India Climate Watch – June 2009

June 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JUNE 2009 (Issue 3)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn2 – Negotiating text appears
The GoI delegation – in their own words
Home front – recent developments
Latest climate science
What’s at stake

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

From the Editor’s Desk

June marks the midway point to COP15 at Copenhagen in December. The month was busy on the climate calendar with the UNFCCC negotiations at Bonn2, the Major Economies Forum (MEF) hosted by Mexico, and the passage through the US House of Representatives of the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill divided opinion but was a landmark in being the first time the US has agreed to control its carbon emissions. US NGOs hailed victory but what looked like big stuff in Washington DC seemed a small step when viewed from far away. In Geneva, at the Global Humanitarian Forum, the President of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, spoke with calm dignity of the resettlement plans his nation was undertaking as they lost their island home to climate induced sea-level rise. To those countries on the frontline of climate extinction such as his, the tactics being followed by the major and the emerging powers in Bonn and Mexico must seem bloodless and cynical. The voices of vulnerable nations such as his – many of them united under the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) umbrella – barely get a look in these days. But at Geneva their call was unequivocal – their survival was contingent on all nations reducing their emissions without delay – no-one had a license to pollute anymore. A clear challenge to the ideologues of G77/China and Annex 1 parties if ever there was one. Was anyone listening?

While there was a great deal of disappointment in the air this June, a surprise move by Gordon Brown at the end of the month brought some cheer. On 26th June, the British premier announced his call for a $100 billion per annum by 2020 international finance package of new public-private finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change, preserve forests and build low carbon economies. The move was designed to bring new impetus into negotiations that were becoming cagey and cynical by putting a high number out there that could raise the bar. The UK aim was to chart a high-ambition path now rather than wait when it might be too late. This is as it should be – more nations need to put their cards on the table now and shift the ambition level up several gears.

While the number was not as high as many wished, the Brown announcement did provide a shot in the arm on stalled finance discussions. The Pan-African Parliamentary Network on Climate Change (PAPNCC) came forward to welcome the move as did many others. In India there was an odd silence. The press – which had faithfully reported the returning Indian delegation’s disappointment with Bonn2 and the Mexico MEF meeting – were caught napping on the Brown announcement. Strange. This was one of the most constructive moves on the climate front all month and yet it was barely picked up. Perhaps because the Government itself had little to say on the subject. There was scant comment other than a press report quoting a senior negotiator saying, “It’s just a drop, but at least somebody has said something at last”. Compared to the trillions spent in bailing out failed banks, it might well be a drop in the bucket. But negativity will not win the day. Being positive might be hard, but it’s going to be essential for the next six months. Only then will we be able to defeat the self-fulfilling prophecy that failure at COP15 is inevitable. There is still everything to play for.

Bonn 2 – Negotiating Text Appears

The second meeting of the UNFCCC negotiations on climate was held in Bonn from 1-12 June. Called ‘Bonn2’ – a ‘Bonn3’ will be coming up in August – the highlight of the event was the appearance of negotiating texts from a number of countries and news from the US that the Waxman-Markey bill – the country’s first emissions control legislation – was likely to be passed by the House of Representatives. While these may have been the highlights for many – finally there was text on the table (which grew four-fold over the course of the negotiations) and the US Congress appeared to be coming on board – Bonn2 was marked more by low-lights than highlights. As CSM’s ‘man in Bonn’ reports back, there was a deep sense of despondency that talks were not on track to deliver the progress we hoped for at COP15 in December.

An air of gloom

The atmosphere on the first day was pessimistic. Catching parts of passing conversations, one could hear the pessimism. Asked how they felt about the process and where it stood, most delegates expressed pessimism. A few allowed room for pleasant surprises. Is this what one might call allowing a little cautious optimism?

At the opening of the plenary of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Commitment to Action (AWG-LCA), the Chair requested all parties to use the draft text that he had crafted as a starting point to arrive at a negotiating text. His language reminded the parties of the need for expediency also. Parties generally made statements agreeing to do so.

There was much apprehension over the stances and developments in two countries: the USA and Japan. The US delegation held their briefing for international NGOs. The reception accorded to the delegation was less enthusiastic than at Bonn-1 when they had freshly arrived. In the interim, the Waxman-Markey Bill had been discussed at considerable length in public and the version that emerged disappointed the advocates – including India – of deeper cuts from the US. It did not help advance the Bonn-2 process. This may have contributed to the more muted response to the US from the NGO community and many developing countries.

It’s about the numbers

Japan’s announcement of its emissions-reduction commitment created much apprehensive waiting. When it came, it disappointed but did not surprise; but protest was at the derisory figure suggested (see table below) was immediately and vociferously expressed. Russia’s equally paltry target when it was announced met with similar howls of protest.

The Indian delegation, rightly, expressed its disappointment at both announcements. Much of the focus of Bonn2 was on interim targets by Annex 1 (industrialized countries) – these targets, and the different baseline year suggested by some Annex 1 countries became the main news item of the sessions. We finally have figures for how countries are lining up on stated emissions reduction targets by 2020. The tally so far of proposed reductions looks like the following (analysis by Climate Action Network CAN):

Country/Group    Announced Target   Baseline    What it means over 1990

EU                        20%                         1990                     20%
Scotland               43%                          1990                     43%
Russia                    10%                    not mentioned            ?
U.S.                       20%                           2005                   ~4%
Japan                    15%                           2005                    ~8%
Australia                25%                           2005                    14%
CA                                                           2006

The overall average by Annex1 countries comes to 5-10% over 1990 levels by 2020.

Bonn2 showed what a long way we are on agreement on many points in the negotiations. Anxiety and urgency are mounting and new tactics will have to be tried if we are not to drown in the despondency that was apparent at Bonn.

The GoI Delegation – In Their Own Words

In previous issues of ICW we have pointed to the need for greater transparency and engagement from Government of India (GoI) officials at the climate negotiations. Someone appears to be listening because at Bonn3 there was greater engagement from the GoI delegation. A meeting with Indian NGOs was even organized thanks to the intervention of networks such as CANSA (Climate Action Network-South Asia). An Oxfam-initiated ‘Adopt a Negotiator’ programme also saw Indian youth leaders IYCN follow and report on the proceedings. We welcome these and related moves and look forward to seeing more of them in the coming weeks and months. With greater give-and-take between the GoI delegation and external voices we are more likely to see ideas emerge that can break the mold and help break the climate impasse.

Here we present the views of three of the key figures in the GoI delegation – in their own words – compiled from a range of meetings over the two weeks at Bonn2. They are illuminating and go beyond the often grand-standing speeches and interventions made at the formal negotiations:

Shyam Saran, Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change.

