen by Bloomberg. India may object to the goals, Andrew Tan, spokesman for Singapore's foreign ministry said today.

“There's a growing recognition among the ASEAN leaders that this is an issue that needs urgent action from ASEAN as well as the East Asian countries,'' Rafael Senga, Asia Pacific energy policy coordinator for the World Wide Fund for Nature said in Singapore. The declarations being signed this week "will bolster the commitment of ASEAN and East Asian leaders to address the climate crisis.'' The "aspirational'' goal is the same one adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, whose members include the US and Russia.

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to announce a plan to set up a fund to help nations in the region lower green house gas emissions.

“When we talk about energy efficiency, technology should be transferred and manpower should be trained,” said Mitsuo Sakaba, a spokesman at Japan's Foreign Ministry. “Some financial mechanism should be built to help those countries who are committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” ASEAN members also pledged to boost forest areas in the region by 5 per cent in the next 13 years, increasing forest cover by 10 million hectares by 2020.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 22 Nov. 2007

While the European Union has set its needs of transportation fuel to the extent of 10 per cent through bio-fuels by 2020, London thinks differently.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who was in Delhi on Tuesday, is of the view that bio-fuels do not reduce the carbon dioxide emission to the levels desired. London has prepared its own climate change action plan to deal with the intention of reducing 60 per cent of the city’s emission by 2025, he said.

According to the action plan, London is to promote low-carbon vehicles with hybrid fuel system which cut transport emissions by up to 4 to 5 million tonne.’’Carbon dioxide emission from road transport would fall by as much as 30 per cent if people simply bought the most fuel efficient car in each class,’’ the action plan said.

Livingstone has sought Delhi’s partnership in exchange of ideas in making life in both the cities more clean and green. He has initiated the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group - C40 - bringing together 40 of the world’s largest cities to develop, procure and adopt low-carbons solutions showing best practices among cities. The C40 partners with Bill Clinton Foundation and the Climate Change Initiative.

London’s example of refusing to use bio-fuels in transportation and resorting to other option is relevant in context when India has proposed to launch a massive bio-fuel programme and its use as auto-fuel.

Leading scientists like David Pimentel of Cornell University, Tad Patzek of University of California, Florian Siegert, managing director, Remote Sensing Solutions GmbH , Munich, Mario Giampietro of Institute of Environmental Sciences, Barcelona and Helmut Haberl of Klagenfurt University, Austria have questioned the very basis of the contention of the IPCC report that bio-fuel programme causes a reduction in carbon dioxide emission.

Explaining the action plan, the senior adviser to the London mayor in climate change and sustainable transport, Mark Watts said: ‘’Global experiences suggest that bio-fuels do not reduce the carbon dioxide emissions to the extent desired. We in London have, therefore, launched a programme to convert the entire 8,000-bus fleet to diesel-electric hybrid vehicles. We expect entire conversion of our bus fleet by 2012.’’

When asked to comment about Delhi’s CNG-run buss fleet, Watts said: ‘’Emissions are not reduced to the desired extent.’’

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 23 Nov. 2007

Global warming could trigger wars, economic upheaval and population shifts, scientists in Hong Kong have said following a study of the effects of extreme temperatures.

Researchers from the University of Hong Kong have found that extreme cold weather in the past centuries has coincided with wars, population collapse and economic crises. The ratio of wars in a cold climate was almost double the ratio of wars in warm climate and periods of social turmoil over the centuries coincided with extreme weather, they found.

Geography Professor David Zhang and researcher Harry Lee argued that global warming could have similar catastrophic effects on the world’s population, triggering wars and social upheaval.

The study by Zhang and Lee, unveiled at a press briefing Wednesday, found that 80 per cent of countries and areas around the world had a higher ratio of wars when weather was unusually cold.

Cool periods induced population collapses, with populations shrinking and fierce competitions for limited resources, while in a milder climate, populations grow.

The scientists also found that during periods of unusually cold weather, socio-economic fluctuations were similar in Europe and China with increased economic and social problems.

“Global warming disturbs the eco-system and may bring humanitarian disasters”, Zhang said, arguing that governments needed to prepare for the social effects as well as the environmental effects of climate change.

In the same way that extreme cold could lead to wars, continued global warming could result in a shortage of fresh water, land and food and subsequent conflicts and population shifts, Zhang warned.

The Hong Kong study is to be published in the Dec 4 issue of the prestigious US science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The Statesman (New Delhi), 24 Nov. 2007

Not violating the laws of righteousness and economy, thus one should live, adumbrated Kautilya in Arthashastra, and emphasised that material well-being is primary. The advisory, in its essence, clearly remains current, against the backdrop of fast-paced growth. Now that the World Conference on Mitigating Climate Change, at Bali, is upon us, what should be India’s stand on green-house gas emissions and global warming? India must call for substantial emission cuts in the mature, high-income economies, and voluntarily commit to improvement in energy efficiency levels. Sustained improvement would mean deep emission cuts in future and lead to huge economic benefits. We also need policy focus to commit resources for research, development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies. The future’s tense.

The Bali meet has been organised to deliberate on the post-Kyoto international protocol on GHG emissions, that is those that would be in place beyond 2012. The US, the biggest emitter of GHGs, and massively conspicuous in deciding not to adhere to the Kyoto norms, has decided to join in the negotiations this time round. But then, there is now increasing scientific evidence that anthropogenic GHG emissions can and do cause global warming, and heightened concentrations of which can cause climate change and bring about widespread economic and social dislocation and damage. It is true that our per capita GHG emissions are a mere one twentieth of the US levels. But in energy production and usage, the main cause of GHG emissions, the efficiency levels pan-India remain low and sub-optimal. Hence, we must play a much more proactive role in climate-change negotiations than hitherto.

The assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear that of all the various GHGs, CO2 is mainly responsible for much of the perceived rising trend in global warming. The data suggest that average global temperatures have gone up by 0.6°C, and unmitigated CO2 emissions can raise the mean by as much as 2°C, which could provoke climate change. Average global temperatures have gone up by just about 5°C since the last Ice Age. IPCC notes, CO2 emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80 per cent (28 per cent between 1990 and 2004) and represent 77 per cent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. It has been shown that the largest growth in GHG emissions has come from the energy supply sector, in particular from coal-fired power generation. Given that average thermal efficiency in our power plants is just about 28 per cent, far lower than 42-44 per cent efficiency levels already the norm abroad in commercial production, we need to boost thermal efficiency. In the process, we may well generate 50 per cent more power, using the same amount of coal. By cutting down on aggregate technical and commercial losses downstream in the system, we could almost double the amount of electricity generation without much change in fuel consumption.

To bring about efficiency improvement, the diffusion of proven, commercially viable technology such as super-critical boilers is essential in thermal stations. Reports say that the latest vintage power plants in the offing would be designed keeping in mind super-critical parameters. Wide adoption would bring down overall costs. The costs of acquiring technology available off-the-shelf may be relatively modest given the investment in power capacity in the pipeline. But we need to go beyond current best practice in power generation. There are various promising technologies that can mitigate climate change. It makes ample sense for our power equipment makers to acquire expertise and needed technology to take part in global competitive bidding. But fund flow into energy R&D has been quite insignificant. The scenario needs to change. What’s necessary is policy initiative to earmark say 0.1 per cent of the Centre’s tax effort for energy R&D.

India needs to take the initiative at Bali and commit funds for an international research centre for emerging thermal technologies, such as carbon capture and storage. With some of the largest power producers anywhere and sufficient technical prowess, we need to be centre-stage at Bali.

A policy for improving thermal efficiency would be the most important move to curtail GHG emissions and limit global warming. We need to insist that mature economies commit to cut down emissions to 1990 levels, as mandated by Kyoto. Also needed is proactive market design for domestic trading of international carbon credits under CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. We need to think global and act local.

The Economic Times (New Delhi), 24 Nov. 2007

• The Gangotri glacier is receding 23 metres each year. This is not the only Himalayan glacier vanishing — all of them are.
• The sea level is set to rise by 20 feet. As much as 20 per cent of India’s coastal areas are threatened by the rising sea. The recent floods in Mumbai are a grim reminder of what might be in store.
• More than a million species are today threatened and could be extinct by 2050. Within 25 years, 3 lakh people will die every year worldwide because of the devastation resulting from global warming.

Global warming — two words that today spell the most urgent issue facing humanity. We no longer have the luxury of time to debate the issue. As top Indian environmentalist R.K. Pachauri, who currently heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says: "If there’s no action before 2012, it’s too late. What we do in the next two-three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

The time is over for arguing that the developed western countries are responsible for the current mess and should, therefore, clear it. It’s too late to determine who ignited the fire. It’s raging and before it mars the future of our children, we need to act.

Each one of us has a role to play. The Times of India has been highlighting several simple measures in our day-to-day lives that can slow down global warming. But action has to go beyond individuals.

