The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

India Climate Watch – August 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – AUGUST 2009 (Issue 5)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
Bonn3 – A Summary
Overview of India’s submissions to UNFCCC
Vulnerable nations unite on climate change
Climate reporting – what India’s papers say
Himalayan glacier melt – the science base
India’s green cover as a carbon sink – Why forests matter
Climate Calendar: Sept – Dec 2009

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag & Malini Mehra

From the Editor’s Desk

The countdown to Copenhagen has begun. On August 28th we passed the 100 day mark to the commencement of negotiations at the UN climate summit in December. The day also saw the launch of a movement that has been in the making for much of this year –the launch of the TckTckTck campaign –denoting the sound of a ticking clock – by the Global Campaign for Climate Change (GCCA). The campaign marks an unprecedented coming together of the world’s leading, and lesser known, organizations working on climate change – from heavyweights such as Greenpeace, Amnesty, WWF and Oxfam, to the Climate Action Network (CAN), faith-based organizations, youth groups and trade unions. CSM is also a founding member. The campaign has a simple ‘ask’ – a fair, ambitious and binding (FAB) agreement at Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto Protocol which will expire in 2012. Activities were held around the world to mark the launch of the campaign. In Delhi, Chinese and Indian activists came together around a melting ice statue to represent the lives of young children today which hang in the balance. A poignant message from citizens of two of the world’s emergent superpowers.

On his own journey of Sino-Indian diplomacy, the Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, visited Beijing in August to discuss the climate negotiations and cooperation between the two countries. On the face of it, the two countries have a united front on the negotiations, both being members of the G77 political bloc, but the posturing is tactical. Behind the scenes, the situation is more complex. As the world’s largest emitter, China has its own interests and relationships. For example, the country has been pursuing a wide-ranging bilateral dialogue with the United States on climate and energy cooperation with expectations of a deal between the two largest global emitters imminent. China has also benefitted from several years of serious government study of climate change impacts across the vast country and now has a head start in most policy areas compared to India. The country’s highest political body, the National People’s Congress also for the first time in its history issued a draft resolution on climate change which could turn into legislation in the near future.

The country is also discussing the necessity of capping its emissions at the highest political levels. Recently a leading Chinese think-tank issued a detailed 900-page report on a CO2 mitigation strategy that would see China’s emissions peak at 2030. Not music to India’s years. The response of the Indian government has been to criticize China for daring to speak about emissions reduction targets at a time when it is trying to scotch such discussions. In China, however, despite diplomatic assurances to Ramesh, the debate on caps and peaks is well underway. No responsible emergent superpower can afford to do any less.

Bonn3 – a summary

WANTED! Political momentum for Copenhagen

If Bonn2, the last round of negotiations in April, ended on a low note, the break in between has helped bring energy back into climate negotiations. Events after Bonn-2 saw a steady build-up of political momentum. In July, the G8 in L’Aquila and the Major Economies Forum (MEF) included a welcome commitment to keep global warming below 2°. India too signed the statement, despite a political ruckus back home. British PM Gordon Brown became the first Annex I leader to put down a US$ 100 billion figure for mitigation and adaptation for developing countries. A successful United States-China bilateral on climate change meant more cooperation from both sides – the two largest emitters. Closer home, a visit from the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to India as part of her Asia tour included a bilateral on climate change.

Bonn times III

Delegates from all over the world met for a third time this year for 10 days in August at the UNFCCC in Bonn, to whittle down a rather bloated 200-page ‘revised negotiating text’. Text that had grown in size during Bonn2 as all interested countries (in their favourite negotiating blocks) adding their own lengthy paragraphs.
The draft text is intended to be the first cut of an agreement that will be the successor to the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997 and move global action to the next commitment stage after 2012. With Copenhagen less than four months away, there is serious concern that there are fewer excuses for not rounding off a satisfactory deal.

At Bonn3, Parties started off with an attempt at finding ‘areas of convergence’ in the revised negotiating text. It was clear right from the start that the undercurrents of divergence were not going to remain ‘outside the purview of this negotiation’. The process of consolidating text would be as political as it would be difficult.

Sure enough, some Parties (including G77 and China and the AOSIS), were of the opinion that the suggestions they had included were no longer recognizable as ‘their own’. This was a turn-around from the previous session, where Parties had agreed that text would not be ‘attributed’ to any groups or countries. The move was read as a lack of trust – something that an exasperated Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer and AWG-LCA Chair Michael Cutajar alluded to in one session. But it also had more serious implications – namely that the already glacial pace of negotiations would slow even further.

Bonn3 concluded that the highly contentious process of whittling down the text be postponed to Bangkok. Some progress had been made in ‘consolidating’ the text on technology transfer, adaptation, REDD and capacity building. Necessary but not sufficient, given that Copenhagen is but three ‘negotiating weeks’ away.
A positive development was developing country voices asking for a legally binding outcome at COP15. Most developing countries also support strict adherence of the revised text to the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. They argue that text which does not follow the guidelines of the KP or BAP would be a time-consuming venture that the Convention can ill afford at this point.

But for all the optimism that the MEF and other summits provided, Annex 1 countries with notable exceptions such as the EU, continued to issue emissions reductions targets far below what the science requires. The demand from G77/China was a 40% cut by 2020 at 1990 levels.The current average Annex 1 totals are way below this demand and play fast and loose with base years.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had number crunched the collective Annex I targets. The results were not pretty. For all the talk of commitments, the average for the group amounted only to a puny 18 percent reduction below 1990 levels. Disappointing given that science is calling for an 85% reduction by 2050.
Targets announced during Bonn3 pushed the average little better. New Zealand’s ‘conditional’ target contributed little to the pool. Japan expressed the view that failing to reach 25-40% reductions by 2050 is ‘not wrong’; while Australia’s Senate rejected Premier Rudd’s already low and conditional targets just before Bonn3 ended.

Lack of progress on mid-term targets remains one worry. Another is the lack of progress on the finance pillar – either in terms of figures or architecture. With only 118 days from Bonn3 to Copenhagen, Annex1 parties have moved little on capacity building, technology transfer and financial mechanisms for adaptation and mitigation. There is no ‘ambitious plan’ with ‘clear mid-term targets’ for movement to a low-carbon economy. Figures on finance to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, an obvious priority for the most at-risk countries, remains uncertain.

The United States, in an NGO briefing, openly stated that ‘there is no big money coming’, that ‘there are some countries that should not expect finances, and who should come on board and accept targets’, and that intellectual property rights ‘could not be given away at low cost’. Many fear that the ‘numbers’ will be left in limbo until the last day at Copenhagen, despite Annex I members like the EU asking for a top-down, scientifically informed, ambitious target.

The AOSIS and the LDCs remain the few strong voices of reason, repeatedly reminding Parties that our common future and atmosphere is at stake here – that the atmosphere should be more important than market mechanisms or making money.

Overall, there were but minor areas of convergence. If the G77 and China asked for ‘technology transfer and economical capacity building’, the developed countries reiterated their willingness to deploy ‘innovation centres’, ‘research facilities’, and ‘market mechanisms’ to help developing countries address their mitigation and adaptation requirements. If developing countries asked for stronger targets from Annex I and greater ambition, developed countries asked for key developing countries to come on board for ‘additional targets to be met’.

The role of external forums also came under scrutiny with the United States highlighting the importance of external forums that involved ‘key countries’ (G8, G20 and MEF summits), and the need to bring in new text. Those not involved in these exclusive groups of large powerful countries and major emitters – ie. the 170-plus countries with little presence but the greatest vulnerability to climate change, e.g. AOSIS, LDCs, SIDs and African Countries – were understandably wary of being iced out of discussions that could affect them the most.