On LCA text: Document is ready for 3rd phase. For forward movement adherence to UNFCCC and BAP is necessary. The objective is not a new climate treaty but to enhance Kyoto Protocol. We are not negotiating a new protocol. Kyoto Protocol will continue post-2012 also; current negotiations aim at emission targets for 2nd commitment period. But 1st commitment period’s commitments and targets have not been met yet. Thus, key objectives of 2nd commitment period have not been met. 1990 as a baseline is non-negotiable. By August 2009 this must be properly recognized and adhered to. Action on climate change is key priority for Government of India. The Mission documents will be considered by PM’s Climate Change Council. The aim is to significantly enhance sustainable development.

On how much India insists on from developed countries: 40% is the number one priority based on IPCC report, and a ‘reasonable target’ by 2020. In 2nd commitment period, there must be compensation for shortfall of 1st commitment phase. [Reiterated National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and commitment to significant deviation from BAU if finances are available.]

On (a) elaboration of NAPCC put up for public debate; (b) integration of NAPCC and 8-missions into COP process; (c) outside verification of NAPCC: National missions are under scrutiny of PM’s Council on Climate Change. Public input has been obtained – from scientists, academics, and NGOs. These are national actions, not international obligations. All actions will be in the public domain. National Communications will also be used. However, there will be no verification by extra-sovereign authority.

On impact of the 8 missions on emissions: Target is not uniform across missions. Sustainability is not about emissions alone. The approach is broader than emission control.

On (a) how much India needs, (b) whether India will go beyond NAPCC, and (c) when India’s emissions will peak: (a) We cannot give an exact figure, but estimates vary between 0.5 -1% of developed country GDPs. (b) NAPCC does not posit auditing, support, etc. We do it in national interest. We will do more if support is available. (c) Who knows?

On what India wants changed in the IPR régime: The context is extraordinary. Rapid and extensive diffusion of technology is needed. Capacity building is also needed on a large scale. Apply these to those technologies. Alternative global mechanisms can be devised by which innovators are paid. International R&D effort will be needed. None of these can be left solely to the competitive markets.

On (a) 15-30% deviation from Business as Usual (BAU), and (b) 30GW of solar by 2020: (a) Who determines the baseline as BAU. Will deviation be supported by technology and finance? We are committed to NAMAs. (b) We are exploring many alternatives.

On whether targets and deviation from BAU be quantified if there is agreement at COP15: This will be developed based on the funds available. Specifics need to be worked out.

On how India can push the process forward with leadership considering that it has considerable ability to do so: Collaborative platforms will contribute over and beyond UNFCCC. No one country can alone make things happen. It has to be a collaborative effort. Finger-pointing is no longer viable. The blame game is not going to take us forward. We are striving to create such collaborative platforms.

On REDD, India supported afforestation @ Bali but deforestation rates are higher than plantation rates: There is no problem of tropical deforestation in India. We have plans to extend our 23% forest cover to 32%.

On India’s position on China’s and Brazil’s opposition to REDD financing, reduction of C price by up to 75%: India is not fixated on CDM. On forestry use, we will examine proposals based on merit. Not everything is linked to CDM. CDM credit is welcome but not obsessed with it.

On (a) what India’s back-up plan is if COP15 does not meet India’s standards on technology transfer and financing, (b) India’s views on the registry, and (c) legal form of LCA outcomes that India desires: (a) We are not involved in making a new treaty. Kyoto Protocol is not ending. Every country has signed on to UNFCCC and current negotiation is for enhancement because climate change is more severe than what we had originally thought. We focus on succeeding. A lot of effort is underway towards that. We are optimistic. (b) Developing countries are already committed to sustainable development path. Mitigation action needs technology and finance. The Registry works well for this. MRV mechanism provides accountability. The problem is some countries went to go beyond that and want to scrutinize entire economic policy and strategy. This violates sovereignty. We are putting information out voluntarily and answerable to Parliament. National Communications are an agreed-upon UNFCCC instrument. (c) Discussion is ongoing and it all depends on the outcome of the current process.

On similarities between WTO & CC negotiations… “divide and rule” … India’s role in UNFCCC process compared to role in WTO; the measure of success; and whether India walk out if there is failure: We are collaborating with developing countries in several leadership roles where called upon. We are also bridging gaps with others. At Copenhagen, an outcome that is comprehensive (covering all four pillars), equitable (manner in which the burden of meeting targets), and balanced (no one pillar is more important than any others) is what we seek.

On India’s strategy on deletion parts from LCA text: We don’t reject World Bank, market, bilateral etc. financing. We want financing for CC to be under UNFCCC oversight and not as donor-driven funds. They must be driven by developing countries’ needs. Bilateral aid is separate from UNFCCC funding. UNFCCC funding should be predictable, stable, and sufficient. Countries cannot work with fluctuating C markets.

On India’s insistence on including nuclear power under CDM: We have produced safe, economic nuclear power for some time now. The infrastructure, HR base, and technologies exist. Yes, nuclear power is part of this strategy.

On (external) recognition of India’s domestic leadership and whether India will play similar leadership role in building consensus for COP15: We are already playing a role. We are doing a lot of work. NAPCC is a result of long-time sustainable action. This also aims at upgrading and intensifying existing sustainable practices. India is the first country to have a Ministry of Environment.

On what India can do to build confidence: We all need to work to influence political leadership’s opinions and perceptions. India’s NGOs have done a commendable job on this front. Civil society should speak out for equity.

On whether India would be open to decarbonization under Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP): Decarbonization is only one thing. There are wider problems. We need to devise support mechanisms for actions far beyond the NAPC.

On opinion on MEF en route to CoP15 and ability of India to assure reduction of targets: MEF is not a negotiating forum. It is only to build trust, confidence, and to create a platform for collaboration. These can be brought to the CoP process if there is interest and support.

On why India is looking at 8-year commitment period: We have not committed to this 8-year period. It is still under discussion and will have to be negotiated. Nor have fixed time periods been discussed for financials.

Dr Prodipto Ghosh, TERI, Member of PM’s Council on Climate Change

On Financing: We are looking at financing mechanisms not as aid but as financing. Aid has donors and recipients, and it is donor-driven. The donors decide how much money is given and the terms and conditions under which it is given. They also pick the recipients and administer the money. The donors have expectations but not responsibilities. We want to have responsibilities [for all parties] under § 4.3 and §4.7 (on agreed full incremental costs) of the Convention.

Financing involves discharge of responsibility – it must be responsibility-based and not on noblesse oblige. This also implies that these have to be assessed based on common but differentiated responsibilities. The level of funding must be based on developing countries agreeing on what needs to be done and the cost. We will work on the operationalization of the financing.