Corporate houses and communities must realize the immediacy of the issue. Scientists have recommended that the international community should commit itself to meaningful emission cuts. Enlightened individuals realize that we cannot have a better tomorrow if there is no tomorrow for the Earth itself. The Times of India applauds their vision.

To hold them up as role models, and encourage others to follow suit, we announce the JSW-Times of India Earth Care Awards for excellence in climate change mitigation and adaptation, with technical assistance being provided by Centre for Environment Education and The Energy Resources Institute.

It’s the only world we have. Let’s heal it.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 24 Nov. 2007

East Asian leaders yesterday took a major step towards tackling climate change when they signed a declaration pledging to take actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions are said to cause global warming

The Singapore Declaration on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment was all the more significant as it was signed by China and India, which have long resisted calls to join in efforts to tackle the problem.

Signalling the seriousness with which it views the issue, China went a step further and pledged to make more efficient use of energy – cutting its energy consumption for every dollar of gross domestic product by 20 per cent in five years – and said that it would hold a forum in Beijing next year on coping with climate change.

Japan, which has set an ambitious target of a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, also unveiled a $2 billion (S$2.9 billion) aid package to help East Asia fight pollution and climate change over the next five years. Other countries also pitched in with separate green initiatives. For its part, Singapore will host a forum on liveable cities, to show case how cities can develop while protecting their environments, disclosed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at a press conference yesterday to wrap up the past three days of back-to-back summit meetings.

The significance of yesterday’s summit declaration on the environment was that it paves the way for the United Nations climate change meeting in Bali next month, when countries are set to begin tough negotiations for a new pact on limiting greenhouse gases when the present Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The declaration was signed yesterday by 16 countries – Asean, along with India, China, South Korea, Australia, Japan and New Zealand – and will set the stage for further negotiations with a wider circle.

“It…makes the Bali meeting easier than it would have been otherwise,” said Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, adding that getting China and India to agree to taking action on stabilising, then reducing emissions of carbon dioxide was ‘essential’. According to sources involved in the four month negotiations, while all parties were reluctant to have concrete targets all – except India – eventually relented.

The Statesman (New Delhi), 24 Nov. 2007

Activists of the Global Climate Campaign have planned to stage a two-hour programme at India Gate here on Sunday to highlight the threat posed by climate change.

The programme will be held from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and feature an exhibition, plays by street children and distribution of information pamphlets.

Global Climate Campaign brings together organisations from across 70 countries, from environment and development charities, to unions, student, community and women’s groups as well as individuals.

Rallies around world
It has been organising coordinated rallies around the world to coincide with the yearly United Nations’ Climate Talks, apart from holding programmes during the rest of the year to spread awareness.

The India Gate programme comes on the eve of the Bali conference: from December 3 to 14 negotiators will be meeting at Bali in Indonesia for this year’s United Nations’ Climate Talks.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 25 Nov. 2007

Will development go up in smoke? The final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change further highlights the incontrovertible evidence that global warming is the outcome of present human activity.

The World Energy Outlook 2007, entitled ‘China and India Insights’, brings out the consequence of these two fastest-growing energy markets on climate change, development patterns, and implications for the global economy. It analyses the consequences on three parameters:
• The Reference Scenario, which shows the trends in surging energy consumption and carbon dioxide policies
• The Alternative Policy Scenario, which shows how policies are driven by concern for energy environment but not yet adapted to curb energy demand.
• The High Growth Scenario, analysing what would happen to energy use if current high growth for India and China persists throughout the projection period.

The broad conclusion is that, in relation to the reference scenario, world energy needs could be 50 per cent higher in 2030 than today and China and India would together account for 45 per cent of the increase. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate that fuel mix. The challenge “for all countries is to seek a transition to a more secure, lower carbon energy system without undermining development.” Nowhere is this challenge tougher or of greater importance than India and China.

From India’s point of view, several steps are critical. First, are we doing enough to improve energy efficiency? Merely enacting legislation on energy conservation with a weak enforcement mechanism is grossly inadequate. The way forward is to improve systems of lighting, the architecture of buildings, and make the use of energy-saving devices obligatory.

But who is in charge? The Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change is an advisory body, but enforcement issues relate to state governments, corporates, and other entities. Redefining accountability in a meaningful way is inescapable.

Second, while corporates have progressively increased research and development on alternative fuels, a more coherent policy framework is necessary to incentivise both public and private investment in nascent technology. This is necessary if bio-fuel and ethanol are not to be promoted to the detriment of food security.

There are other areas that need more imaginative choice. For instance, the report of the Environment Protection Control Authority to the Supreme Court on increase in the number of diesel vehicles in Delhi, which emit three times more respirable suspended particulate matter and nitrogen oxides is of concern.

Consumers prefer diesel vehicles encouraged by the huge diesel subsidy. As more gas is being discovered, it is necessary to accord higher priority on fuel use to meet the needs of the transport, fertiliser and rural cooking. Transport, because pollution has health consequences, particularly in towns and cities; fertilisers, because gas is more energy-efficient than naphtha; rural cooking, because the use of wood and animal waste for fuel is a major contributor to pollution.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make it obligatory for the transport sector to increasingly use CNG.

Third, if the market economics is to work for encouraging renewable fuels the distortionary subsidy regime on fossil fuel must be phased out. India is a case of huge under-recoveries from the sale of petroleum products, estimated at Rs. 1,00,000 crore on the ground of sparing consumers the burden of what is falsely believed to be a mere transitional rise in global fuel prices. The truth is that the world has moved to a higher threshold on fuel prices and shielding consumers only encourages distortionary economic activities that are energy intensive and not sustainable in the long run. Coalition governments are more sensitive to election cycles. But in a country where election takes place round the year, every year, sensible economic policies cannot be put on hold forever.

Fourth, the argument circumscribing international obligations on the ground that our per capita emissions of greenhouse gases is only 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide as against the US’s 20 tonnes, or that we, as 17 per cent of the world population, contribute just four per cent to global emission, is only valid up to a point.

Certainly, developed countries have a deeper obligation to undo the damage. But India and China will be the major contributors to the “flow of pollutant material” between now and 2030. The case for a differential and differentiated obligation is rational and understandable. It would, however, be difficult to morally sustain the case for total exemption.

The World Energy Outlook 2007 report rings an alarm, as does the report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. We owe it to ourselves, and to our future generations, to act with appropriateness and responsibility.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 25 Nov. 2007

Sweden’s gleaming wind park—the $280 million project, one of the world’s largest, that was built by Swedish power company Vattenfall—testifies to the remarkable rise of wind energy. Wind is no longer a quirky alternative, but a mainstream power source used in 26 nations, including the United States.

But the wind park is entering service at a time when wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power.

For starters, wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines.

In Denmark, which pioneered wind energy in Europe, construction of wind farms has stagnated in recent years. The Danes export much of their wind-generated electricity to Norway and Sweden because it comes in unpredictable surges that often outstrip demand. In 2003, Ireland put a moratorium on connecting wind farms to its electricity grid because of the strains that power surges were putting on the network.

As wind energy has matured as an industry, its image has changed—from a clean, even elegant, alternative to fossil fuels to a renewable energy source with advantages and drawbacks, like any other.

“One of the big problems with wind is that people tend to get hyped up about it, very emotional,” said Euan C. Blauvelt, research director of a London-based independent market research firm. “The difference is that the arguments are becoming more rational.”

With 11,575 megawatts, the United States is the world’s third largest wind country, after Germany and Spain, and it is adding more capacity than any other. Among new countries with significant wind capacity are Britain, Canada, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands.

Christian Kjaer, the chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association in Brussels, said wind energy would benefit from two parallel trends: rising oil prices and a global push to tax carbon-dioxide emissions.

Germany, where 20,000 wind turbines generate 5 per cent of the electricity, is running out of places to put the turbines because of restrictions on the location and height of the devices.

Sweden has historically invested little in wind projects because it has two reliable sources of energy, nuclear and hydro, which each supply roughly half its power.

While Swedes staunchly support wind energy, they are as susceptible to the not-in-my-backyard opposition as people elsewhere. For years, residents opposed the wind farm near Malmo after the builders obtained permission to raise the height of the towers. But the campaign to block the project failed.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 26 Nov. 2007

The Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education Jagdish Kishwan has been nominated to the Jury Panel for the JSW Times of India Earth Care Awards. According to FRI PRO Dr. Paramjeet Singh, the jury will be chaired by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan and consist of members including Dr. R.K. Pachauri and Dr. A.S. Manekar. A noted forestry professional who has worked in important posts, Kishwan has actively contributed in fields of forest policy development, agroforestry, joint forest management, climate change and environment related forestry research and extension. He is credited for the concept of Compensated Conservation, which seeks rewards for countries implementing strong conservation policies resulting in improvement and enhancement of forest cover to lock more carbon. The newspaper group JSW – Time of India Earth Care Award for enterprises and communities who have contributed to bringing excellence in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. The award will be given in three categories namely, Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases in Small, Medium and Large Enterprises, Community led Action for Forestry, Land use Change and Water Resources Management and Innovation for Climate Protection.