The G77 and China as a block (India is a part of this block), strongly opposed linking these external fora to the UNFCCC process, saying that while these were clearly meant to build political momentum, their outcomes could not be ‘copy pasted’ into the Convention text without consensus.
India and China also made formal submissions to the Secretariat on emission reductions affecting trade. Several developing countries opposed ‘unilateral’ decisions to curb emissions through taxation, and said that an open and international economic system is critical to progress and equality.
Yvo de Boer’s closing comments through a press conference, made clear his disappointment with the lack of progress. He said “If we continue at this rate, we are not going to make it”.

We must take heart however in some key opportunities to build more ‘political momentum’ prior to the Bangkok session. Finance is a key stumbling block, and Finance ministers are the next potential game-changers in this highly political negotiation process. The G20 summit on September 24-45 will discuss climate finance, and comes just after the UN General Assembly Summit in New York. All these come just prior to Bangkok.  
If serious progress is not made in the Bangkok session, and the Bangkok process is not ‘considerably accelerated’, we can have few expectations from Barcelona or even Copenhagen. The chance to capitalize on opportune summits and build serious political momentum is now.

For daily CSM reports from Bonn3, see Climate Challenge India

Overview of India’s submissions to UNFCCC

Early in August 2009, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) released a compilation of the GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC. Entitled “Climate Change Negotiations – India’s submissions to the UNFCCC”, the publication is intended to educate the public about the logic behind India’s approach to the climate negotiations, and the country’s submissions from 2008 up until 2009.

The GoI has maintained that poverty and economic reform are prime national policy objectives that cannot be compromised, but that economic development must in the long term, be driven by sustainability principles, with the co-benefits of reduced emissions. The submissions in this report are based on this approach, but also make strong demands on developed countries to assist in mitigation and adaptation efforts through financial, technological and capacity enhancing measures.

The report seeks to explain the negotiation process in simple English, demystifies complicated UNFCCC jargon, gives the average interested citizen a perspective on where negotiations stand, what India’s contributions are, suggested text as contributed by India, and a layperson’s explanation of the legal terms and statements.
The report also cross references explanations and submissions to the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, and clarifies what India’s interpretation of each statement is. For example, the ‘ultimate objective of the Convention’ that must be achieved ‘in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention’ refer to accordance with Commitments in Article 4, and Principles enunciated in Article 2 of the Convention.

Submissions under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) detail the scale of emission reductions that Annex I Parties should achieve (collectively), and the use of clean development mechanisms (CDMs) under the Protocol for developed countries to meet some of their emission targets. Most demands are in keeping with IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports.

The KP-submissions also include a detailed proposal for rules and guidelines for the treatment of Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and other CDM activities. India sees LULUCF as a mechanism to boost its forestry operations, and a monetary incentive for its existing forests, and this is the context under which it has submitted this text to the UNFCCC.

Under submissions for Long-Term Cooperative Action (LCA) under the Bali Action Plan, where Parties agreed to decide on medium and long-term targets and cooperative action, India’s submissions include several interventions. These include details of text on Shared Vision; Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) mitigation actions of developing and developed countries (separately); Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) of developing countries, Reduced Deforestation in developing countries (REDD), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and Afforestation and Reforestation (A&R); enhancing action on adaptation, improving the architecture for financial commitments and flow of finances; and technology transfer mechanisms.

India is part of the G77/China negotiating block with takes common positions at the UNFCCC. Most submissions detailed in the guide are in line with G77/ China policies and positions, which more or less stress the principles of historical responsibility, and payment to developing countries for ‘using up’ their development space.

Vulnerable nations unite on climate change

One of the key political events at Bonn3 was the unprecedented coming together of 80 of the world’s most vulnerable countries – members of the erstwhile political blocs of AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) . Collectively accounting for less than 1% of global emissions, the new grouping called joined forces to demand that ”the new Copenhagen climate agreement limit temperature increases to as far below 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.” Urging countries to go even further than the 2degrees target  long called for by the European Union and of late agreed to by the G8 and major emerging powers such as India, the new political grouping of vulnerable countries expressed dismay at the lack of progress and ambition of the talks.

Ambassador Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, called on delegates:  “With less than 115 days left to Copenhagen, the time for posturing and pretension is over. … Current pledges by industrialized countries add up to emission reductions in the range of 10 to 16 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This risks taking us on a path to temperature increases in excess of 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Such a path would be catastrophic for all countries.”

 AOSIS and the Group of LDCs are lobbying for a more ambitious target of 350 degrees parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent, as advocated most notably by US scientist, James Hansen, as opposed to the 450 degrees ppm currently on the table at the UNFCCC talks.

AOSIS and the LDC Group are calling for the following:

  1. Industrialized countries to collectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 45 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020;
  2. Global emissions to peak by 2015, and fall quickly thereafter to ensure that total global emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 enabling emissions to decline to 350 ppm;
  3. Financial support for adaptation and mitigation targeted at the most vulnerable and poorest countries of approximately 1 per cent of the industrialized world’s GDP, or approximately US$400 billion annually, in addition to current development aid.

Bruno Sekoli from Lesotho, the Chair of the group of LDCs reminded negotiators:  “Climate change is here, and already delivering damage. … We will not allow negotiators and governments to continue to ignore the human costs of climate change – hunger, disease, poverty and lost livelihoods are all on our doorstep. These impacts have the potential to threaten social and political stability, and in some cases, the very survival of low-lying island states”.

Ambassador Williams highlighted the urgency of their fight, “We need to see the leadership and ambition that is often claimed in the media, but in reality, has yet to emerge in the negotiating room.” Expressing the common fear of the group of vulnerable countries, she concluded “The window of opportunity is closing quickly. Copenhagen is the last chance to avoid a global human tragedy.”

Climate reporting – what the papers say

An overview of reports appearing in the Indian press on key climate-related issues:

GOI and State Governments

  • Jairam Ramesh in China to discuss climate change strategy. India-China agree that they will take a common stand at UNFCCC, say no to legally binding emission targets
  • PM’s council on climate change meets to finalise National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency
  • PM convenes first-ever meeting of state environment ministers. Asks states to roll out climate change and conservation plans by December. Special ask for hill states to speed up their preparations and plans
  • PM’s council on climate change meets to discuss National Solar Mission. Key ministries voice concerns, eventually okay 92,000 crore package (over 30 years) to boost solar energy contribution to energy sector to 20 percent
  • India-China for joint research on Himalayas and glacier systems
  • India, China, Brazil oppose G20 climate finance proposal to contain greenhouse gases. Say self-financing is not an option
  • Department of Science and Technology (DST) initiates National Programme on CO2 Sequestration Research. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigating climate change that is still under research and development, but could be a promising option for continued carbon-based fuel source use
  • Gujarat will come out on top of the solar energy charts in India in the next few years. Gujarat govt to invest in 34 projects at a total investment of 2.4 billion US Dollars – avoiding 1.25 million tones of CO2 emissions each year
  • India releases “India’s forest and tree cover” report – Jairam Ramesh says ‘forests will save India’
  • Haryana Government signs an MOU with private investors to produce 215 MW of electricity from renewable sources
  • MNRE: capital cost of solar power projects could come down from 6-8 crores to 14 crore (current)
  • India releases “Climate Change Negotiations; India’s submissions to the UNFCCC” – detailing India’s submissions over 2008-09 to UNFCCC Secretariat
  • GOI at Bonn
  • Sticks to prior stands, says revised negotiating text must not be inconsistent with Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol
  • Scope for collaboration on ‘transformational’ technologies not ‘marginal’ technologies
  • India raises concerns about double counting emissions ‘here, there and there’
  • Calls for separation of developed and developing country NAMAs and MRV’s
  • Opposes external text from outside international fora into UNFCCC process
  • India tells NGOs plan for COP15 is not fixed, will decide track depending on developments