The adaptation fund still has to evolve into a robust and equitable structure. … In any case, domestic fund-raising is a sovereign issue, and has to be without prejudice to international treaty obligations. … We are apprehensive that [developed countries] may pledge but not follow through. Compliance arrangements need to be made, for situations where financing does not come through.

On India’s stance on the Norwegian proposal: We would not like to get involved in Annex I countries’ internal issues. It is a question of their sovereignty. We believe likewise that assessment of NAMAs of developing countries is also a sovereignty issue.

On the scale and sources of finances needed to reach required level for a treaty [at COP15]: We adhere to the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities. We will come up with operationalizations. E.g.: aggregate reductions must be based on differentiated and (emphasis original) historical responsibilities. 79% reduction is required of developed countries, but 40% may be possible. Thus, 39% responsibility has to be discharged as historical responsibility.

On India’s views on the Norwegian and Mexican proposals: There must be assessed contributions to facilitate NAMAs. How do we do these? There are issues of sovereignty involved. Aggregate must be consistent with historical responsibility within and outside country borders.

On compliance and adaptation: Adaptation must have higher priority for funding. If not, the whole regime collapses. If any countries renege, the regime will become adversarial. This is not a good situation.

“India’s position seems to be resembling the American position on some issues …” Comment: Any resemblance of India’s position with that of the U.S.A. is purely coincidental.

R.R. Rashmi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests

On the general feeling about AWG-LCA’s direction: I cannot predict how the text will emerge. It will expand. No one is clear on outcomes. The question is, will there be movement on Annex I countries’ commitments? Unless they are keen and serious about Kyoto Protocol, and action on this happens, we cannot say. It is difficult to see how conclusion can occur. Annex I countries need to put down some numbers. There is no clarity on (a) Annex I countries’ commitment to reduction, and (b) technological and financial support. There are ideas [circulating] but agreement is needed.

On discussions on adaptation resources etc. with differentiation within G77+China: There is no differentiation within the Convention. Same vulnerable areas identified and agreed position. Annex I countries must agree, via the Convention, to fund adaptation.

Views on Mexican (strong government role) and Norwegian (money-centric) finance proposals; Indian submission on this? We have outlined our position to G77+China. No party has agreed to finance. No one has talked about raising it. Who will set up the fund? Who will contribute to it? Who will administer or manage it? These are all questions yet to be answered.

On India’s stand on NAMAs introduced in LCA text (unilateral, credited, etc.): We don’t distinguish among NAMAs. No NAMA occurs without technology. All are reportable.

On whether the structure of the adaptation fund is favored: Yes. It is agreeable, though not ideal.

On progress on climate change action by India: We are doing fairly well on volume of emission reduction. A $ 16b development process is on. More technology is needed for adaptation and mitigation in power and water. CDM is a vehicle for technology transfer. Much work is underway; we can do a lot more with greater technology transfer. Technology and finance are critical for all countries. These can flow bilaterally and through the market. Super-critical technology will have to come from bilateral cooperation because there is the question of who pays for incremental costs.

On whether India can show domestic mitigation and adaptation actions and seek financing for more: Have Annex I countries done this? NACPs of all countries have given sustainable plans. Energy efficiency has to improve.

On LDCs not being comfortable with MEF being able to help, what India will do at MEF, and how India will be a leader within South Asia: This is a USA-led process. Participation is by invitation only. I don’t know what it can achieve; it is too early to tell. It’s a process for collaboration on achievement, not a negotiation. Therefore, it should not be worrisome for G77+China. India is willing to work with partners. MEA will have to address those issues. But we are holding a workshop on CDM for SAARC in October. Also, SAARC has evolved a regional action plan last June [2008].

Home Front – Recent Developments

Solar Mission Details Emerge

More details emerged about the ambitious solar mission, which was leaked to the media last month and briefly analysed in our previous issue. The mission plan envisions a 4000 times growth in solar power over the next 11 years or a 39,990% increase over the current installed capacity.

The plan assumes this growth will largely come from mandating solar PV installations in all government buildings, mandating 5% capacity of new coal-fired power plants to come from solar PV, mandated use of vacant land in existing plants, establishing utility-scale solar thermal plants and establishing feed-in tariffs.

While the ambition of the plan is to be welcomed, the plan is silent on how such a big switch from consumers will happen over such a short period. It is silent on key issues such as India’s lack of expertise in solar thermal, on the subsidies given to fossil fuels, and on carbon tax – the most effective and simple mechanism to put a price on carbon and thereby encourage people to switch to renewable energy.

The solar mission plan makes assumptions about reduced cost of solar power generation and grid-power parity in the short-term that are not founded on key factors such as historical price reduction, future projections or advances in silicon-based photovoltaics. It is also silent on concentrated photovoltaics – the one solar technology where one could see cost reductions in the short-term. CSM be presenting an in-depth analysis of the mission document in the coming days.

MoEF and MNRE Get New Heads

As the new Congress government was sworn in this month, both Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) saw changes at the helm.

Congress stalwart, Jairam Ramesh, was appointed the new head of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir was given charge of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.

Abdullah is a newcomer to the cabinet post but the appointment of Jairam Ramesh has raised some eyebrows. Ramesh previously held the post of Minister of State for Commerce & Industry where he was responsible for making a big push for expansion of the nation’s power infrastructure to meet its five year-plan commitments.

His term saw removal of bottlenecks and red tape leading to large scale clearances of several big power projects including the UMPPs – Ultra Mega Power Plants – coal-fired behemoths of power production with capacities in the range of 4000 MW. Now in his new guise as the chief environmental administrator in the country it will be interesting to watch which way he moves.

Glacial Melting in Himalayas Began Around Industrial Revolution

A new study by researchers from the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology in Dehradun has put a date to the retreat of India’s glaciers to around the 1750s. This roughly equates with the emergence of the industrial revolution in Europe and presents a challenge existing opinion.

The new research contradicts a previous estimate by the Geological Survey of India which claimed that the Himalayan glaciers had shown stages of advance and retreat for the past 20,000 years and hence their melting could not be attributed to contemporary climate change.

According to Down To Earth magazine, researchers of the Wadia Institute study traced the advance and recession of the Chorabari glacier in Uttarakhand with the help of the yellow lichens that develop on the surface of exposed boulders after glaciers retreat. Studying their growth rate, the date of recession of the glacier from that site can be found by measuring diameter of the largest lichen, said the study published in Current Science, India’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Report Calls for Action to Reduce Climate Change Impacts

A new report by the World Bank entitled “Climate Change Impacts in Drought-and Flood-Affected Areas: Case Studies in India” warned the nation to prepare for a substantial shift in the pattern of rainfall towards the flood-prone coastal regions. The report suggested that India can further its climate resilience through a combination of measures and right incentives aimed at multiple levels of government.