The Himachal Times (New Delhi), 26 Nov. 2007

Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol were gleeful on Saturday after Australian elections left the US in the wilderness as the only major economy to boycott the UN’s climate pact. The ouster of Australian P.M. John Howard stripped President George Bush of a key ally barely a week before a conference in Bali, Indonesia, on the world’s response to climate change beyond 2012, they said.

“It’s great news for the Kyoto Protocol,” Shane Rattenburg, Greenpeace’s political director, said. “It’s a very important even in the international climate debate, and for Bali. It will leave Bush and the United States more isolated.” Industrialised countries that have signed and ratified the protocol are required to meet targeted curbs in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

In March 2001, Bush declared he would not submit the deal to US senate ratification. He has been steadfastly supported by Howard, a fellow conservative who argued that Kyoto was a waste of time as it lacks the world’s biggest emitter and tougher commitments from China and other emerging giants.

Howard’s successor, Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd, has said that he will seek ratification of Kyoto as soon as possible. An European diplomat said Howard’s departure would hamper US efforts to coax support from two other countries whose governments, eyeing the cost of meeting their Kyoto pledges, could waver at Bali. “We’re pleased about the (election) outcome,” he said. “It puts more pressure on the US and it helps us better handle the Canadians and the Japanese.”

Rattenburg said Australia, under Howard, had often played a “wrecking role” at the annual UNFCCC negotiations, such as demanding concessions for its forestry and striving to weaken or unpick deals. WWF’s climate change director, Hans Verolme, thought it unlikely that Rudd would have time to settle into office and play “a stronger, more positive role” at Bali itself. “But at least they (the Australians) won’t play a negative role anymore,” he said. He also believed that US isolation would boost the fast-growing climate lobby in Washington clamouring for America “to return to the negotiating table and take on an absolute emissions reduction target.

If Australia ratifies Kyoto, only 30 per cent of planetary emissions will come under the treaty.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 26 Nov. 2007

Emphasising the need to tackle climate change that is fast gripping the world, the United Nations said developed as well as developing countries should attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels, which could otherwise lead to food insecurity, water stress, exposure to climate disasters and negative impact on human health and extreme weather conditions.

“What is at stake is the very survival of life,” said Maxine Olson, UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator. She was releasing the Human Development Report - 2007/2008, which focuses on climate change. She said a part of the challenge was to make people adapt to climate change while the other part was to devise mitigation strategies. The report suggests that funds worth $86 billion would be required for developing adaptation mechanism by 2016.

UNDP policy specialist Ricardo Fuentes Nieva said developed countries should cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050 and developing nations should aim at emissions trajectory that peaks in 2020, with 20 per cent cut by 2050. He said the overall ‘global carbon budget’ is to achieve 14.56 giga tonnes (gt) carbon dioxide (CO2) a year for the 21st century from the present level of 29 gt per annum.

Speaking at the conference, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia said while the report makes important contribution but does not put forth an adequate measure on the basis of which practical negotiations—between developed and developing countries—to reduce emissions can take place. He said the developed and developing country framework suggested by UNDP to cut emissions “looks egalitarian, but it is not.”

He said the measures to reduce emissions should be conceived on the basis of per capita emission levels rather than absolute levels. “Any simulation that is conceived on the basis of absolute numbers is fundamentally wrong,” he said. “This is my only quarrel with the otherwise excellent report.”

Ahluwalia said the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has suggested the per capita framework at the G-8 countries summit in Heiligendamm (Germany) in June this year. He stressed the idea point as the policies to reduce emissions that might follow using the per capita approach could be significantly different from those using developed and developing country framework based on absolute numbers of the UNDP.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

Global climate change may adversely impact India’s efforts to improve the lot of its poor population, according to the 2007/08 human development report – Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World – which was released on Tuesday.

The report underlines the fact that in India changing rainfall pattern could hit agricultural productivity, directly affecting 60 per cent of the population who rely on this sector. While the continued retreat of the Himalayan glaciers could increase water scarcity, affecting almost 500 million people in South Asia.

Expressing concern over the prevalent climatic changes, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia said that a rising sea level will affect not only India but its neighbours as well, specially countries like Maldives. He stressed that by the end of the century all nations should strive to make a zero-emission world.

Terming the climate change as the avoidable catastrophe of 21st century and beyond, the report argues for a global carbon budget that would see emissions dropping to sustainable levels. It recommends that developed countries, which carry the burden of historic responsibility for the climate change problem, make deep and early cuts to their emissions so that by 2050 they are emitting 80 per cent less carbon than in 1990.

The report also points out that increased exposure to droughts, floods and storms is already destroying opportunity and reinforcing inequality. Helping people to adapt to inevitable climate change must be central to development planning.

“Steady progress has been made to improve people’s health, education and wealth in India. But a large human development backlog still exists. Superimposing climate change risks on this deficit could increase inequalities. Efforts to assist the poorest people adapt, need to be scaled up if the nation’s ambition of “inclusive growth” is to be realised,” said Maxine Olson, the United Nations Development Programme resident representative.

There is a window of opportunity for avoiding the most damaging climate change impacts, but that window is closing, the world has less than a decade to change course. The report notes that climate disasters are heavily concentrated in poor countries and some 262 million people were affected by climate disasters annually from 2000 to 2004, over 98 per cent of them in the developing world.

Another interesting fact which the report puts forth is that high levels of poverty and low levels of human development limit the capacity of poor households to manage climate risks. With limited access to formal insurance, low incomes and meagre assets, poor households have to deal with climate-related shocks under highly constrained conditions.

The Pioneer (Dehradun), 28 Nov. 2007

The UNDP’s annual Human Development Report (HDR) has performed the role of a book-keeper of human progress and there are, according to the latest volume, a great number of positives that need to be acknowledged and celebrated. Since the first HDR was published 17 years ago, the percentage of those living on less than a dollar a day has fallen from 29 per cent to 18 per cent. While child mortality rates have fallen significantly, life expectancy has increased by three years. The report makes a special acknowledgement of India’s emergence as a high-growth economy, which has led to what it terms as “enormous opportunities for accelerated human development”. It’s another matter, though, that in terms of HDR ranking, India still finds itself in the bottom half of the international pool.

This cumulative progress made by the world has, however, taken place under the growing shadow of a phenomenon that could halt human progress. In focusing on the theme of ‘Fighting Climate Change’, the HDR this time adds its voice and authority to a growing number of reports on the irreversible damage that the steady heating of the planet — scientists estimate that world temperatures have increased by 0.7o Celsius over the last 100 years — will wreak on human society. But with the threat comes opportunity. The doomsday projections are fortunately combined with some pragmatic measures that could change the way the world does business. This includes a raft of fiscal instruments and breakthrough technologies. To one of these, the Report fixes the adjective ‘breakthrough’: Carbon Capture and Storage — mark the acronym ‘CCS’, it may be with us for a while — could actually allow big coal users like India, China and the US to continue with this fossil fuel while containing its atmosphere damaging potential.

No region of the world or community can escape the consequences of climate change, but some are certainly more vulnerable. It should be of considerable concern to India that the glaciers of the Himalaya are receding at a rate of 10 to 15 metres a year. Yet not many in this country have fathomed the consequences that this could have for the country, in general, and their own lives in particular, or understood how other vulnerable communities have coped with extreme weather. UN reports and talk sessions like next week’s Bali meet on climate change can only go so far. Insights such as these need to be internalised and reflected in the way people live and markets function.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia today virtually tore apart the latest Human Development Report, which he released in New Delhi, saying the arguments it uses to show India as the fourth biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and its basis for arguing for emission cuts were false and unacceptable. He also rejected the recommendation of the report that "major emitters" in developing countries should aim at an emission trajectory that peaks in 2020 with 20 per cent cut by 2050.

He rejected the UNDP report’s basis for projecting emission cuts till 2050 for industrialised and developing countries like India saying it was based on an unfair formulation of total emissions of a country whereas the report totally ignored the proposal made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the G8 summit in Halligandam which was based on per capita emissions of a country.

He said the prime minister had clearly marked a departure from earlier positions of making no emission cuts. He had said since the industrialised countries have been complaining that the developing nations are exempted from all emission cuts, India was willing to do cuts as responsible global citizens. India was ready to give an undertaking that it would not exceed the per capita emissions of the rich countries. If the rich countries were really keen to save the planet, they can double their emission cuts.

Our quarrel with the UNDP report is that it totally omits mention of such a possibility of looking at per capita emissions, he said. He then went on to show how emission cuts based on total emissions of a country lead to targets which were unfair to poor nations like India. He said that the present position of the UN looked egalitarian when it said that the industrialised countries cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and the poor nations cut by 20 per cent. He was referring to the recommendation to this effect made by the report.