More news

  • Third-largest store of ice in Tibet receding fast says study from China
  • World Ocean temperatures at all-time high in July
  • Patna: Students call for more renewable energy in India
  • China sets firm emission targets, says will peak by 2030
  • Shirdi  temple complex goes solar – joins Tirupathi and Mt Abu – makes annual savings of 100,000 kg of LPG p/yr
  • Villagers in Alibaugh protest against 10,000 MW power plant in the region. Form human windmill in massive show of protest
  • Chennai NGO Pasumai Thayagam puts up countdown clock at Spencer Mall
  • Ban-Ki Moon warns of climate catastrophe without global deal
  • Industries met on corporate opportunities and climate change at a summit organized by NEERI
  • SME’s more green energy targets to bring in more investments
  • CII outlines green building code
  • India has fastest rate of CDM clearance

Himalayan glacier melt – the science base

The Himalayas and the its melting glaciers have received some attention in the recent weeks, ever since controversial statements made by India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh suggested that glacier melt was not as serious as many scientists and other observers believed.

Here we take a look at some of the latest science on the subject.

First, some important vital statistics:

The Himalayas span five countries and are home to unique mountain species and human cultures. They also have the largest concentration of glaciers outside the polar ice caps, feed nine major river systems in Asia, and are a lifeline to an estimated 1 billion people. Melt water from glaciers provides a key source of water for the region in the summer months; as much as 70 % in the Ganges and 50-60% in other rivers.

Such high concentrations of freshwater reserves are not found outside of the Poles, and have earned the Himalayas the title ‘The Third Pole’. However, there is little doubt that the glaciers of the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region are melting and that the melting is accompanied by a long-term increase of near-surface temperature.

A warming trend has been observed since the beginning of the Industrial revolution (approx 1750) and corresponds with a temperature rise of 0.3 °C in the first half of the 20th century. A second burst of warming in the latter half of the 20th century (the last 25 years) by another 0.3 °C has resulted in an overall temperature increase of nearly 0.74 degrees C.

Glaciers are highly sensitive to temperature changes, and this warming trend has resulted in glaciers across the globe retreating dramatically. A 1997 study of 200 glaciers worldwide by Dyurgerov and Meier concluded that the reduction in global area amounted to between 6,000 and 8,000 km2 over the 30 year period from 1961 to 1990.

In line with the worldwide trend, Himalayan glaciers have also been found to be in a general state of retreat since 1850. However, what has been of particular concern to scientists has been the accelerated rate of glacier retreat, ranging anywhere between 10 and 60 m per year in recent years.
A 1999 report from the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.

The most striking examples of glacier retreat from the Indo-China region are some of the following: the Gangotri glacier in India by nearly 23 m per year (currently); the formation of the 1km long Imja lake formed from the meltwater of the Imja glacier in Nepal; and the retreat of the Khumbu Glacier by over 5km since the time Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay climbed the Everest. The China Glacier Inventory shows substantial melting of virtually all glaciers in the Quinghai region of Tibet – a major source of the Yangtze river.

Field monitoring of Himalayan glaciers is a difficult process, owing to which field-based records over the long term are only available only for select Himalayan glaciers. Indian Remote Satellites (IRS) are regularly used to monitor small glaciers and ice fields, as are field photographs of glacier terminus and estimation of areal extent of glaciers.

Analytical studies from the region suggest a reduction in the maximum flow-period and increase in glacial melt-water runoff by 33-38% and loss in glaciated area. Annual ice thickness loss in the Western Himalayas is estimated at about 0.8m per year between 1999 and 2004. This has serious implications not just for the glacial systems themselves, but also for people living downstream, particularly in the longer term.

Nearly 500 million people are dependent on the Ganges, Bramhaputra and Indus river basins. Severe glacial melt causes a declining trend in river discharge, and changes freshwater flow regimes. This can have impacts on biodiversity, water supplies, infrastructure, industry and agriculture. Another serious issue is the increase in number and extent of glacial lakes. This in turn increases the potential threat of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) causing catastrophic discharges of water .
The frequency of GLOFs in the Himalayan region has increased in the second half of the 20th century, and the damage to lives and infrastructure estimated at close to USD 3 million.

Studies from the Chinese Academy of Sciences report 5.5 percent shrinkage in the volume of China’s glaciers over the last 24 years. In the Indian Himalaya, significant glacial retreats have been recorded in the last three decades, particularly in the Siachen, Pindari, Gangotri and Milam Glaciers. Most regularly monitored glaciers show frontal recession, substantial thinning and a reduced area and volume. Although glaciers in Bhutan have been less well-studied, there are some indications of glaciers such as the Tarina retreating at a rate of 35 m per year between 1967 and 1988. In the Nepali Himalaya, glaciers show remarkable changes from the 1960s to 2001, with an average minimum retreat rate of 10m per year.

Several studies now monitor glacier retreat through the growth of glacial lakes. The other objective of studying glacial lakes in the Himalaya is to serve as an early warning system in the event of GLOFs. One example of a GLOF was the outbreak of the Dig Tsho glacial lake in Nepal in 1985.

Recent research initiatives

India and China have recently agreed to work together on glacier research. This is in addition to the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Indian Space Research Organisations’ (ISRO) initiatives to monitor receding glaciers. DST is also in the process of establishing a National Centre for Himalayan Glaciology. Funds are also expected from the NAPCC mission on Sustainable Himalayan Ecosystems.

Monitoring studies initiated by ICIMOD and the UNEP in the Hindu Kush Himalayas undertake large-scale documenting and monitoring of GLOFs. These programmes aim at engaging key stakeholders to assess socio-economic impacts of GLOFs, needs and capacity assessments and building community-based preparedness and early warning systems. WWF India continues its long-term monitoring and mass-balance research of the Gangotri and Chota Sigri Glaciers. A number of glaciers have been taken up for monitoring studies in the different parts of Indian Himalaya by several Government agencies such as the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIHG), Dehradun; Geological Survey of India (GSI); Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment (SASE), Chandigarh.

The most recent scientific undertaking for Himalayan Glacier research has been the EU-initiated ‘High Noon’ Project in Feb 2009. It aims at assessing the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat and possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon on the distribution of water resources in Northern India. The EU has earmarked 3 million Euros (approximately INR 19.5 crores) for this 3-year project.

With such initiatives and their combined research capacity, policymakers may be in a better position to judge the severity of glacier melt and its implications for regional water and food security among other impacts. Notwithstanding the necessity of further research, India’s policymakers might be better advised to take a proactive approach and conduct risk analyses as a first line of defence for what could pose turn into a major security issue in years to come.

India’s green cover as a carbon sink – Why forests matter

Forests matter in the climate change debate because rising temperatures are likely to have a broadly negative impact on forest ecosystems. Tropical deforestation currently accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions each year. These are some of the reasons why deforestation and land use change are being address in the context of the UN’s climate discussions. The other aspects of the focus on deforestation are the need to promote conservation, prevent biodiversity loss and protect vulnerable indigenous communities and forest dwellers.

Deforestation is a serious issue in South America, SE Asia and Central Africa, as well as several other developing countries, where the monetary benefits of deforestation currently far outweigh the benefits of preservation. Given the potential impacts of climate change, developing countries are likely to come under severe stress in the future, in combating its adverse effects. This is very likely to place additional stress on country forest resources.
Forests in the UNFCCC process – REDD and REDD+

Under the current UNFCCC mechanisms, there are no monetary benefits or positive incentives for ‘reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation’ – REDD for short – or other forest-based activities. This implies there is little incentive for Indonesia for example, to stop deforestation for timber or conversion of forests to oil-palm plantations.