The first of its kind in South Asia, the report looks at options to tackle the problem of adaptation to climate change in selected climate hotspots. Focusing on two drought-prone regions of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and a flood prone region in Orissa, the study develops a new integrated modeling approach to assessing current and future climate risks.

Almost twenty percent of India’s GDP is attributable to agriculture and about 57% of its population employed in agriculture. Climate change, which will result in increasing severity and frequency of extreme events, such as droughts, floods and cyclones, which affect the poor most, and jeopardize agricultural production and livelihoods of rural communities, will therefore have grave food security and other social implications.

It is to be noted that India does not have a formal policy on adaptation for climate change. The Nation Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) focuses largely on mitigation and research. In ongoing international negotiations under UNFCCC, India is pursuing finance for mitigation and technology transfer but not for adaptation. The government argues that it is already doing enough on adaptation and has sufficient funds – a position often contradicted by its persistent calls for increased finance and attention to adaptation at other climate fora.

While a focus on mitigation is essential for the country as its emissions trajectory rises, adaptation is critical to enable the country and its people to adjust to climate change. Perhaps the devastation wrought by the recent cyclone Aila, which arrived within two days of the World Bank report’s release, will act a wake-up call on India’s policymakers.

Latest in Climate Science

Global Warming Doubles in Advanced Modeling

MIT has developed what’s being labeled as the most advanced and comprehensive climate modeling system yet. For the first time detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes have been combined in single model.

The new projections published in a peer-reviewed journal Climate indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 C by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This is more than double the median projected increase in a 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

Several factors led to this drastic difference such as improved economic modeling that reveals less chance of future low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. This and a variety of other changes led to a doubling of warming in the BAU scenario. It is interesting to note however that there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Without action the consequences are grim. Study co-author Ronald Prinn says, “… there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated … This increases the urgency for significant policy action. […] There’s no way the world can or should take these risks.”

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

An Antarctic ice shelf about the size of New York City that had been hanging by a thin ice-bridge for some time finally broke into icebergs after the collapse of the bridge in late-April. This was revealed by glaciologists at the University of Muenster in Germany after studying European Space Agency satellite images of the shelf.

Only nine other ice shelves have collapsed in the last 50 years, sometimes abruptly like the Larsen A shelf in 1995 and the Larsen B shelf in 2002. The latter, a 3250 km² shelf of 220m thick ice disintegrated and disappeared dramatically entirely in a single season. Scientists often cite this as a classic example of abrupt climate change.

The US National Research Council defines abrupt climate change as occurring when a climate system is forced to transition to a new state at a rate which is more rapid than the natural rate.

It should be noted that all IPCC projections currently guiding climate change negotiations, are based on a linear rate of change in the climate system. The IPCC does, however, acknowledge and warns (in its synthesis report) of the possibility of abrupt climate change that may render most of its projections exceedingly conservative and outdated.

Storms Have Greater Impact Than Previously Thought

New understanding has emerged on the affects of tropical storms on the carbon sinking properties of forests. A study covering one hundred and fifty years of tropical storm landfalls in the United States, reports that hurricanes and tropical storms kill or damage millions of trees and as vegetation decomposes, it returns more than 90 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.

A number of earlier studies have shown that global warming will create more frequent and intense tropical storms. The researchers, of the report published by University of Windsor in Canada, conclude that their study is “an important baseline for evaluating how potential future changes in hurricane frequency and intensity will impact forest tree mortality and carbon balance.”

Sea to Rise More in Northeast U.S and Canada

Research led by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), shows that melting of the Greenland ice sheet may drive more water than previously thought towards the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada.

The study finds that the melting of Greenland’s ice at moderate to high rates would cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by up to 50 centimeters more than in other coastal regions. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.

Arctic Thaw Poses Huge Threat

A billion tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum will eventually be released accelerating climate change if melting permafrost in the Arctic is not curbed. This is the conclusion of a University of Florida-led team that measured how much carbon was escaping from the soil in the Arctic and how much was being absorbed by vegetation. The study revealed a net loss of CO2.

The fear is that as the land thaws, organic matter will be converted into the potent greenhouse gas, methane, which will seep into the atmosphere, accelerating the greenhouse effect. This in turn will stoke warming and cause more permafrost to thaw, which in turn will push up temperatures, and so on.

Once permafrost begins to thaw on such a large scale, scientists say, it would be self-reinforcing and could be almost impossible to brake. It is important to note here that the IPCC data does not consider these emissions in its projections of global warming.

What’s at Stake

Tales of Fear and Destruction

Cyclone Aila that battered lndia and Bangladesh this month left tens of thousands of people homeless with only a fraction of them having access to food and drinking water. Scores of others were killed.

Nearly 300 people ended up losing their lives and there was huge damage to embankments, roads and houses. A massive relief effort has been launched for the four million people affected by the cyclone. An estimated 125,000 affected people are still living in the open, as large areas remain flooded with sea water.

We bring you three stories of fear and destruction caused by the cyclone, a grim reminder of what lies ahead for millions of Indians, and our neighbours in South Asia, who are vulnerable to climate change.

Rushing to Flee Landslides
The Telegraph reports that although the monsoon has not yet set in, every time the skies darken, Puran Rai rushes with his family to a rented house 3 km away. The 39-year-old Puran is not alone. After Cyclone Aila struck last month, at least 40 families have refused to take any chances.
Fear of killer landslides has already forced eight families to rent apartments at Alubari and Jorebunglow, considered a safe zone. The story is the same at Sunar Busty across the hill. Nine of the 34 families have already shifted base since May 26, the day the cyclone triggered 40 landslides in the hills, killing 20 people.
“No one was killed in our village and only one house was damaged. That was perhaps the reason why little attention has been given to our village. However, the entire village can be wiped off any day if there is a torrential rain. The area is sinking and landslides have been an annual feature since 2000,” said Puran.
The villagers come back every morning and on the “dry days” to look after their fields. Rai Busty and Sunar Busty are located on slopes, as a result of which there are no protection walls around the villages. Besides, the soil is also loose. An inspection of the villages revealed that some of the areas had sunk below the normal level of land and houses have developed cracks.
Students With No School to Go

Cyclone Aila left more than 700 students of Pankhabari High School without a school to go to. They do not know when their classes will resume, reported The Telegraph, India. Classes had to be suspended when the roof of the two-storied building was swept away in the cyclone taking with it all documents and destroying twelve computers.

“Repair of the building has already started but we do not know when it will finish. We are expecting the work to finish soon so that we can start classes at the earliest,” said H.D. Chettri, the teacher in-charge of the school.