But reading between the lines, he said, it could be seen than an 80 per cent cut in emissions from 20 million tonne by US would still leave it with 3 million tonne but a 20 per cent cut in India’s emissions which are only 1 million tonnes would leave it at less than 0.8 million tonnes.

He said that prime minister’s argument has been supported twice by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He said he was challenging the research team of the report to make projections based on the premises offered by India too. “It must do supplementary work,” he said, adding, “The entire concept of major emitter was also not acceptable.” It is not a UN category and for the first time in a UN report, major emitters have been introduced as a category, he said. One can’t have categories that fail to project universality of the principle, he said, adding that the basis for determining major emitters was not acceptable to India.

UNDP Head Maxim Olsen defended the report and said that the purpose was to generate a discourse and it had succeeded in doing so. She also added that using per capita emissions as the basis for determining emission cuts would still lead to targets that went against the poor countries.

However Ahluwalia said the argument made by India was that India and other developing countries do not exceed the per capita emissions of rich countries while they cut down from the present levels.

The report titled “Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world” calls for developing a multilateral agency for delivering support for climate proofing of the poorer nations from the impacts of global warming.

Business Standard (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

Developed countries should cut their carbon emissions at least by 80 per cent by the year 2050, with 20-30 per cent cuts by 2030, if the earth has to be saved from a complete environmental catastrophe, says the Human Development Report (HDR) 2007 released on Tuesday.

The report also calls for 20 per cent cuts in carbon emissions by fast growing economies like India and China. These steps would stabilise CO2 equivalent concentration at 450 parts per million in the atmosphere (currently it is 379 ppm). The cost of this process would be only 1.6 per cent of global GDP up to 2030.

To achieve these emission targets, the report proposes a set of policies which include carbon taxation, cap-and-trade programmes, reduction in emission quotas, encouraging renewable energy through economic incentives, stringent implementation of efficiency measures in industry, buildings and transport and support to breakthrough technologies for carbon capture and storage.

The United Nations Development Programme's annual report focuses on various aspects of human development like health, gender and poverty every year. The 2007 report makes a strong case for action on climate change which it calls the "defining human development issue of our generation".

Drawing upon the scientific evidence revealed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN report says that there is a small window of opportunity in this century for limiting the global temperature increase to 2^oC.

If this is not done, humanity will face a series of climatic changes that will wreak havoc on the planet. These will include flooding of coastal areas, crop failures, epidemics, severe water scarcity, and increase in natural disasters.

In perhaps the most severe indictment of the way governments have been handling the issue of climate change, this year’s report says "the gap between scientific evidence and political response remains large".

"The world's poor and future generations cannot afford the complacency and prevarication that continues to characterise international negotiations on climate change" it says, calling for a slew of measures to hasten global cooperation on the issue.

World leaders are slated to meet in Bali, Indonesia, in December this year to discuss measures for controlling carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol which called for voluntary cuts in emissions is set to expire in 2012, but major emitters like the US and Australia have not signed it.

Through studies conducted in Ethiopia, India and elsewhere, the HDR shows that global warming will lead to floods and droughts. The Indian study shows that girls born during floods were less likely to attend primary school, causing harm to their future standards of living. The Ethiopian study shows that children born during periods of drought continue to suffer severe health handicaps throughout their lives.

According to the report, climate change will affect the world's poor most. Global warming will initiate droughts and flooding which will destroy the sources of livelihood for poor people in Africa, Asia and South America.

The poorer sections will also be the most prone to health disasters like spread of malaria and diarrhoea. HDR 2007 also makes a strong case for "common but differentiated responsibility" in fighting climate change implying that the rich countries have to take the main responsibility for controlling emissions. It identifies the "profligate consumption in rich nations" as an ecologically unsustainable model.

It reveals that under various funds created to fight climate change, $279 million were pledged, but only $160.4 million have been received and a mere $26 million actually disbursed. "Having created the problem, the world's richest countries cannot stand aside and watch the hopes and aspirations of the world's poor undermined by increased exposure to the risks and vulnerabilities that will come with climate change."

The Times of India (New Delhi), 29 Nov. 2007

Global warming is not a future apocalypse, but a present reality for many of the world's poorest people, according to the most hard-hitting United Nations report yet on climate change, published yesterday.

A catalogue of the "climate shocks" that have already hit the world is set out in the Human Development Report 2007/08. Fewer than two per cent of these have affected rich countries. Europe had its most intense heat wave for 50 years and Japan its greatest number of tropical cyclones in a single year. But far more intense drought, floods and storms than usual have plagued the developing world.

Monsoons displaced 14 million people in India, seven million in Bangladesh and three million in China which has seen the heaviest rainfall – and second highest death toll – since records began. Cyclones blasted Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Hurricanes devastated the Caribbean and Central America, killing more than 1,600 Mayan people in Guatemala. Droughts have afflicted Africa, driving 14 million people from their homes.

In the rich world, insurers report a fivefold increase in climate-related insurance claims. In the poor world the cost is counted in terms of hidden human suffering, for most disasters are under-reported.

Based on new climate modelling, the UN report has a number of strong messages. It is highly critical of US, EU and British policies on global warming it says the measures in Gordon Brown's Climate Change Bill are "not consistent with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change".

However, its top-line message is that the fixation of campaigners like Al Gore with a long-term "we're all doomed" vision of global warming has diverted attention from more immediate threats.

Already, its new research shows, children born in Ethiopia in years of drought are 41 per cent more likely to be stunted from malnutrition than those born in a time of rains. That has already created two million more malnourished children – and this is not an affliction that is shaken off when the rains return. It creates cycles of life-long disadvantage.

The report shows how climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – reduced nutrition, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending which damage the long-term health of entire societies.

After 150 years in which human well-being has steadily improved, the world is now facing the prospect that progress on indicators such as poverty, nutrition, literacy and infant mortality will be arrested. "It may even be reversed," said the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins, who was formerly head of research at Oxfam.

The report says George Bush's home-state of Texas (population 23 million) has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (population 720 million).

The report also criticises Britain's policy on climate change. The UK is the world leader on rhetoric, it says, yet "if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".

The report says two things need to be done. Rich nations need to massively cut emissions (by at least 80 per cent) and developing and emerging nations need to make modest cuts (of around 20 per cent). Also, large amounts of money are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Hardly anything is being spent in the poor world, where people were least responsible for global warming but suffer most. The amounts donated to the UN's climate change mitigation fund have been equivalent to only one week's worth of spending under the UK's flood defence programme.

The Statesman (New Delhi), 30 Nov. 2007

The Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, R.K. Pachauri, has expressed confidence that the coming Thirteenth Conference of Parties to the International Framework Convention on Climate (COP 13) would have a positive outcome.

He said he was confident that the conference could help in setting out a road map for the period beyond 2010, when the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. “In the past, several delegations had had a negative approach. Now, they could be supporting the dialogue on climate change issues, at the least,” he said. Several world leaders would participate in the discussions at the conference, including the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who shared the Noble Peace Prize with IPCC.

Asked what India’s stand should be at the conference, particularly in the context of repeated efforts of by the developed countries to get India and other developing nations to also take on some commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he made it clear that time was had not yet come for India and other developing countries to take on commitments. Noting that the steps implemented by developed countries to meet their obligations for reducing the emissions were “totally inadequate,” he said that India and other developing countries, however, need to take some action to reduce their emissions for their own benefit. “We have to be doing something for local reasons and not because of any obligations to the rest of the world or for global compulsions.”

Among other things, there was a need for more action on the adaptation front, to prepare the world to face sea level rise and other impacts of climate change.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

Droughts in Africa, hurricanes in America, floods in Bangladesh — the dramatic images of climate change. However, according to Dr. Juergen Zimmerer, if temperatures continue to rise, there could worse in store: genocide.

Dr. Zimmerer, director of the new Centre for the study of genocide and mass violence at Sheffield University in northern England, explains that globalisation has intensified the competition for resources. “Climate change will increase the scarcity of resources, be it habitable land or drinkable water, amid the already existing shortage of fossil energy such as oil.”

“Genocide and competition over resources are definitely related and my fear is that the 21st century, rather than the 20th, will turn out to be the century of genocides,” he says.

The possibility of genocide being caused by globalisation, climate change and competition for scarce resources will be one of the focal areas of study at the centre, the first of its kind in the U.K.

Dehumanisation of groups
As well as competition for living space, genocide results from the dehumanisation of one group by another. “The key condition for genocide is to have two groups, with the dominant one considering the other to be its polar opposite. Once you define a group as ‘not human’ or ‘sub-human’, ordinary people will do things which they would not do to people they regarded as fellow human beings.”