Recognising this issue and the need to bring in international-level policy controls to curb deforestation, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and a group of tropical forest nations put forward a proposal to the UNFCCC in 2005, to consider approaches to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) that could tie in with the UNFCCC process.

Since then there has been broad agreement that climate change mitigation efforts should address deforestation, and should incentivize forest conservation through a variety of market and non-market mechanisms.  

Developing countries in which deforestation rates are more or less stabilized, are keen to introduce incentives for avoided deforestation, as well as for Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) and Afforestation and Reforestation (A&R). Taken together, these measures are called ‘REDD plus’.
India’s stance

India and other developing countries have argued the case along these lines. They have made a case for payment for lost opportunity costs, and incentives to conserve forest land. They argue that these costs must be met at least in ‘substantial part’, by global climate agreements, since it is ‘in the interest of the global climate’ to preserve these forests.

In support this position, India’s ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) recently released a report, “India’s Forest and Tree Cover: Contribution as a Carbon Sink”. This report argues that forests have a significant role to play in carbon storage and sequestration, therefore playing a significant role in mitigating climate change. The report suggests that forests can absorb a certain proportion of India’s own emissions now and in the future.

In addition to the global importance of forests, India’s National Green Mission under the GoI’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) focuses on ‘enhancing ecosystem services and carbon sinks through afforestation on degraded land’. This mission is in line with the national policy of expanding forest and tree cover to 33 percent of the total land area of the country.

The report bases itself on Forest Survey of India (FSI) data on forest cover, which states that India currently has 23.4 percent (76.87 million ha) of geographical area under forest and tree cover.

The forest and tree cover report suggests that carbon stocks in India’s forests have increased from 6244.78 million tonnes (mt) to 6621.55 mt between 1995 and 2005 – an annual increment of 136.15 mt of CO2 equivalent. It details the proportion of emissions the country can offset in the future by increasing and maintaining forest cover. Estimates for country-wide emission levels in 2010 and 2020 stand at 45% and 95% (respectively) above 2000 emission levels. Calculations based on a continued increase in forest cover over the coming years, suggests that forests would still be able to offset 6.53% and 4.87% of projected annual emissions in 2010 and 2020 respectively.

The report also aims at reviewing methods use to assess forest carbon stocks, and possible ways to increase the carbon storage capacity of forests.
What’s wrong with the GoI’s REDD+ approach.

However, there are several issues of concern in the report, and implications for forest conservation, arising from the report.
The first is that the report relies almost entirely on government figures drawn from the Indian Forest Survey. These figures are not independently verified and do little to address the skepticism with which many in the conservation community regard official Forest Survey of India figures. For example, officially the government does not admit that there has been loss of forest cover. But its own 2005 FSI assessment reports a ‘marginal’ loss of forest cover (728km2 – an area larger than Mumbai city) between 2002 and 2004. This constitutes a 0.11% loss of forest cover (official figures) – an important discrepancy because  loss of forests means loss of biodiversity, vital habitats for endangered species and overall reduction in ecosystem functions.  

A related concern is that creating monetary incentives for large forest cover numbers will lead to the artificial inflation of the proportion of forest cover in India. In much the same way as tiger numbers in Rajasthan’s Sariska Tiger Reserve were inflated to satisfy political and commercial interests, when in reality there were no tigers left in the reserve.

A few other points are worth noting here in the context of the report:

  1. ‘Forest cover’ in India is defined as all lands, more than one hectare in area with a tree canopy density of more than 10% – there is no distinction between natural forests and plantations;
  2. The value of 23.4 percent includes forest cover (20.6%) and tree cover (2.8%), where tree cover is defined as tree patches outside recorded forest areas exclusive of forest cover, less than the minimum ‘mappable’ area of one hectare. This value is also an estimate, not an actual value;
  3. Forest cover mapping undertaken by FSI does not make any distinction between tree species (plantations are therefore considered forests), or land ownership (private land with shade-coffee for example, also gets classified as forest)
  4. National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Conservation reserves cover a mere 4.74% of the country’s geographical area. The question therefore remains as to how increasing ‘forest cover’ can practically help preserve ecosystems, conserve endangered species, and prevent biodiversity loss;
  5. Active ‘afforestation’ must be carried only in objectively classified ‘degraded’ land. Scrub forests cannot for example be classified as degraded land. Nor can naturally occurring grassland within protected areas or naturally low-density forests be ‘reforested’ or ‘afforested’ simply to boost up carbon stocks.
  6. These and other concerns mean that REDD plus proposals must be subjected to greater scrutiny as to their actual environmental and social benefits. It would not be in the national interest to reduce the quality of India’s forests, the biodiversity they support, the communities they shelter and the ecosystem services that they provide. With the experience of the dubious climate and environmental benefits of many CDM projects in India, another proposal which is predicated on the prospect of ‘easy money’ needs to be studied with greater care than it appears the GoI has given it so far.

Climate Calendar:  September – December 2009

16 -17 Sept: MEF meets in Washington DC
20 – 26 Sept: UN Climate Week, New York
22 Sept: High-level event on Climate Change, UN General Assembly.
24 – 25 Sept: G20, Pittsburgh.
28 Sept – 9 Oct: UNFCCC meeting, Bangkok.
2 – 6 Nov: UNFCCC meeting, Barcelona
7-19 Dec: COP15 UN climate change conference, Copenhagen.

Per capita fig leaves and melting glaciers – Will the real Jairam Ramesh please stand up? – 20 Aug 2009

by Leave a Comment

Per capita fig leaves and melting glaciers – Will the real Jairam Ramesh please stand up?


20 Aug 2009                                                                                                             

Jairam Ramesh is India’s new Minister for Environment and Forests (MoEF). It is a fact that has cheered many of us in the environmental movement. Why then has the man who we celebrated as one of us and a bold independent voice, caved in to the climate
ideologues in the government?

In recent weeks, Ramesh has been in the news non-stop with one or the other statement on climate change. Whereas before we were accustomed to the Prime
Minister’s special envoy, Shyam Saran, holding forth, now the spotlight is squarely on Jairam Ramesh.

This is good. Finally we have an articulate and passionate environmentalist, at ease with the media, someone who knows his MEFs from his REDDs and can cite chapter
and verse of the Forest Rights Act. Jairam Ramesh, the former Minister of State for Commerce, once seen by some as a pusher of coal and dirty industry, is now talking of ‘green’ GDPs and conservation over development if the need arises.

Despite the contradictions between his present and previous portfolios, a change is discernible at MoEF. With his arrival, the ministry has gone from being one of the
government’s faded flowers with little conspicuous clout and a string of lacklustre predecessors, to one that appears to be in fresh bloom and growing in self-esteem.
Although Ramesh has said of his appointment on 28th May, “This is the last position I expected to be in,” he appears determined to make an impact. He has stated his
priorities to be forests and ecosystem restoration, conservation of India’s embattled wildlife – especially tigers, river clean-up, strong environmental management through institutional changes and community engagement.

Under his watch, the Supreme Court has finally announced the release of $3 billion dollars of penalty fines, collected by the authorities and held in escrow for the past
seven years, which he has pledged will now be used for forest protection and regeneration.

These CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority) funds have come as a windfall to an environmental community singularly unaccustomed o such largesse for natural India. Ramesh has vowed that the funds will be used well and for the purpose intended.

All this is very good news. But in recent weeks, Ramesh has made some uncharacteristic statements on climate change – including some idiosyncratic ones on
glacier melt – that make one wonder where the real Jairam Ramesh has been taken and kept in hiding.