The school authorities have, however, started classes for the 150 students of Classes X and XII. “Since they will sit for the board exams and we have to finish their syllabus in time, we have started their classes in the three rooms of our administrative building,” said Chettri.

Other students have to wait till the repair is done. He also could not specify how long the repair would take. “We cannot at this time say how much time the work will take.” In the hills, the final exams are held in November and the winter vacation starts from December for at least two months

Chimney: A Village Torn Apart

Never before had the residents of Chimney ever witnessed what Mother Nature had to present its inhabitants when cyclone Aila hit the place. A historical village in Kurseong distrist of Darjeeling, Chimney, once considered by the British as the perfect resting place, is today in a state of anguish and disrepair. People who had been primarily surviving on farming and cattle are now left with just hope and prayer.

Ram Syangden, a farmer who had been sustaining his family of five lamented: “I had been looking after my family by means of dairy production but now with the death of five cows among seven, now I am not able to see what lies ahead.”

Chimney, a place mainly comprising old wooden houses and few concrete buildings, was badly hit by the strong winds and rain. Rudhra Tamang, an ex-army person had a typical story to share: “I was in my house praying hard for the intense rain to stop when I heard a deafening sound outside. I rushed towards the window to see the tin roof of the neighbor’s house being blown away and it flew towards the wooden electric post cutting down the wires. I tried to call for help in order to get the people of that house to safety but could not be heard due to the noise of the storm.”

Many people who met a similar fate are now “climate refugees” in Chimney Primary School. The Block Development Office has issued plastic sheets to them to cover areas where there is high possibility of landslide but the people seem discontented and helpless as this alone will not help. Binita, said “this aid provided to us is not enough as you can see. Our entire roof has been blown off which makes the situation much more vulnerable if it rains again.”
(Pictures available)

Source: Posted with permission from “Save the Hills” blog and its people who have been courageously bringing attention to landslides in the sub-Himalayan region largely resulting from unplanned urban development.

India Climate Watch – April-May 2009

May 31, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – APRIL-MAY (Issue 2)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn 1 – the first round begins …
More transparency from the GoI needed
G20 – no show for climate
Home front – recent developments
Major Economies Forum, Washington DC
Latest Climate Science
What’s at stake – human impact
Economic models can mislead
Indian Parliamentary Survey
Home Front – National Action Plan
India’s solar energy mission

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

From the Editor’s Desk

We are now well into negotiation mode on climate change with governments releasing their public positions at the UN Climate Talks – but keeping details close to their chest. This much was evident from the Government of India’s position. In March, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change released a lengthy Q&A document (included in full in ICW Issue 1) setting out India’s views on the climate negotiations. With the public position aired, lips on the GoI delegation and Indian ministries are now sealed. This is not just diplomatic discretion, it is government policy. The Cabinet Secretary has issued a letter to all senior Indian officials across the country forbidding them from making any pronouncements on climate change. What now amounts to a gag-rule on climate change for Indian government officials is now in place.

Perhaps this accounts for the reticence our inquiries have received from members of the GoI delegation in Bonn and officials in Delhi. Any deviation from the official line must be avoided. But a gag-rule on the most important issue facing the nation is not only undemocratic, it is wrong. For a country that calls itself the largest democracy in the world, there must be free expression for all. If we are to get this huge challenge right, we must have free, fearless and well-informed public debate on climate change in India. Both on our domestic response as well as our role as a global player. Only then will we get the buy-in and public engagement needed to make the changes we need to. Public officials – paid for by the public purse – must be free to engage in this debate. Perhaps then we will have a policy that looks forward not backwards. A policy that actually meets the challenges that we can no longer avoid and shows the world that India can lead.

Bonn 1 – the first round begins …

There are now five negotiating rounds until governments come together at COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 to agree a global way forward on climate change. Round 1 began in Bonn on 29th March and lasted till 8 April.

Held under the aegis of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Bonn Climate Change Talks consisted formally of discussion on the seventh session of the AWG-KP and fifth session of the AWG-LCA. In plain English, the first refers to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, and the second to the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention. The first deals with the mandatory commitments of industrialized nations (Annex I Parties) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The second deals with the different components of the so-called Bali Action Plan agreed at COP13 (Bali) engaging all parties. The UN Secretariat Chief, Yvo de Boer, said that ‘solid progress’ had been made on key issues such as technology transfer and agreement to fund adaptation in poor countries, however, the numbers for developed country emissions reductions were far from what was needed.

NGOs were far more critical of what they saw as a lackluster session with little progress. CSM’s Chandra Shekhar Balachandran was at Bonn observing the delegations – here is his report:

The climate is changing

I attended the Bonn meetings of the UNFCCC as an observer from CSM Bangalore. I was particularly interested in observing the inputs of the Indian delegation. The stance of the G77 and China group of countries, together and separately, was pretty much what ad been stated many times before. A good part of the reiteration of their positions had to do, inter alia,with the position of the United States. The G77/China view was that the North/South impasse continues. Among CSM’s concerns is how to break the impasse by showing bold leadership on both ides. Of particular interest to us is the Indo-US dynamic. I attended the interactive session that the US delegation (led by Jonathan Pershing) had with international NGOs to share the US government’s position and to hear what NGOs had to say.
Pershing opened by declaring that the US is back at the table and wants to come on board for COP15. He was candid enough to say that they are scrambling to get to speed and clarify their position since the new Administration took over in January. He noted that the domestic political situation for the new resident is not favorable to push for what he (the President) wants. The gist of the position was that they are trying to make up for eight long years of obstructionism and inaction on the part of the US. They will certainly be party to the COP15 agreement, but … Yes, there is a but … They are concerned about he process underway. They did acknowledge that this is a tricky situation considering the US has been absent for eight years. They also acknowledged that their position is still evolving and their interactions at the Bonn meetings were to aid that evolution.

The US President has repeatedly stated that his administration is very willing to work with the global community. There is some evidence of this. During the talks, the Guardian newspaper reported that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had officially issued a mea culpa on behalf of her country. or the first time in eight years, we have the US administration acknowledging the high degree of the country’s responsibility for historic and present greenhouse emissions. An interesting recent development has been the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) haracterizing climate change as a public health issue. This could mobilize greater domestic support and provides an opening for discussions that hitherto have been virtually no-go areas in political Washington DC.