Dr. Zimmerer adds that the “biologisation of identity” in modern times has fostered genocidal violence. In the pre-industrial world, where people’s identities were shaped around their birthplace, religion or allegiance to a monarch, one could convert to a new religion, for example. In modern times, identities have increasingly formed along national and racial lines, which one cannot change, and groups are able to dehumanise others on biological grounds. (Guardian Newspaper Limited, 2007)

The Hindu (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

Without sounding alarmist it can be said that climate change is upon us, like it or not. And its consequences are also distressing in the potential of the effects it is likely to have, particularly on the poorer countries like Bangladesh.

These are issues of security, call it by whatever name you choose to, national or human or state. This matter has once again been highlighted by several NGOs to the media, ahead of the UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali next December.

The climate change is likely to have the most damaging impact on the poorer countries, which is already being felt, wherein the indigents will be affected the most.

It gives little comfort to know that a rise of 1 degree Celsius in temperature might cause as much as 15 per cent of our land to go under water. As it is, we have to contend with a steady loss of agricultural land for various reasons, not least of all due to urbanisation.

The additional loss, and the impact on our food security, as a result of the changes, must not be lost on our planners.

Other than generalisations, however, on the genesis, possible escalation and the ramifications of the global warming phenomenon, gleaned from international publications and media reports, we do not have any knowledge-base capacity internally to study and interpret it on a time scale.

It is largely because of the fact that while the issue has received a good deal of verbal attention of governments and experts, in matters of state policy, it has been practically a low priority concern.

We have a crop of environmental scientists working at home and abroad who are doing their bit in studying greenhouse emissions and its unfolding effects on the life in vulnerable parts of the planet.

They are also participating in international conferences taking issues with the developed countries but the issue here is to develop knowledge-based approaches to assessing what impacts, long and short term, global warming will have on Bangladesh and evolving a preparedness strategy to meet the multifaceted challenge.

We have to enhance our connectivity with the international research organisations and think-tanks to bring to bear their inputs on to our understanding of the survival issues involved to be able to shape our strategies to meet them.

The Statesman (New Delhi), 29 Nov. 2007

Scorching heat waves linked to climate change have caused thousands of Australian bats to drop dead after flapping their wings in a desperate bid to cool off, according to a study published on Wednesday.

On one day alone in 2002, up to 6 per cent of the flying foxes in a nine colonies in New South Wales died when temperatures hit 42 degrees, according to the study.

Most alarming, said the biologists, was the mortality rate among young bats: as high as 50 per cent.

“The effects of temperature extremes on flying foxes highlight complex implications of climate change for behaviour, demography and species survival,” says the study, published by the Royal Society, Britain’s de-facto academy of sciences.

The fruit-eating, winged mammals play a critical role in local ecosystems, helping to pollinate wild and cultivated crops and disperse seeds, the researchers point out.

Besides an increase in extreme weather, flying foxes, are also threatened by human encroachment of their habitat. They are often killed out right as pests.

The two species most affected by heat waves, Pteropus alecto and Pteropus poliocephalus, are listed as “vulnerable” on the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, adopted in 1995.

The U.N.’s climate change panel said in an authoritative new report on global warming this year that rising average temperatures have already begun to provoke more intense and more frequent heat waves.

Humans are subject to the effects of such extremes as well: 15,000 deaths were attributed to a month-long hot spell in 2003 in France alone, the panel said.

Exploring the impact of high temperatures on flying foxes, a team of British and Australian researchers led by Justin Welbergen of Cambridge University staked out several mixed-species colonies in Dallis Park, in Australia.

On January 12, 2002, in the middle of the Australian summer, the scientists observed how the bats – hanging from exposed canopy trees – reacted to the heat. First the animals sought shade and began “wing fanning” to cool themselves, they reported. Within a couple of hours the flying foxes were panting, and soon they were drooling saliva.

Finally, “individuals began falling from the trees… and died within 10-20 minutes,” the study found.

The researchers estimate that over 30,000 flying foxes have died due to heat waves since 1994 during 19 similar events. (AFP)

The Hindu (New Delhi), 29 Nov. 2007

The Prime Minister's Council on Climate held its second meeting here on Monday to give shape to a national agenda for dealing with climate change, ahead of a crucial meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month which will discuss the future global strategy to tackle the issue.

The meeting of the PM’s council discussed a report prepared by Principal Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister R. Chidambaram on a possible roadmap for India to counter effects of climate change.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Media Advisor Sanjay Baru told The Indian Express that the council members made several suggestions to improve the report and it was decided that the 21-member council should hold another meeting soon.

With just one week to go before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali from December 3 to 14, India is in the process of finalising its negotiating strategy at the meet.

The two-week meet in Bali, which will include the 13^th session of the Conference of Parties, or COP13 as it is called, will discuss a future framework on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire in 2012.

India has ruled out any emission cut targets for developing countries even in the post-Kyoto framework and this is expected to be the central argument in the country's negotiating strategy at Bali.

Chairman of the Nobel Prize winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) R.K. Pachauri, who is a member of the PM's council, was also of the view that developing countries need not agree to undertake emission commitments.

“I see no reason why the developing countries would like to succumb to the pressure from the developed world to take emission cuts,” Pachauri told reporters here.

However, he was of the opinion that the developing countries should slowly but surely move towards cleaner technologies and try to reduce their emissions on their own.

“We should be doing this for our local reasons not because under any global compulsions,” he said.

Pachauri said the record of the developed countries in fulfilling their emission targets as mandated in the Kyoto Protocol was far from satisfactory.

“But because there is unprecedented public awareness about the issue, there would be sharp focus on each country delegation at the Bali meeting and the postures that they adopt. I have a feeling that the tough stance that some developed countries have taken will loosen under this public gaze,” he said.

He said he had a very optimistic outlook for the Bali meeting and hoped that it would come out with some positive development like agreement on a future roadmap.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 28 Nov. 2007

The future of the planet may be at stake. Delegates from 190 countries gather on the resort island of Bali over the next two weeks to try to head off a scientific forecast of catastrophic floods and droughts, melting caps, disappearing coastlines and deadly heat waves.

As they begin negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, they will largely tinker with and test phrasings and nuance. Some words – “commitments,” “binding,” “voluntary” – could set off storms of argument before the conference ends December 14. But that is to be expected when drawing together nations rich and poor with very different political and historical backgrounds, said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environmental Program, adding that the main thing is that dialogue is taking place.

“We are in midst of an unprecedented and historic challenge,” he said, adding that attendees will “confront a fundamental phenomena of environmental change that has the potential to threaten the global economy…. It is central to the future development of this planet.”

Last month in Spain, a Nobel Prize-winning UN network of scientists issued a capstone report after six years of study saying that carbon and other heat-trapping “greenhouse gas” emissions must stabilize by 2015 and then decline. Without action, they said, temperatures will rise, changing the world. The Arctic cap melted this year by the greatest extent on record. Scientists say oceans are losing some ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, the chief industrial emission blamed for warming. And the world’s power plants, cars and jetliners are spewing out carbon at an unprecedented rate.

Un Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who will attend the last three days of the conference, said last month he believes “we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act.” He has made combating climate one of his top priorities since taking the reins of the world body on January 1, recently visiting fast-warming corner of icy Antarctica, receding glaciers in Chile and the jungles of the Amazon.

The Economic Times (New Delhi) 2 Dec. 2007

Climate change is the biggest story of the 21st century. But its sheer complexity is defeating us. Now as the world prepares to burn more carbon miles to travel to the paradise of Bali in Indonesia for the 13th Conference of Parties to the climate Convention, it will discuss, once again, what it knows it needs to do. We can only hope that this time the response will be different and desperate. The problem is that even as science is certain of the disaster that awaits us, the politics of climate change stinks.

After years of procrastination, the industrialised countries agreed in 1997 to make a small cut in their gargantuan emission, in the interest of all. These cuts were nowhere close to what was needed to avert climate change. The fact (mostly unsaid) is these countries have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to contain their emissions. Between 1990 and 2005, rich countries emissions have gone up by 11 per cent. Emissions of countries like the US have increased by 20 per cent, and Australia’s by 37 per cent. They have all reneged on their commitment. They have let us all down.

But how can they get away with this? Why is the focus on China and India; still much poorer and already more environmentally responsible for action?

The reason is two-fold. One, the rich can ‘officially’ fudge because they are allowed to use low emissions from the collapsed economies of the former Soviet Union countries to dilute the statistics. Two, they get away with it because world opinion backs them. After all, emissions are related to wealth and power. Who will rock this boat?

We also know that it is the world’s need for energy – to run everything from factories to cars – that is the cause of climate change. After years of talk, no country has been able to delink growth from a rise in carbon dioxide emissions. The rich countries’ energy industry-related emissions have increased 24 per cent in the 1990-2005 period – when they had committed to change. No country has shown how to build a low-carbon economy or reinvent the growth path - as yet.

This then is the challenge. After years of talk, new renewable energy – wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels –comprises just about 0.5 per cent of the world’s primary energy supply. It is misleading to say that renewable sources add more electricity than nuclear power. It is old renewable – hydroelectric power –which makes the world light up. It is tragic that the world is hiding behind the poverty of its people to fudge its maths. The renewable sector is made up of the biomass combustion – firewood, cowdung, leaves and twigs – used by the desperately poor to cool and light their homes. This is providing the world its breathing space.