During Hilary Clinton’s visit to India1, for example, he berated western countries for pressuring India to take on targets and stated categorically “I would like to make it clear that India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally binding emission reduction targets.” The words per capita and equity and the inference to ‘you first’ were used in plenty.

On the Major Economies Forum (MEF) declaration in Italy, which became peculiarly controversial in India after the Prime Minister signed up to the need for global emissions not exceeding the ‘safe’ limit of 2 degrees, Jairam Ramesh said “The way we see the declaration, the entire declaration is subject to the overall, overarching principle of common but differentiated responsibility; that’s the scaffolding – it is receptive to capabilities as well as consistent with the principle of equity. Hence, India continues to lay emphasis on per capita emissions.”

All characteristic GoI climate speak, playing to a domestic audience, but not characteristic for the previously forthright and independent-minded Jairam Ramesh.
In making such statements, he has reportedly entrenched India’s hardline stance at the climate negotiations that no compromise is possible and capping India’s emissions is non-negotiable. All this at a time when the Chinese, Mexicans and South Africans are discussing voluntary national emissions reductions and low-carbon development strategies with targets and timetables.

Had it been anyone else but Jairam Ramesh making these statements, they would have sounded less jarring. But coming from a man who spoke consistently progressively and thoughtfully about climate change when Minister for Commerce & Industry, they sound forced and out of character. It is worth recalling that Jairam Ramesh spoke publically on climate change not once but three times as Minister of Commerce & Industry at TERI’s annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS). At the time he was a fervent critic of the government’s approach and its allegiance to the per capita principle and other formulae.

1See the full report on the Clinton visit and MEF fallout in India in the July issue of CSM’s India Climate Watch. ICWs can be downloaded from CSM’s portal on climate change – www.climatechallengeindia.org

At the 2007 DSDS, he made no bones about his view on domestic emissions reductions that “if we have superpower ambitions and superpower visions then that should take on superpower responsibilities”.

As an indication of just how far he has swerved to adopt the GoI’s party line on climate change now, it is instructive to recall in full what he said from the gut – this was not a written speech – in his Valedictory Address at DSDS on 22 January 2007:

“I’ve been telling Dr Pachauri that he should take the lead in getting the Indian government to start thinking about the ‘son of Kyoto’, because in the first phase we got out of initial reduction requirements but I do not think that in the post-2012 scenario that India and China will get by by asserting the right that they had in the first round.

I’ve been telling him that he should sensitise all of us, that he should sensitise public opinion to the fact that India will be called on – I believe firmly – that India will be called upon, to assume modest perhaps, but it will be called upon symbolically at least to assume emissions reductions requirements. That (sic) will be of major implications.

We can continue to give the argument that we give that with 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases, and with only 18% of the world’s population we consume 5 to 6% of the world’s greenhouse gases.

This common but differentiated responsibility argument can be given but the political economy in today’s world being what it is … if we have superpower ambitions and superpower visions then that should take on superpower responsibilities, and superpower responsibilities include greater awareness on the international dimensions.

So, I’ve been asking Dr Pachauri and I hope that in the next few months he will take the lead and India will start picking up not just about high-growth and all these things we are doing, but also the international consequences that we have to pay for on the environment front.”

Wise and honest words then from Jairam Ramesh. What a U-turn now.

For those of us who are critical of the government’s Neolithic positions on climate change, his recent statements have come as a blow. If we are to make any progress on climate change as a global community we will not only need leadership by the US and Europe, we will also need leadership by India and China.

In reality, in India such leadership will only come with a change in mindset and a generational shift in senior officials and advisers.

The GoI seems to be impervious to this, but one would have thought that smart and influential figures such as Jairam Ramesh would have been able to point to the writing on the wall. Instead of providing intellectual challenge and fresh ideas, however, he seems to have gone in for toeing the official line and self-censorship.

It has become clear that the GoI is determined to close ranks on climate policy while the UN negotiations are underway. As reported in our India Climate Watch (April/ May issue), the cabinet secretary has issued a gag-rule on climate change for senior officials forbidding them from making any pronouncement on climate change or challenging government policy. Poor form for a democracy – and not good news if it’s fresh thinking and good ideas that we should be looking for.

Jairam Ramesh’s recent pronouncements on glacier melt have also sparked controversy. Himalayan glacier melt is arguably the iconic climate issue for India, but
the Minister for Environment and Forests is reported to have said it is a benign natural process. He has dismissed predictions that the glaciers might disappear within 40 years due to climate change as inaccurate ‘western’ science and western media hype.

For a man of his erudition and intellectual stature such statements boggle the mind. Firstly, for the uncharacteristic national chauvinism exhibited regarding the validity of ‘Indian’ science and the inadmissibility of ‘western’ science. Odd for a man who is normally a very at-ease internationalist.

Secondly, for the continuation of the GoI’s absurd denial of Himalayan glacier melt – a subject that the government is increasingly on very thin ice on. The GoI’s equivocation on glacier melt has been apparent since its contentious opening statement on the subject in the National Action Plan on Climate Change. In this 2008 report, the government establishes a ‘mission’ to protect the Himalayan ecosystem but then waters down its commitment by stating:

“The available monitoring data on Himalayan glaciers indicates that while recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is accordingly, too early to establish longterm trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.”

In other words, glacier melt is not caused by human-induced climate change and there is nothing much to worry about. Jairam Ramesh seems to have accepted this hook, line and sinker. A shame because, if this view is still reflective of GoI policy, it appears to be dismissing not only ‘western’ science but ‘Indian’ science too.

In the June issue of India Climate Watch we reported on a new study by the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology which concluded that the retreat of India’s glaciers could be dated to around 1750 – the start of the industrial revolution – reinforcing the view that current melting is not natural (as argued by the Geological Survey of India) but indeed human-induced.

The Potsdam Climate Impact Research Institute (PiK) has done a lot more regional climate modeling and estimates that the Third Pole region – the Hindu Kush/Himalayas/Tibetan Plateau – is in fact warming at three times the average global rate. PiK’s modeling suggests that there will be a near total loss of summer glacial melt water in the great river basins of Asia by 2035.

Something that would give most people pause, but not it seems the government of India. I have been in a room with the government’s lead negotiators where Professor John Shellnhuber of PiK showed the dramatic visual representation of what was happening over time to the Himalayas. The results as the HKHT region started to burn red hot on the screen as mid-century neared were dramatic and frightening.

Most people viewing the film – including noble laureats –were convinced that what we were seeing was ‘good science’, but clearly not the GoI’s negotiators if recent statements are to be believed.

For Jairam Ramesh and the government to be still disputing the reality of Himalayan glacier melt is deeply worrying. Even if the government is not wholly convinced of the science, it should still adopt a precautionary approach to an issue with such potentially explosive consequences for the nation’s food security, water security and broader national and military security.

The gravity of all of this is multiplied manifold if we accept that climate change can be ‘abrupt’ and not ‘linear’. In other words, worst case scenarios are possible and need to be planned for.

The Jairam Ramesh that we knew as an independent voice in government would have understood and spoken out on these issues. His voice is much missed and much needed. It is time for him to re-emerge. Will the real Jairam Ramesh please stand up?