In other developments, Arlen Specter has switched sides to the Democratic party and it looks almost certain that Al Franken might well be seated in the Senate to represent Minnesota. Thus, it is almost certain that the Democrats will have the magic number of 60 in Senate to shield them from any filibusters. However, the political reality is that – and Jonathan Pershing said as much in the briefing – not all of the Democrats are with the President on the climate change platform. The
EPA report might help mobilize some more support however. Internationally, the sticking points remain the modalities, the finance and the kind of international cooperation that ‘developing’ countries are expecting the ‘developed’ countries to provide. For heir part, the latter will expect greater commitments towards emissions reductions from the two giants – India and China. What I saw at Bonn is now rapidly changing with each day as the Obama Administration starts to engage with the process. The challenge now is for the eveloping states – individually and in groupings such as G77 and China, AOSIS, etc. – to seize this new climate and rapidly explore common ground. In so doing we must break the North/South impasse that has plagued climate politics and discourse for so long.

The reality is that India and the United States are much more in sync on the opportunities than they seem to realize. It may well be difficult to accept the rhetoric coming from the US at face value, however. At least two members of the Indian delegation at Bonn said to me, “Yes, [the mericans] are making all the right noises, but we need to see it matched by actions!” Realpolitik will no doubt play a role. At an international meeting in Cancun, some decades ago, Indira Gandhi had said, “We are all, each, pro- his or her own country.” Each state must (and robably realizes) that it has to look out for its own interest. This will inevitably lead to accommodations and compromises. One does not need to be a Chanakya to know this. But I am hopeful that Copenhagen will produce a reasonable move forward with which we can all live. As someone once said, “Yes, we can!”

More transparency from the GOI needed …

In tracking the negotiations, one of our objectives is to get the Indian delegation to engage more with civil society. This remains a challenge. At Bonn, our reporter attempted to speak with members of the delegation several times and raise questions pertinent to the egotiations. Most simply refused. One person referred him to yet another member of the delegation who eventually obliged him by giving him some time. This is very much appreciated. It would be nice if the Indian delegation were to engage with observers from ndian and other NGOs more. Here is hoping that this will happen at Bonn 2.

G20: No-show for climate

The G20 Summit, which saw the participation of Indian premier, Manmohan Singh, concluded in London in early-April. The Summit began with a threat from the French president that he would walk out if there were no concrete actions addressing the financial crisis. As in years ast, the Summit attracted protests from an assortment of activists ranging from anticapitalists to those concerned with the banking system, economic policy, war on terror and climate change. The London Summit saw heavy-handed policing which resulted in the death f a man causing widespread protests and calls for a public inquiry into crowd control methods used. The Summit outcome, the Communiqué consisted of two primary outcomes – a $1.1 trillion inancial package for a range of programmes, and an agreement to better regulate global financial markets. Climate change was discussed in the side-lines but not as a headline issue. There was no agreement on this, no deal, no allotment in the trillion dollar stimulus package to ight climate change or resource depletion. The G20 defered the issue to COP15. On climate change, the Communique merely said: “We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.” The Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, wrote wryly “… the G20 leaders appear to have ecided to deal with [environmental] problems only when they have to – in other words, when it’s too late. They persuade themselves that getting the economy back to where it was – infinite growth on a finite planet – can somehow be reconciled with the pledge ‘to address the threat of irreversible climate change.’ Next time this magical thinking fails, there’ll be no chance of a bail-out.”

Major Economies Forum, Washington DC

The Major Economies Forum (MEF) is a continuation by the Obama Administration of the Major Economies Meetings initiated by the previous Administration. It is a parallel and informal track to the formal climate negotiations taking place under the UNFCCC, and brings together 7 of the world’s nations accounting for more than 2/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The MEF is supposed to provide space for more informal discussions away from the negotiating strictures of the UNFCCC COP15 process. India as a major GHG emitter (the orld’s fourth largest), is included in the MEF and was represented at the two-day meeting in Washington DC in May by Ajay Mathur, head of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency. In her opening speech, secretary of state Hillary Clinton said the United States “is ready to lead” and ake up for lost time in the fight against climate change. A positive indicator – one of many – that have emerged from the new Administration – but one that was not accompanied by any specifics on either mid-term targets for the US or commitments to financing adaption to climate change by poorer nations. At Bonn 1 (as noted above), little progress was made on these two key issues: the carbon missions mitigation targets to be adopted by Annex 1 (developed) countries, and how to raise finance to help poor countries adapt to climate change. The MEF failed to break that stalemate. Additional MEF meetings are expected leading up to a meeting of Heads of State at the G8 eeting on July 7 – 9th in L’Aquila, Italy. President Obama has also indicated that a preparatorymeeting may be held at La Maddalena, Italy in September and perhaps in Mexico City at a time to be determined.

Latest Climate Science

Arctic Ecosystem Threatened

A new study suggests that extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high according to data released by the Norwegian Polar Institute. CO2 concentration is now eaking at 397 ppm (parts per million) in the Arctic. “These are the highest figures collected in 50 million years,” said Johan Strom, professor of atmospheric physics at the NPI. In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface aters in the Arctic Ocean have warmed and permafrost in some areas is rapidly thawing. In addition, new factors such as “Black Carbon” (soot), ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide. “Black carbon and ozone
in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic,” says the report. It also highlights reduction in summer sea ice two years ago as the most striking change in the rctic in recent years. In 2007, 8 million sq.km of sea ice completely melted away in the Arctic – an event that shocked scientists worldwide. Some estimates have suggested that Arctic will be completely ice-free in less than five years. Climate scientist, Jim Hansen has said that urvival of Arctic summer ice is essential as its absence is expected to trigger the melting of Greenland. In the absence of ice to reflect sunlight back in the atmosphere, the Arctic sea would absorb much more sunlight putting more pressure on neighboring Greenland. If reenland completely melted away, scientific consensus is that sea level worldwide would rise 7m. According to the report, Greenland has continued to melt unabated. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at ea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.

Studies on Regional Impacts

IRELAND

‘Climate Change in Ireland’ – a new report by scientists at EPA and NUI Maynooth argue that extreme floods and heavy rain coupled with heat waves and droughts will be the norm by the middle of the century in Ireland. The summer months will experience longer heat waves mixed ith downpours and flash floods, with the south and east drying out the fastest and at severe risk of drought. “By 2050, reductions in summer rainfall of between 20 and 28 per cent are projected for the southern and eastern coasts, increasing to between 30 and 40 per cent by 080,” the report says.

TIBET

Research by a Chinese meteorologist, based on data from 38 weather stations at Tibet indicated that temperatures in Tibet have risen continuously over the past 48 years at a rate much higher than the national level. Tibet is one of the most sensitive areas to climate change, according to Du Jun, an expert with the Tibet Autonomous Regional Meteorological Bureau. The temperature change was a direct effect of global warming, he said, which triggered snow melting, glacial shrinking and rising water levels. Other phenomena included grassland degradation, more plant diseases and insect pests, a reduction in bio-diversity and higher risks of disasters. This is consistent with another study by the Institute of Atmospheric Environment of the Tibetan Plateau, which asserted that grassland in the cold highland region shrank by about 40 percent from 1988 to 2005 due to greenhouse effects, excessive grazing and human activities.