It is not ironical that though science tells us drastic reductions are needed, no country is talking about limiting consumption? This is when every analysis proves that efficiency is part of the answer but is meaningless without sufficiency. Cars have become more fuel-efficient but people just drive more and have more cars. Emissions keep rising.

The world must realize the bitter truth. Equity is a prerequisite for an effective climate agreement. The fact is that without co-operation, this global agreement will not work. It is for this reason that the world must seriously consider the concept of equal per capita emission entitlements so that the rich reduce and the poor do not go beyond their climate quota. We need responsible and effective action on climate change.

The choice for our leaders is clear. They can be key players at this critical juncture. Or they can join the mock games. They can deny the urgency of climate change. Or they can fight for the victims of climate change and demand much more effective action from the rich world. They can pretend that the problem will go away once they get rich. Or they can provide leadership to the rich and the poor world by showing a different pathway to growth.

But we must not give our leaders this empty choice. We must insist there is only one way – the right and climate effective way. Climate change is an extraordinary response. We will accept nothing less. We cannot.

Business Standard (New Delhi), 4 Dec. 2007

We have read the science. Global warming is real, and we are a prime cause.

We have heard the warnings. Unless we act, now, we face serious consequences. Polar ice may melt. Sea levels will rise. A third of our plant and animal species could vanish. There will be famine around the world, particularly in Africa and Central Asia.

Largely lost in the debate is the good news. We can do something about this — more easily, and at far less cost, than most of us imagine.

These are the conclusions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body that recently shared the Nobel peace prize. It is sobering reading, but we must not miss its optimistic bottom line: to repeat, we can do this — in ways that are both affordable and promote prosperity.

This week, world leaders gather for the summit in Bali. We need a breakthrough: a comprehensive climate change agreement that all nations can embrace. We must set an agenda — a road map to a better future, coupled with a tight time-line that produces a deal by 2009.

We do not yet know what such an accord might look like. Should it tax greenhouse gas emissions, or create an international carbon-trading system? Should it provide mechanisms for preventing de-forestation, accounting for 20 per cent of CO2 emissions, or help less developed nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming — effects weighing disproportionately on them? Should it emphasise conservation and renewable fuels, like biomass or nuclear power, and make provisions for transferring new “green” technologies around the world?

The answer, of course, is some variation on all the above — and much, much more. If the negotiations bog down in the sheer breadth and complexity of the issues, we lose our most precious resource: time. In this, it helps to have a vision of how the future might look, if we succeed. That is not merely a cleaner, healthier, more secure world for all. Handled correctly, our fight against global warming could, in fact, set the stage for an eco-friendly transformation of the global economy — one that spurs growth and development rather than crimps it, as many national leaders fear.

We have witnessed three economic transformations in the past century. First came the industrial revolution, then the technology revolution, followed by our modern era of globalisation. We stand, now, at the threshold of another great change: the age of green economics.

The evidence is all about us, often in unexpected places. Visiting South America recently, I saw how Brazil has become one of the biggest players in green economics, drawing some 44 per cent of its energy needs from renewable fuels. World average: 13 per cent. The figure in Europe: 6.1 per cent.

Much is made of the fact that China is poised to surpass the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Less well-known, however, are its more recent efforts to confront grave environmental problems. China will invest $10 billion in renewable energy this year, second only to Germany. It has become a world leader in solar and wind power. At a recent summit of East Asian leaders in Singapore, Premier Wen Jiabao pledged to reduce energy consumption (per unit of GDP) by 20 per cent over five years — not so far removed, in spirit, from Europe’s commitment to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Way of the future
This is the way of the future. According to some estimates, growth in global energy demand could be cut in half over the next 15 years simply by deploying existing technologies yielding a return on investment of 10 per cent or more. The new IPCC report lays out the very practical ways, from tougher standards for air conditioners and refrigerators to improved efficiency in industry, building and transport. It estimates that overcoming serious climate may cost as little as 0.1 per cent of global GDP a year over the next three decades.

Growth need not suffer and in fact may accelerate. Research by the University of California at Berkeley indicates that the United States could create 300,000 jobs if 20 per cent of electricity needs were met by renewables. A leading Munich consulting firm predicts that more people will be employed in Germany’s enviro-technology industry than in the auto industry by the end of the next decade. The U.N. Environment Programme estimates that global investment in zero-greenhouse energy will reach $1.9 trillion by 2020 — seed money for a wholesale reconfiguration of global industry.

Already, businesses in many parts of the world are demanding clear public policies on climate change, regardless of what form they might take — regulation, emissions caps, efficiency guidelines. The reason is obvious. Business needs ground rules. Helping to create them is very much the role of the United Nations.

Our job, in Bali and beyond, is to shape this nascent global transformation — to open the door to the age of green economics and green development. What’s missing is a global framework within which we, the world’s peoples, can coordinate our efforts to fight climate change.

The scientists have done their job. Now it’s up to the politicians. Bali is a test of their leadership. What are we waiting for?

The Hindu (New Delhi), 4 Dec. 2007

At Bali, where 190 countries are debating on how to safeguard the future of the Earth, India finds itself under siege. But batting for its right to development, India has found its best friends across the borders – China and Pakistan.

On the first day of the Bali meet, it was clear that officials of the developed world were working to a script – piling on the pressure on India and China to bring them into the tent of emission cuts.

But, in a rare demonstration of solidarity, India and China have teamed up and officials of both countries are working together on every issue – from emission reductions to setting targets for energy intensity.

At the ad-hoc working group meeting on Monday, India was told, “You have the largest number of billionaires. Why can’t you accept cuts and targets.”

The riposte from Indian and Chinese officials was almost instantaneous. “We are large countries. Our poverty is just as large,” they said.

The border dispute and other troubles seem far away for officials at the climate change frontlines – their only brief is to ensure that India and China have the space and opportunity to grow unhindered by cuts and targets. So, anybody expecting India and China to play differently were disappointed- through the day there was a frantic toing and froing between the officials to make sure the two countries were on the same page.

And they have help – from Pakistan. Pakistan is now the chairman of the G-77 and in that role, has been providing valuable back- up support to the two Asian biggies.

Climate change has now become a huge security issue for the developed and developing worlds, but in vastly different ways.

The threat to western lifestyles as a result of emission cuts is becoming difficult politically. So while Australia, under new PM Kevin Rudd, took a U-turn by ratifying Kyoto, Canada, under conservative Stephen Harper, took a different turn.

For the developing world, India’s battle is to push the idea of per capita emissions as a unit of measurement. That’s not yet acceptable across the pond. The battle is now fairly joined. It continues…

The Times of India (New Delhi), 5 Dec. 2007

American climate negotiators refused to back down in their opposition to mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on Thursday, even as a US Senate panel endorsed sharp reductions in pollution blamed for global warming.

The US, the world’s largest producer of such gases, has resisted calls for strict limits on emissions at the UN climate conference, which is aimed at launching negotiations for an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

That stance suffered a blow when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill on Wednesday to cut US emissions by 70 per cent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation. The bill now goes to the full Senate.

US climate negotiator Harlan Watson, however, said that would not impact Washington’s position at the international gathering in Bali.

“In our process, a vote for movement of a bill out of committee does not ensure its ultimate passage,” he said. “I don’t know the details, but we will not alter our posture here.”

It was the first bill calling for mandatory US limit on greenhouse gases to be taken up in Congress since global warming emerged as an environmental issue more than two decades ago.

Republican critics of the bill argued that limiting the emissions could become a hardship because of higher energy costs.

Washington’s isolation in Bali has increased following Australia’s announcement on Monday that it has reversed its opposition to the Kyoto pact and started the ratification process. That left the US as the only industrialised nation to oppose the agreement.

The US Senate action cheered environmentalists and others in Bali clamouring for dramatic action to stop global warming. UN climate chief Yvo de Boer led off his daily briefing on Thursday by hailing the “encouraging sign” from the US.

“This is a very welcome development,” Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said of the Senate measure. “It shows the increasing isolation of the Bush administration in terms of US policy on this issue.”

David Waskow, of the Oxfam humanitarian agency, said the Senate legislation was a positive signal to developing nations and others in Bali that America may be ready to assume a more active role in battling climate change.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 07 Dec. 2007

If Delhi, in comparison to other world cities, or India, compared to other countries, has a higher forest cover that it maintains at the cost of further economic development, should other countries pay for the upkeep of these global green lungs? The chances of getting the 190 countries at the UN climate change meet in Bali to agree to such a proposal got bleak on Thursday with the issue dividing even staunch allies like Brazil and India.

“Payment for avoiding deforestation” turned into a highly divisive issue on Thursday. Not only did the expected rich-poor country divide slow the negotiations but cracks in the G-77 ran the talks to a near standstill. “If G-77 doesn’t figure out a common position, then the issue could just fall off the table,” an Indian official in Bali told TOI.