India Climate Watch – July 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – JULY 2009 (Issue 4)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s Desk
India at the MEF/ G8
Hilary Clinton visits India
CSM/ Avaaz 2 Degrees Action
How Green was the 2009-10 Budget?
Climate reporting – Indian style
Climate science – India
Climate action at the state level …
– Karnataka’s solar leadership plans
– West Bengal launches first 2 MW solar plant

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Kaavya Nag, Malini Mehraand Dolan Chatterjee

From the Editor’s desk

July saw hullabaloo in India as the Prime Minister signed up to 2 degrees at the Major Economies Forum meeting in Italy. Rather than congratulate Manmohan Singh for finally accepting what scientists, civil society and the European Union had been advocating for years, there was uproar in Delhi as the PM signed up to a statement that global warming should not exceed 2 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. In an unprecedented move, a disgruntled negotiator, a senior GoI official briefed against the PM and criticized Singh for agreeing to a move he claimed would ‘box India into a corner’. In a letter leaked to the Times of India, the official concluded “India’s poor will pay the price for this political declaration” and that the PM’s signing was a “body blow to everything that we (the Indian officials) have fought for.”

The charge that India’s negotiating position would be irretrievably undermined and that India was now on the slippery slope to accepting legally binding emissions reductions was vehemently refuted by the Prime Minister, his Special Envoy, Shyam Saran, and the Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. But the histrionics carried in the media fuelled further questions in Parliament and even more contentious debate on whether India had sold out its national interests at the MEF. In the midst of all this rather well-lathered brouhaha the inconvenient fact that even 2 degrees Celsius does not represent a ‘safe’ upper level for humanity given the gravity of climate change (much as GoI officials still challenge scientific consensus on this) did not cut much ice. Also ignored was the plea from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and vulnerable nations such as India’s neighbours Bangladesh and the Maldives for a more ambitious 1.5 degrees upper limit to warming.

The ruckus brought home for many the need for a less politically motivated and better informed debate on climate change in the Indian media and Parliament. The Prime Minister did the right thing in agreeing to 2 degrees as an upper limit – it was hardly a revolutionary move but it did show leadership. It is regrettable that he paid the price of leadership – we will need much more of it in the days to come.

India at the Major Economies Forum/ G8

The latest meeting of the MEF took place in the sidelines of the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, on 9th July. Comprising 17 of the largest economies (including India) accounting for 80% of global emissions, the Forum was established by President Obama in March 2009 as a continuation of the Major Economies Meetings initiated under the Bush Administration. The MEF’s stated objective is to “help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” All this in a more informal, non-negotiation setting than is possible under the UNFCCC process. India has played a somewhat cautious, semi-detached role in the MEF, staying on the sidelines and preferring to observe rather than engage actively. It did sign up to the MEF L’Aquila Declaration however, a non-binding political statement which contained significant language on deviation from business as usual and the two degrees target.

On the former the MEF Declaration said: “Developing countries among us will promptly undertake actions whose projected effects on emissions represent a meaningful deviation from business as usual in the midterm, in the context of sustainable development, supported by financing, technology, and capacity-building.” The text on 2 degrees echoed language subsequently adopted by the G8’s official Communique. The MEF statement read: “We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. In this regard and in the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, we will work between now and Copenhagen, with each other and under the Convention, to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.”

This was all good stuff and a victory for groups which had lobbied for years for 2 degrees as a safe upper limit – including CSM and Avaaz which had lobbied the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on this issue (see below). But as the IPCC Chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, and others pointed out, while the MEF and G8 agreed to 2 degrees as the upper limit for global warming, they did not draw out its logical conclusion which, according to the IPCC, was that global emissions must necessarily peak by 2015 if even a 50/50 percent chance of staying within 2 degrees was to be met. Instead the MEF issued a motherhood-and-apple pie statement saying “The peaking of global and national emissions should take place as soon as possible, recognizing that the timeframe for peaking will be longer in developing countries.” If the MEF process is to truly deliver the goods in Copenhagen it will have to embrace the inevitable and recognize the need for peaking by 2015 for industrialized countries. Anything short of this will  be justifiably seen as consensus-driven waffle.

Hilary Clinton visits India

From 18-20 July, Hilary Clinton paid her first official visit to India as Secretary of State as part of a regional tour taking in Thailand and China. The visit was intended to signal the importance the Obama Administration attached to a strong relationship with India as a global player – in Clinton’s words “We see India as an economic power, a strategic partner, a country that has an unlimited potential.” Accompanying her was Todd Stern, the President’s special envoy on climate change. Although the visit encompassed defense cooperation, health, education, agriculture, science & technology partnerships – the issues that hit the headlines were Pakistan, civil nuclear cooperation, and climate change. Keen to not appear to be preaching, Clinton admitted the responsibility of the USA for climate change: “… we have made mistakes … and we, along with other developed countries, have contributed most significantly to the problems that we face with climate change. We are hoping that a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.” She also emphasized the opportunity agenda for India: “… just as India went, from a few years ago, having very few telephones to now having more than 500 million mostly cell phones by leapfrogging over the infrastructure that we built for telephone service, we believe India is innovative and entrepreneurial enough to figure out how to deal with climate change while continuing to lift people out of poverty and develop at a rapid rate.”

During a visit to the ITC Green Building, an Indo-US collaboration and one of only 11 platinum-certified LEAD buildings in India, Todd Stern similarly admitted the ‘special responsibility’ of the US as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, asserting “we are taking strong action, in light of that responsibility.” But he also pointed to future emissions, noting “It is still true that over 80 percent of the growth in emissions as we go forward is going to come from developing nations like India and others.” It was the response by Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment & Forests, that hit the headlines and stayed there for weeks.

In what was seen as a political rebuff by some and India standing tall by others, the Minister accused western countries of pressuring India to take on targets and stated categorically “I would like to make it clear that India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally binding emission reduction targets.” Keen to underscore that this did not mean that India was running away from her responsibilities he singled out India’s ambitious newly-adopted $3 billion forest regeneration and restoration programme as an example of leadership. Many saw Ramesh’s reference to emissions targets as setting up a straw man argument for domestic political purposes. Not that a politician playing to a domestic audience should come as a surprise anyone, but as the Minister would have known, neither the UNFCCC, nor the MEF nor other multilateral processes call for legally binding emissions reductions from India. (Although these are eternally suspected by the GoI through the back door.) Under the Convention, legally binding targets are at present only required for Annex1 (industrialized countries) and this is widely accepted. What is being asked by some of major economies such as India is a deviation from business-as-usual – i.e. a change in the trajectory of national greenhouse gas emissions not absolute emissions cuts. As the negotiations heat up, no doubt we will see more such ‘war of words’ that cloud rather than clarify.

The last word on the visit should perhaps go to the host, Minister Ramesh, who promised a number of partnerships between the U.S. and India on specific areas such as environmental management, forests, energy efficiency, clean coal, solar energy, biomass, and energy efficient buildings, noting he had made specific proposals to the Secretary of State. We will stay tuned for details on these and hope there will be scope for stakeholder engagement so that citizens can be fully involved.

CSM/ Avaaz 2 Degrees Action

Prime Minister Singh: Agree to 2 Degrees

On 8th July 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was urged by fellow Indians to play a leadership role on climate change at the G8+5 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy. The biggest polluters in the world had gathered at the world leaders’ summit in Italy, to take a massive step towards tackling climate change. They were on the verge of committing to a global warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
For the first time, Indian citizens issued a call on their government to exert leadership on climate change and say ‘yes’ to a demand that scientists and civil society have long been calling for across the world. CSM, a leading force on climate advocacy, was the Indian NGO partner for the initiative, in association with Avaaz.org, a community of 3.5 million global citizens (including 80,000 Indians) who take action on major issues facing the world today.
 
In less than 24 hours, more that 2021 Indians signed the Avaaz.org petition calling on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to show leadership on climate change. The petition was submitted directly to the Prime Ministers’ office by CSM a day before the meeting in Italy.