SCOTLAND

A report released by the Scottish Government says Scotland must make plans to adapt to catastrophic impacts of future global warming. The report details the likely impact of climate change – including a temperature rise of up to 3.5 degrees in the summer, drier summers, almost 90% less snowfall, and sea level rise of almost two feet. The country’s climate change minister warned that Scotland must take innovative action to face the challenges ahead arguing that this was not simply a “green issue”, but one that would have a real impact on the economy and on everyday lives. The likely effects of climate change could range from blocked sewerage systems due to flooding, the need to reroute roads and move other infrastructure and the loss of mountain habitats. Average snowfall may decrease, perhaps by up to 90% depending on the location, and snowless winters may become normal in some parts 70 years from now.

EPA Labels GHG Emissions Evil, Rapidly Reverses Bush’s Policies

The US Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed an “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This is seen as a watershed in the long struggle to combat limate change. The EPA now calls climate change an enormous problem “in both magnitude and probability.” he Agency made the proposal under the United States’ Clean Air Act, legislation originally enacted by the US Congress to control air pollution in 1970. At present, the EPA’s ‘finding’ does not include regulation but has the potential to affect the daily life of every American as it allows the Agency to regulate every “building, structure, facility or installation” in every sector – industry, transport, building or agriculture – that is responsible for carbon dioxide emissions.
Critics argue that the proposal will open up a Pandora’s box of regulations and lead to litigation. The US is now, however, irrevocably committed to controlling its emission of greenhouse gases. The move has come about as a result of a change in the EPA’s leadership. earlier this year, President Obama put Lisa Jackson – veteran regulator with a history of climate activism – in charge of the Agency. As New Jersey’s chief environmental regulator, Jackson is credited with helping lead the state on the issue of climate change and encouraging it to adopt a moratorium on building new coal plants. During her tenure she successfully fought to triple New Jersey’s wind power capacity goal, as well as to double its goal for solar power. Over the last few months as head of the EPA, the Agency has been
rapidly reversing the Bush Adminstration’s anti-environment policies.

Economic Models can Mislead

Former chief scientific advisor to the UK, Sir David King told BBC News that the government is being misled by economic assessments of the impact of climate change. He believes that such models are underestimating the true cost of tackling the problem and leading to poor investments by businesses and governments. “Economic models such as those produced by Nick Stern are often based on steady growth,” he said. “But they are not very good at predicting the impact of catastrophic events,” he added. “It’s likely that because of sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns people will have to migrate … That has the potential for massive conflict and massive geopolitical destabilisation and that can lead to a sudden downturn in the global economy”. Professor King argues that economic models are not fully able to account for such upheaval. This raises questions about how economists can put an accurate price on producing a tonne of carbon dioxide. He also said that these models do not properly cost the environmental impact of large infrastructure projects such as new coal-fired power plants and airports.

What’s at Stake – Human Impact

Climate change is expected to affect the poor the worst, according to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. The economic impact of climate change on four south-east Asian nations will be 2.5 times more severe than the global average by 2100, if carbon emissions continue at their current level, according to a new Asian Development Bank study covering Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. In India, the poor are primarily engaged in agriculture. Changing monsoon patterns will likely wreck havoc with agricultural productivity. A reminder of what confronts us came through reports of farmers’ suicides in India in news media internationally. According to the BBC, a report commissioned by the state government of Punjab estimated that there had been “close to 3000 suicides” among farmers and farm labourers in just two of Punjab’s 20 districts in recent years. Farmer suicide is a contentious issue in India with numerous instances reported from various states. No reliable figures exist but official statistics say close to 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in India since 1997. One of the reasons, among several others, is crop failure. Climate change will affect agriculture in several ways – by changing rainfall patters, by increasing water scarcity and directly affecting crop growth with rising temperature. Each of these may lead to failure of crops. The UK’s Independent newspaper recently reported that over 1500 farmers in the state of Chattisgarh had committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure. “The crop is so bad this year that we will not even be able to save any seeds. There were no rains at all,” a farmer is quoted as saying. Low food production also has implications for migration with people moving away from places where they don’t have food to places where they do. Half of India’s children are malnourished and this figure is expected to get worse. In neighboring China, the Guardian reports on 150 million eco-refugees who will have to be moved due to displacement caused largely by water shortages exacerbated by over-irrigation and climate change. Huang Cuikun is a relocatee whose village ran out of water and was swallowed by desert.

Since 1950, the oasis where Huang lived, has shrunk by 288 sq km, while there has been a four-fold increase in the number of annual superdust storms. In Liangzhou district, 240 of the 291 springs have dried up. The Chinese government pays farmers to stop production and has relocated thousands of others, like Huang, out of the worst affected areas.He was given a new home and land, but the desert winds still howl outside the door and his fields are bordered by sand dunes. Workers in the fields wear masks to protect their faces from the dust storms that whip in from the dunes. Huang likes his new home but it’s just 2km or 3km from here to the desert, so he has taken every measure one can think of to prepare for the desert moving closer.

Indian Parliamentary Survey on Climate Change

Early in May, CSM sent out a climate change survey to all election candidates from nationaland state level parties except independents. Over 3000 election contestants were asked to fill and mail back a questionnaire that aimed to assess their knowledge on the issue and how important it is to them.
When the responses arrived, most candidates fared poorly on the knowledge part but paradoxically, did well on the importance part. Unfortunately, CSM received only 18 responses and we decided not release the results. The low response rate could be attributed partly to apathy towards the issue of climate change and in part to the fact that election results were out soon after the candidates received the survey leaving the losing candidates with no interest in responding.
That said, we can still draw a few conclusions from the responses we did receive. The short questionnaire was composed of seven questions. Of this, four were based on facts – which either had a wrong answer and a right one while three other were on the importance allotted to this issue; their perception regarding the level of threat and on India’s international stand. Of the four factual questions, none of the respondents got all of them right. Most worryingly, 61% of respondents could not answer the simplest question on the cause of global warming with 22% saying it’s due to increase in solar output. One individual entered a comment that “pole shifting is the main cause.” However, 44% did know that IPCC 4th Assessment was the landmark scientific report on climate change was released globally in 2007.