Most of the world’s forests are stacked up in the tropics. With forests working as global sinks, absorbing the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, countries maintaining natural forests are seen as providing a global service at the cost of their own economic development.

If the gathered countries accept the principle of inter-country payment for maintenance of these sinks, the rich countries would end up paying poor and developing countries to help them avoid deforestation.

But the state of the forests in these developing countries has also led them to take up different positions within the G-77 formation. Brazil, suffering high rates of deforestation, demanded that such payments be made for pure “avoided deforestation”. Costa Rica, a country known for its work on wildlife preservation through market instruments, wants such payments to support conservation work as well. India wants funds to flow even for forest management and not merely avoiding deforestation. This could, it believes; provide funds not only to the government but also industry and the large number off village living in proximity to forests.

While India could gain in either of the above conditional ties, Brazil wants its position to sail through as the G-77 countries were still negotiating a way out of the impasse, with delegates sitting late into the night.

“If we don’t find a consensus by Friday morning, then each key G-77 country will end up taking it’s independent position in the negotiations. With such a fractured mandate, negotiations won’t be able to make a headway in Bali,” the Indian official said. “The best we were hoping for was an in-principle acceptance of the idea, not a detailed scheme to come out of Bali. But if key players from the developing world don’t come together on this, the rich countries will just sit back and play on the division to let the issue drag out of Bali,” another senior official said from Bali.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 8 Dec. 2007

India won a major battle at the global climate change meet at Bali on Monday with the 190 countries gathered there agreeing to set up an Adaptation Fund Board which will fund developing countries in securing themselves against risk from climate change like sea level rise and crop productivity declines.

While the fund has been in existence for a while with a kitty of &67 million collected so far, it has been almost non-functional with the industrialised countries not focusing on the issue. For the past one week in Bali, India along with other G-77 countries was demanding that the fund be operationalised by setting up an independent board.

“This is a good step ahead and the first victory for India at Bali,” an India official involved in the negotiations told TOI. The board will receive projects from developing and poor countries, evaluate and clear them. “Vulnerable countries can put the proposal directly to the board and don’t have to go through a cumbersome process,” the official explained. The board will be able to lend to any agency from these countries that can meet some minimum fiscal and technical critera. While some of the small island states and least developed countries had opposed such criteria, they have accepted them now.

The board will have one member each from all the UN blocks of countries along with one member from the least developed countries, one from small island countries and one from non-industrialised countries. India will be one of the leading candidates for a 2 per cent tax on the carbon credit business with WB in charge of the financial end of the business.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 12 Dec. 2007

Delegates at United Nations climate talks in Indonesia must agree to a timeline for a new accord on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, or they will have failed the world’s people, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said today.

Representatives from around the world are gathered in Bali to kick off talks for a new global accord to curb emissions blamed for global warming. Ministers from more than 130 nations begin meeting today to set an agenda for talks to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The US is at odds with the European Union and the UN over whether the negotiating guidelines for the next two years should specify targets for greenhouse gas reductions. An early UN draft called for industrialised countries to cut emissions by as much as 40 per cent by 2020. The US opposes that goal.

“You need to set an agenda, a roadmap to a more secure climate future, coupled with a tight timeline culminating in 2009,” Ban told ministers gathered on the resort island.

A new treaty to replace Kyoto must have industrialised countries taking the lead, though developing countries should also “limit” the growth in their emissions, Ban said.

“This is the moral challenge of our generation,” he said. “Not only are the eyes of the world upon us, more importantly, succeeding generations depend on us.”

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said developed nations should take a “leadership role” in efforts to slow the effects of global warming, and that the US must be part of any new treaty.

“The worst thing that can happen here is to end our conference with no consensus, with no breakthrough and it’s all business as usual,” Yudhoyono told delegates at the conference. “We should avoid this scenario at all costs.”

The Kyoto Protocol binds 36 nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a combined 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. US President George W. Bush has refused to ratify the Kyoto accord and the treaty doesn’t require mandatory reductions for developing countries such as China.

China and the US, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluters, each say they want the other to take on binding commitments to limit emissions in order to participate in a new accord. China’s officials say the country needs to expand its economy, while the Bush administration says it is concerned that emissions caps will harm economic competitiveness.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today met the UN Secretary General Ban to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, reversing the stance of former Prime Minister John Howard, who argued that ratifying the accord would cut economic growth and cost jobs.

“We expect all developed countries to embrace a further set of binding emissions targets and we need this meeting at Bali to map out a process and timeline for this to happen,” Rudd said. “We need developing countries to play their part, with specific commitments for action.”

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Michael Somers urged the world’s richest nations to help tropical forest countries tackle climate change by rewarding them for not cutting down trees. Deforestation accounts for at least 20 per cent of the world’s global-warming pollution.

“If we lose the world’s forests we lose the fight against climate change,” Somare said today at a UN meeting of high-level ministers gathered in Indonesia to begin talks for a new global climate change treaty.

Papua New Guinea earlier this week proposed a plan for tropical rainforest countries to get credit for emission reductions made from 2008 to 2012. The move would potentially give the nations greater access to a carbon emissions trading now valued at more than S30 billion.

Climate change treaty negotiators weakened a draft proposal that included Papua New Guinea’s plan as countries, including the US, which opposes carbon emission trading markets, says all options should be on the negotiating table as opposed to specific proposals.

Business Standard (New Delhi), 13 Dec. 2007

Did Al Gore wave a magic wand? Or did the Nobel Peace Prize award to Gore and the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change add to US pressure? Maybe the European Union’s veiled threats –to boycott any future US-initiated meeting including the Honolulu meeting in January 2008 of “big emitters” –spurred the US to take a U-turn at the UN Convention on Climate Change at Bali. Whatever prompted the US to say ‘yes’, the affirmation has changed the complexion of future climate change negotiations. Representatives from 190 countries brainstormed for over two weeks to come to an agreement on negotiating for an international treaty that would replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that recommended emissions cuts targets for developed countries to deal with the climate change challenge.

The Bush administration’s last-minute change of heart could have been intended as a ploy to accept the best deal under the circumstances since, clearly, the US could no longer absolve itself of responsibility in the global struggle to cut back greenhouse gas emissions. The EU’s face-off with the US, Canada and Japan was on the former’s insistence to provide for mandatory emission cuts by industrialized countries by 25-40 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. That has now been sorted out with the US and other agreeing that “deep cuts” in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective, avoiding mention of specific emissions targets. The language, however, set the tone for serious discussions that will formulate future emissions targets in the 2009 Denmark meeting.

The real breakthrough at Bali is doubtless the coming on board of all countries to confront the problem of climate change. How this would be achieved will be decided through dialogue and agreement by 2009. The universal consensus –backed by the IPCs scientific analysis and projections –acknowledges that climate change is happening; that it is caused by dirty growth and that no country or region can afford to exclude itself from converting to sustainable development. Which is why voluntary, softer emissions targets for India and other major developing countries –with infusion of clean technology inputs from rich countries –would find space.

There was consensus too, for instance, that forest protection would earn credits, and that the adaptation fund would finance clean technology transfer to developing countries. US compliance could be the result of pressure from an increasingly aware and concerned American public. If so, it means any future administration cannot afford to set the clock back by pulling out of negotiations and agreements initiated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Times of India (New Delhi), 17 Dec. 2007

The 13th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which concluded in Bali in Indonesia on last Saturday was a partial success. It has some good message for the rural community.

The world leaders recognised that 20 per cent of the global emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) can be contained by forestation. The programme, Reducing Emissions from Deforest-ation and Degradation (REDD) aims to compensate the developing countries in the tropical region to maintain their forests and discourages deforestation. It allows developing countries to sell carbon offsets to rich countries in return for not burning their tropical forests from 2013.

REDD initiative is the need of the hour when largescale deforestation is taking place across the world for urbanisation, oil palm, soyabean and bio-fuel crop plantation.

The Bali conference also stressed upon the urgent need to cut carbon and methane emissions from tropical forests.

The Bali conference also adopted a resolution on adaptation fund to help poor nations to cope with damage from climate change impact like droughts, extreme weather conditions or rising seas. The Adaptation Fund now comprises only about $36 million but might rise to $1-$5 billion a year by 2030, if investments in green technology in developing nations surges. The fund distinguished the responsibilities of the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank. The fund would have a 16-member board largely from developing countries and would start operating from 2008.

Senior researchers of the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) had urged the developed countries to urgently discuss adaptation funds as the key to solution of the problems. The lead author of the recent UNDP report, Kevin Watkins said that as per estimate $86 billion annually. "The figure looks large, but actually it is only 0.2 per cent of the rich countries GDP," he said and added that adaptation fund sourced from multilateral funding in the last two years was only $26 million—the amount spent by UK alone on flood control for a week.