India is a country heavily dependent on its natural resources and the monsoon, and has already been victim to disastrous climate change. However, the Indian government is standing in the way of this important agreement by which, practically all heavyweight leaders of the world would agree to keep global warming to below 2 degrees C. They would, in effect, agree (although currently non-binding), to emission cuts that will help the world stay below the 2 degree mark.

The simple call on the PM was to “take immediate and serious steps towards a global climate deal and call on you to agree a 2 degree limit agreement now.”

We want a climate deal that is:

AMBITIOUS: enough to leave a planet safe for us all.

FAIR: for the poorest countries that did not cause climate change but are suffering most from it.

BINDING: with real targets that can be legally monitored and enforced.

With the PM now having delivered on this at L’Aquila a letter of thanks has been sent to the Prime Minister’s Office. In the face of resistance to his move by sections of the Indian media and Parliamentarians, it is important to send the PM an unequivocal signal that many Indians – especially young ones – are mobilizing for leadership and will not only welcome it but also reward it.

How Green was the 2009-10 Budget?

In a year that is supposed to be about action on climate change and when even the usually conservative United Nations has committed to an unprecedented campaign to ‘Seal the Deal’ at Copenhagen, how green and climate-literate was the government’s Budget announced in July?

Does the 2009-10 budget have any elements that ‘decouple’ carbon and development? Does it bolster India’s position in the fast emerging global clean technology market? Does it take the opportunity to attract green investments, prop-up ‘green’ exports or move faster towards energy efficiency?

The 2009-10 budget comes at a time when the IMF predicts the global economy is expected to register a contraction of 1.3 percent in 2009 – with projections by the World Bank being more pessimistic. This clearly has had adverse impacts for India’s capital inflow and exports. However, the Indian economy is showing signs of revival. In large part due to government expenditure which accounts for 38 percent of GDP in 2008-09

As expected, the budget focuses on the key issue of economic revival, while ensuring medium-term (financial) sustainability – trying to bring the economy into the green.

According to ratings agency, CRISIL, several social and infrastructure initiatives are expected to provide a key demand driver for 2009-10. These include the following:

  • National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under National Highway Development Programme (NHDP) up by 23 percent
  • Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) up by 87 percent
  • Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (APDRP) up by 160 percent
  • National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) up by 144 percent
  • Allocation for Bharat Nirman (a four-year plan for rural infrastructure) up by 45 percent

But there is little concerted and directed planning through the budget to bring development into the ‘green’. The budget revealed a lack of directed incentives for a low-carbon budget, when though the yearly Economic Survey for 2009-10, tabled in Parliament days before the budget, indicated that over 2.6 percent of India’s GDP is currently spent on adapting to climate variability.

So far, none of the schemes mentioned above actively focus impetus for clean technology or renewable energy development/deployment.   

A further angle contributing to lack of incentive by the government to incorporate a green push is tactical reasons. India will not take on any hard emission targets at the UN climate negotiations unless there is financial aid in technology transfer and R&D. This makes it all the more difficult to incorporate a low-carbon push for the economy into the budget.

What we have therefore, is a token attempt at changing a few things around. 

However, no details on the financing of the eight missions under the NAPCC are out. The Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee admits that numbers are likely to be out by December this year, and even the missions themselves are still being a finalized, over a year after their announcement.

Maybe we will have to wait until the details of the NAPCC are (finally) revealed in December, to see how much and how far the push for greener development can go.

Climate reporting – Indian style

How clued-in is the Indian media on climate change? What have they been reporting about the issue this past month?

Headline and Prime-time news: Off late, climate change has gained sufficient importance to be on par with defense, Indo-Pak relations and other high-importance news.

  • Early July: India at the MEF. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh along with the 15 other MEF leaders gives out a joint statement on climate change. A key statement includes preventing global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C
  • India-Japan agree to cooperate on climate change
  • Budget 2009-10 and Economic Survey 2009-10 released. Budget has minimal green sops, Economic Survey says current GDP expenditure on adapting to climate variability is 2.6 percent. Agriculture, water resources, health and sanitation, forests, coastal-zone infrastructure and extreme events are specific areas of concern.
  • Mid July: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits India along with the US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern. Sparks fly at a joint press conference. Meeting is not as successful as hoped.
  • India said it will not commit to any legally binding targets, takes firm stance on climate change – unmoved by US pressure.
  • Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agree to bilateral cooperation on energy security, energy efficiency and climate change. Agree to set up a panel on climate change.
  • India seeks cooperation with US on R7D for technology transfer, asks to remove barriers on technology and R&D.

India’s special envoy on climate change Shyam Saran: defends the Prime Minster’s MEF joint statement on climate change, but reiterates that stand on climate change same, not changed. Says details of two of the eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change have been finalized.

Minster of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh:

  • India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change a domestic policy, not for international scrutiny
  • Makes strong comments at a joint press conference with US secretary of state, that India ‘simply cannot take on emission cuts’
  • Makes presentations to the Rajya Sabha, presents information on national temperature rise of 0.52 degrees C in past hundred years, no evidence of monsoon variations being related to climate change.

India International: UN Chief Ban Ki Moon and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chief support India’s stand – want rich nations to take emissions cuts fastest and first.

  • Pachauri: climate change massive security threat to India
  • Pachauri: cautions US against import tariffs and carbon tax on imports

Ministries and State Departments: Ministry of Environment and Forests, BEE and MNRE all in the news this month.

  • MoEF and experts unable to define ‘Business As Usual (BAU) for India
  • Karnataka Govt set up committee to combat climate change
  • Government proposes to launch new scheme on afforestation. SC releases money for forestry-related schemes
  • MNRE defines wind energy target of 10,500 MW for XIth Five-year plan
  • Minister for New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah says US-India need to cooperate on technology transfer and R&D for clean tech sector
  • Master plan to make Chandigarh a Solar City in the pipeline

Businesses:

  • Wipro enters green-space with EcoEnergy
  • Indian cleantech companies raised $131 million last quarter
  • Smart metering set to come to India
  • Astonfield to invest $2bn into renewable energy sector in India, most in solar, part in electricity generation from solid waste

Full details on these articles and more can be found on Climate Challenge India

Climate science – India

India is now making concerted efforts to improve its climate change research and to upgrade meteorological data gathering. Funds from the 2009-10 budget for the Ministry of Earth Sciences, which oversees the country’s climate change, ocean and weather research has doubled to Rs. 12 billion.

Indian Meteorological Department data suggests that maximum and minimum temperatures have been above normal over most parts of the country, and that average annual temperatures have gone up by 0.52 degrees C (Source: IMD)

Rainfall patterns are likely to shift with climate change, and that has serious implications for dryland agriculture in India. ICRISAT’s studies in Indian dryland agriculture villages since 1975 indicates that a drought mitigation strategy might be useful. ICRISAT has created an advanced biotechnology laboratory to enhance breeding of drought tolerance in key.

Climate Action at the State Level

Karnataka: green energy leadership plans

The Government of Karnataka has, in recent years resolved to cater to the ever-increasing demand of power though encouraging generation from renewable energy sources. It has therefore been considering the formulation of a comprehensive policy, directed towards greater thrust on overall development and promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies – called the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy 2009.  

The aim of this policy is to harness clean, green renewable energy sources in the state for environment benefits and energy security, with the aim of renewable energy power generation from 2400 MW to about 6600 MW by 2014. A twin goal is to conserve 7901 MU of energy by 2014 through energy efficiency and energy conservation measures in all sectors.

The policy is extensive in covering all issues on renewable energy, and is set to be applicable from 2009 to 2014, within which time span 6600 MW of energy from wind, mini and small hydro, cogeneration in the sugar industry, biomass/ biogas, waste to energy and solar PV/CSP/thermal are expected to be generated. Detailed strategies are outlined for all power generation projects.