The factual question that received least number of correct responses was which Hollywood film with Al Gore raised awareness about climate change worldwide and won an Oscar. About half the respondents voted in favor of imaginary names like “A Lost Continent” and “Earth in Jeopardy.” On the positive side, 100% respondents consider the issue to be either their top priority or a very important issue. This is somewhat paradoxical because other responses clearly show that they do not grasp even the basic science of global warming. When asked “climate change threatens people of your constituency in which way,” the responses were mixed. Fall in agricultural productivity was the main concern of 50% of people. Extreme climatic events like floods and cyclones came at number two with 22% voting in its favour, just behind the 17% that voted for the concern of large inflow of migrants from neighboring states or countries. Sea level rise did not constitute a major threat surprisingly, revealing perhaps that most considered it unlikely. On what should be India’s position in international talks on climate change — 61% responded that we should do everything possible to prevent runaway climate change regardless of action by others. 22% chose the second option — take some action if developed countries take the lead. Only 2% chose the option: we have no responsibility, the developed countries must do all the reductions. As stated earlier, the low rate of response means the results cannot be taken as representative of all election candidates. Therefore, CSM is now planning another survey with a new set of questions for all elected parliamentarians. The results should be interesting. Watch this space.

Home Front – Elections & National Action Plan

The Indian elections were held in April/May with the surprising news of a large victory for the Congress Party becoming evident shortly after 17 May 2009. With the Congress re-elected, the results is being seen as a vote for continuity and stability. In the climate change sphere, this means that the new government will continue with the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) released by PM Manmohan Singh in June 2007. The NAPCC lists eight national missions running up until 2017 (see box). However, one year on we are yet to see any of promised detail on the majority of these eight missions, with the exception of the draft Solar Mission (see analysis below) which appears to have been judiciously leaked to the press and others. There also appears to be a release of the Sustainable Habitat mission in the making and moves appear afoot on the Energy Efficiency mission. On the former, according to the Times of India, the Sustainable Habitat mission of the NAPCC is reportedly out. The mission report, finalized by the urban development ministry and cleared by the GOI is said to have been presented at the Prime Minister’s climate change council in May. This mission plans to standardize the norms for water harvesting and energy efficiency across the country, under a national standard. However, recognizing that national policies of this nature have little effect on state policy and implementation, the mission aims to leverage grants under the JNURM to get states on board this programme. While actual implementation of this mission may remain questionable, government sources inform the Times of India that they are looking at less coercive and inspection-based. The legal and regulatory measures will be consolidated under the National Sustainable Habitat Parameters, and the government plans to carry out a whole host of climate-friendly activities and programmes through the urban development ministry under the 11th five-year plan.It also seems that the government is planning move on its second mission: Enhanced Energy Efficiency through the reforms initiated in the power sector and various policy initiatives over the past few years, including the Energy Conservation Act (2001), the Electricity Act (2003), National Electricity
Policy (2005), and the Integrated Energy Policy. This is in addition to the formation of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and the Indian Renewable Energy Department Agency (IREDA). As for the other missions, no details, leaked or actual are out as yet. But the new UPA-led coalition is expected to move on these issues this year given upcoming climate change talks in Copenhagen in December. In the run-up to the Copenhagen negotiations, India submitted documents on adaptation, financial resources, REDD and development and transfer of technologies in late April and early May. These along with submissions from other countries will be discussed in Bonn and pre-Copenhagen meetings. Of particular note is the financial resources submission, which states that developed countries should contribute 0.5% of GDP to a UNFCCC support action fund to support mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer.

India’s Solar Energy Mission Analysed

Claims and counter-claims

On 27 April 2009, a reputed national newspaper, The Hindu, released details of the Government’s as yet unannounced National Solar Mission. CSM investigated claims made in the article as the targets mentioned would form a dramatic departure from the Govt. of India’s stand on the issue including that in the NAPCC (National Action Plan on Climate Change).

What’s claimed Solar generation capacity (in MW):

20,000 by 2020
100,000 by 2030
200,000 by 2050

To put this perspective, the 2020 solar capacity projection exceeds even Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution scenario for that year.

The section above looks like science fiction when compared with India’s current total installed capacity — 5 MW. Here is the breakdown (as of Jan 2009):
Total grid-tied SPV* capacity = 2.12
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0
Total off-grid SPV capacity = 3
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0.07
TotalCSP capacity = 0
Capacity addition in 2008 = 0

So, the government is hoping to go from 5 MW in 2009 to 20,000 MW in a span of eleven years.

* SPV: Silicon Photovoltaic
** CSP: Concentrated Solar PowerSource: MNRE

NAPCC Projection

How does this look compared with what the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008) said on capacities under its Solar Mission?

The NAPCC said its Solar Mission would aim for the following by 2017: 1000 MW of CSP 1000 MW annual _production_ capacity of SPV The latter is a crucial. Production capacity does not equal generation capacity. About 95% of India’s production of SPV is currently exported. It is incorrect to take credit for exports. The mission draft is different in this respect as it refers to generation capacity.

Ministry refutes figure A high ranking official in the Ministry for New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), who declined to be named, said the draft has not been released and he has no knowledge of these targets. The news reporter from Hindu said her information comes from a very reliable source in the Prime Minister’s Office. The impression given was that the PMO might be independently setting the targets. Is it possible? It is certainly possible to achieve these targets. Many would like to see the government adopt a path to generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from non-fossil fuel based sources by 2030. However, the size of the challenge must be understood and our actions must reflect that understanding. That does not seem to be the case here. Large capacity additions in centralised solar power worldwide come mainly from concentrated solar power or solar thermal. India does not have expertise in CSP at all without a single plant in operation right now. Thankfully, this is changing with a couple of universities leading the charge. However, with the first pilot plant two years away, it will take us decades to catch up with Europe and the US that have been researching and deploying these technologies since the early 1980s. What we probably need is create attractive incentives for companies abroad to set up plants in India. As an aside, in an NGO email chain, someone suggested, quoting McKinsey, that “100 GW solar capacity by 2030 equate to about 80% of existing power capacity in 2005. “This is incorrect. 1 GW of a solar power plant is not equivalent to 1 GW of coal based thermal plant. This is due to the different capacity factors of these plants. While coal-based power plants work at around 90% capacity year round (75% in India), solar plants work at only 20-25% capacity. So, 1 GW of solar is only equivalent to about 0.30 GW of a thermal power plant. In other words it would take over 3 GW of solar capacity to equate with 1 GW of coal.

The key: how this could happen

What would make this ambitious plan turn to reality is the strategy that accompaniesit. Few details about how the targets will be met are revealed in the article.
Solar power is extremely expensive right now and much outside the scope of even the city dweller. Unless the targets are accompanied by specific plans — such as, long-term low-interest financing, and / or increase in fossil fuel prices through mechanisms like carbon tax or removal of subsidies — it’s hard to see where such growth will come from. If not, the government seems to be resting its projection upon new technology that will dramatically lower the cost of solar power generation over the next two years, and be ready to be deployed on a massive scale soon thereafter. For the real facts, we will need to wait for the draft document expected to be released after the new government takes oath over next few months.