A group of small island communities led by Biotani Indonesia Foundation has urged that the adaptation fund should include a special corpus to cover their initiatives.

The Bali conference succeeded in adopting a resolution on technology tranfer and also Its monitoring. It, however, failed address the vital issue of cut in GHG emissions and deferred it till 2009.

It also postponed until next year any consideration of a plan to fund an untested technology which captures and buries the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, emitted from power plants that burn fossil fuels.

It also failed to agree whether or not to allow companies to sell carbon offsets from destroying new production of powerful greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Benefiting factories have been the biggest winners under a UN scheme to reward companies which cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Financial Express (New Delhi), 17 Dec. 2007

The past fortnight has brought to the fore noteworthy, but not entirely independent, developments in matters relating to global warming. Firstly, countries are saying and agreeing to one thing, and doing another. Secondly, help to developing countries has hitherto not received adequate attention, but a start may have been made. Finally, the unglamorous task of monitoring and verification of emissions needs to develop credible and ascertainable methodologies to impart confidence in the veracity of estimates.

The Bali conference had sought to finalise an agenda on the basis of which countries are committed to negotiating a new agreement to be concluded by 2009. The conference took place against the backdrop of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (FAR-IPCC), which emphasised that greenhouse gases (GHGs) should peak by 2015 and that emission cuts by 2020 of 25-40 per cent by rich countries are needed to prevent the possibility of a 4 degree centigrade rise in global temperatures. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) binds signatories to reducing emission of GHGs by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels over the period 2008-2012.

It is helpful to assess the progress at Bali in terms of meeting long, medium and short-term challenges of global warming. It is also apposite to gauge evolution in this subject area in the light of recent occurrences that are symptomatic of the hype and insincerity of national governments. Starting with the long-term objective of cutting emissions in consonance with FAR-IPCC, the Bali talks failed to agree on specific targets because the US was against them. At the same time, the US was forced to drop its demand that emission targets for developing countries should be part of the road map, as also its opposition to developing countries’ demand for technological and financial help.

Indeed, judging by outcomes, the results are sobering for proponents of KP-type targets and the associated cap-and-trade system — for example, the EU-Emissions Trading Scheme. Were it not for the industrial collapse of Russia and the Ukraine, the KP’s register of GHG emissions shows an increase since 1990. In five of the EU-15 countries, emissions increased more than in the US between 1990 and 2005, and even in Japan emissions are increasing. Furthermore, determining whether reductions would have taken place in the absence of projects under the clean development mechanism (CDM) can be complex, which is another way of saying that we are unsure whether it has actually worked for the proximate objective of mitigating global emissions.

If the track record of present schemes to reduce emissions has been poor, recent laxity in national environmental policies is acutely worrisome for long-term GHG targets. The British oil giant, BP, is the latest oil company that will extract crude oil from tar sands found beneath prime forest in Alberta, Canada. The oil sands industry, by producing up to 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, will make it difficult for Canada to meet its commitments under the KP. Can a country that is prosperous by every conceivable measure — and is reported to have harangued developing countries at Bali to agree to emission targets — justify exploitation of such an environmentally damaging resource?

Recent research at Oxford University suggests, that the UK may be responsible for far more GHG emissions than official figures admit, once carbon embedded in imported goods and aviation is included. According to official figures, UK’s emissions are 15 per cent below that in 1990, compared to the commitment under the KP of 12.5 per cent. Emissions have been measured from the standpoint of national ‘production’ of GHGs, and not the consumption-based carbon footprint of residents of a country, which is what the latest research seeks to do. But even this is not clear-cut, since a UK resident is not the only beneficiary of a good made in, say, Asia (where emissions took place) but also the factory that made a return on its investment by exporting; the illustration underscores inherent nuances of apportioning emissions at a practical level.

On curbing deforestation, which is a medium-term objective, progress was made at Bali. Deforestation accounts for about a fifth of GHG emissions, hence commitments on reducing emissions from deforestation will be beneficial. However, adequate funding is required for the scheme to work.

Estimates for halving deforestation by 2030 are about $10 billion/year, which means that private sector financing is critical. Credits from avoided deforestation will be stored up in the same way as credits from renewable energy projects under the CDM. Another medium-term goal — that of transferring mitigation technology to developing countries — has been prominently recognised in the Bali decision document (paragraph 1d). The key will be adequate provision of subsidy for making it cost-effective for producers in poor countries to deploy abatement technology. The language hints that even intellectual property rights, specifically removal of obstacles for scaling up and transfer of technology, could be relaxed.

Help has been promised to poor countries for the immediate challenge of adapting to climate change. From my reading of the decision, there seems to be only one explicit and predictable source of funding — the adequacy and durability of the source is quite another matter. An Adaptation Fund (AF) will be established, and the AF board will be responsible for the monetisation of certified emission reductions issued by the CDM and forwarded to the AF for countries that are “vulnerable to the effect of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation”. The AF could reach US$1.2 billion by 2012, but the figure seems inadequate against the estimated average cost of 5 per cent of GDP per large disaster in low income countries. The amount pales in comparison with the $20 billion-$30 billion for a Climate Change Mitigation Facility proposed in the UN’s Human Development Report.

Environmentalists, in the absence of a specific emissions target, may conclude that there is now the risk of a real seizing up on prospects for combating global warming; as a stakeholder put it, there is a road map which lacks both signposts and a common destination. Such gloom may not be justified, since existing commitments to targets don’t seem to be delivering anyway, and appreciation that helping developing countries will be critical for meeting long-term goals is a breakthrough not to be balked at. The task is to ensure that rich countries are not allowed to get away with only making grandstanding commitments like, say, for the Millennium Development Goals, and that concomitant funding for serious undertakings given at Bali will be made available. Pessimism will be warranted if that does not happen.

The Indian Express (New Delhi), 19 Dec. 2007

India’s national action plan on mitigation of climate change will be ready by 2008 and will focus on industries shifting to a low-carbon economy.

Addressing a press conference here on Tuesday, Union Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal said India was committed to a reduction of greenhouse gases emission and the domestic road map was aimed at mitigating climate change. “However, we want to give more time to industry to shift to a low-carbon economy.”

The action plan, being formulated at the prime ministerial level by a high-power council set up earlier this year, would ensure a sustainable India and give time to industry to adopt green technology.

To a question how the private sector would be brought on board to adhere to clean technology, Mr. Sibal said once discussions took place on transfer of technology, private companies would also be involved.

If India eradicate poverty, half the battle against global warming would be won.

The coming two years would be hectic and crucial, till the next meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), he said. The national action plan would be in place whether or not the Bali conference was a success and whether or not the developed countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

India was totally opposed to any kind of tariff barrier on trade and commerce. During discussions, most developing countries agreed that nuclear energy was inevitable to achieve low carbon emission.

The Bali conference decided to launch a comprehensive “process” to enable full, effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC through a long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its next session.

The Hindu (New Delhi), 19 Dec. 2007

India has managed a breakthrough at the just-concluded UN Climate Change Conference at Bali by ensuring recognition for a need to compensate countries adopting strong conservation measures to preserve forests and reduce carbon emission.

The victory assumes significance as this is the first time the conference recognized efforts by developing countries to maintain and conserve forest carbon stocks.

Earlier, the conference had agreed to give incentives called Compensated Reduction – to countries like Brazil for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation, but there was no move to compensate countries like India and China with a good track record of forest conservation.

After hectic backroom lobbying and arm twisting, the conference agreed on India’s submission on compensated conservation, which was backed by several other countries like China, Costa Rica, Thailand, Nepal and Bhutan.

“This is a big victory as it means that India and other countries with a good conservation record can hope to get compensated for preserving forests and reducing carbon emission,” said Jagdish Kishwan of the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education, while talking to Hindustan Times.

Despite opposition from countries like Brazil, Kishwan and other Indian delegates were able to convince the conference on the need to adopt a comprehensive approach while dealing with the issue of reducing emissions through deforestation.

“We had been trying since the Nairobi meet to make the conference accept our views. This time, the support of allies like China helped and for the first time a comprehensive approach was taken,” said Kishwan

According to studies, the forestry sector was responsible for nearly 20 per cent of carbon emissions globally mainly due to largescale deforestation taking place in countries like Brazil and Indonesia.

Two years ago, the conference agreed to compensate these countries if they agreed to bring down emission levels by reducing deforestation. But efforts of countries like India, which helps preserve carbon stocks by checking deforestation, were not taken seriously.

“While the focus was entirely on the 13.4 million hectares of forests lost every year, no one spoke about the 2.4 million hectares added annually largely due to steps taken by countries like India, China and Vietnam,” said Kishwan.

The Indian submission was backed by a study carried out by Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, which showed that if India continues its policy of conservation and afforestation, then by 2030, the country would add 1 billion tones of carbon to existing stocks world-wide.

Although the Bali conference kept the subject of volume of compensation and other technicalities for future discussion, th