Project financing for the various projects, estimated to cost 22,950 crore over the next five years, is expected to come from a Green Energy Cess of 0.05 paise per kWh levied on industrial and commercial consumers (expected to rake in 55 crore); a public private investment trust; suitable land to be made available from government land and through land identification projects; a portion (10 percent) of the Special Economic Zones also to be use only for renewable energy projects.

To enhance speed of project clearances and implementation, a single window clearance mechanism will be made more effective and a mandatory time limit for project completion. In addition, there are a slew of other mechanisms including the feed-in tariff, a solar tariff, roof-top solar tariff, and a facility for banking electricity, net metering.

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency: The second goal of energy efficiency ties in with the national level Energy Conservation Act 2001. KREDL is to be the Designated Agency for this portion of the project. Specific programmes to be implemented during 2009-10 include residential high efficiency lighting program, school/ college capacity building and training, public buildings partnership programme, solar/LPG water heating and energy efficiency financing. Other programmes chalked out for 2011 to 2014 include agricultural efficiency programmes. Street lighting, green buildings and municipal energy efficiency programmes.

It is hoped that this policy will soon be implemented, but also that the Karnataka Renewable Energy Department Limited (KREDL) has sufficient powers to execute and follow through on this sound but ambitious policy.

West Bengal pioneers Asia’s largest solar power plant

West Bengal is all set to become the first state in India to implement a 2 megawatt, grid-connected solar power project at Asansol in West Bengal. On average, West Bengal receives 1600 kWh/m2 of solar energy per year, with an average of 250 sunny days and 60 partial sunny days.

The plant has been built on the premises of a thermal power plant that shut down in 1997.
With an actual capacity of 1.25 MW, will produce 3 million units annually, taking into account 300 sunny days in a year. This plant is set to be Asia’s largest solar power plant, and is expected to save ten tones of carbon dioxide per day.

The project has been pioneered by director of WBREDA, Dr. Gon Choudhury, and has been executed by the West Bengal Green Energy Development Corporation (WBGEDCL) – a company formed by the WB State Electricity Distribution Company and the West Bengal Renewable Energy Development Agency (WBREDA).

The Central government is providing assistance for this project through a Power Finance Corporation (PFC) loan. The loan will be paid off through a generation-based incentive of Rs. 10 per unit for three years from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). The company has entered into a power purchase agreement with WBGEDCL.

Dr. Choudhury, director of WBREDA, says the solar power plant is only awaiting an inauguration date, but that a major challenge facing the project is the lack of confidence in the project, owing to the absence of any prior examples of solar power projects of this scale in India in the past. In an exclusive interview with CSM’s Dolan Chatterjee, he said another difficulty they faced in implementing the project was in obtaining clearances from the various government agencies, and changing the mindset of the coal lobby.

Dr. Chaudhury said West Bengal has been working on implementing solar energy projects since 1983, and said that states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan have shown interest and approached WBGEDCL to assist them with detailed project reports for replication.

Climate Curious !

by Leave a Comment

When someone says to you, “HOI! This climate change thing… does it BUM you out?”, do you say “Climate WHAT?? Like, what are you saying, like yesterday it was, like, so hot and all, today is kewl and all, like, like that? Can I, like, GO now?” and look around frantically for the quickest route away from this pest asking you such, like, questions and all? Dude … and dudette! It’s basic, ya know? You need to know what it is! What it’s doing! Why you should, like, CARE! And, what YOU can … HEY! COME BACK HERE!

See what the temperature and wind and rainfall … were like yesterday, what they are today, and what they will be four days from now in Bangalore or Dyaamagundlu or Thiruvananthapuram or Srivilliputtur… That is weather. For a short time, for a specific place.

The food you eat has to be grown somewhere. For this you need to know, when to plant, when to water, when apply fertilizer, when to harvest, and all that. Every step is tied to when different seasons occur over large areas.

“Or, to put it another way, weather is what determines what clothes we wear to go outdoors on a given day. Climate is what determines what crops we plant and when we we plant and harvest them.”

Long-term weather conditions = climate, yar. You know now?

Climate has not remained constant throughout Earth’s history. It has changed over time.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. It has been going for millennia and will continue to do so. But that natural process occurred over long time periods, gradually, allowing life on Earth to adjust and adapt. Did nothing perish? Of course, it did. A lot! During the past several millennia, human populations have been growing, with more and more growth occurring more recently.

 

 

 [Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html]

As a result of the industrial revolution, increased mass production of commodities from food to machines to cars and other things have led to huge increases in the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuesl are called that because they are dead organisms that got converted to liquid or solid forms of carbon and got buried deep in Earth. Since they are forms of carbon, when we burn them to get heat energy, we produce other carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. We do many other things that produce other kinds of gases such as methane (another carbon-based gas). Everything we do in our modern lifestyle produces such gases. The type and amounts may vary from place to place, but we produce them.
Ultimately, we survive on Earth because we get energy from the Sun! Sun’s energy comes to us in the form of radiation. Not all of that energy reaches us here on the surface where we live. Look at what happens to the energy as it makes its way from the upper atmosphere down towards the surface of earth:

[Source: IPCC]

There are many many different ways in which we increase the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, wasting water, using lots of plastics, and so on. Because of human activities, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing VERY fast. This means the greenhouse effect is increasing fast. So global temperature is rising fast. Faster than it would have if we, humans, had not been doing all these GHG-increasing things! We have been QUITE irresponsible.

  [Source: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_4_1.htm]

When we add those polluting gases (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.), we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. More and more of the heat gets trapped inside the atmosphere instead of escaping into … well, into out there! This is the principle that is used in greenhouses where plants are grown — no matter how cold it may get outside, greenhouses remain warm because the carbon dioxide is kept inside and the sun’s energy reaching the greenhouse keeps it warmer. The same thing happens with those gases we are putting out into the atmosphere. The effect is similar to what happens in the greenhouse. That is why we call those gases “greenhouse gases” (GHGs).

[Source: IPCC]

Burning fossil fuels is among the biggest sources of GHGs. There are other things we do which contributes to the GHGs in the atmosphere. Check this out:

 [Source: IPCC]

Not all fossil fuels are the same. Charcoal and coal put out more GHGs. They also put out black carbon (the soot). Whereas when we burn gas — propane, butane, etc. …

What?  Nooo! “Indane” is not a kind of gas … it is a brand name! May I continue, please? Thank you!

When we burn gas, we get more energy with less pollution. This is why I chose today’s “Shabaash, India!” candidate!

So, basically this is the deal: climate change is natural, but human activities are making it change much much faster! That is why the current climate change is called “anthropogenic” (anthropo = human, genic = caused by).

Think about this also: if the problem is anthropogenic, the solution is also anthropogenic.

Next time, we will look at some of the impacts of climate change and then return to the topic of anthropogenic solutions.

[Source: http://maydayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bus2.JPG]

“Shabhaash, India !”

The city of New Delhi has made all its public transport CNG-fueled. (CNG = compressed natural gas).
This is a major initiative that needs to spread all over India.
Some other cities are also slowly moving in this direction.
This week, I salute New Delhi for its initiative and say, “Shabhaash, New Delhi!”


[Source: http://www.travelindiasmart.com/images/autorichshaw.jpg]

Climate Curious !

by Leave a Comment

Division is killing us. We need to connect things. Or else, we end up like not five, but fifty un-informed persons trying to describe an elephant! Why do our curricula not actively promote connections among all subjects being taught at schools and colleges?

Don’t hold your breath for The System to change. Take the initiative yourself! Your mind is your own. Own it. Nurture it.

I keep harping on several issues plaguing our education system. These issues are all connected to each other.

  • Unimaginative syllabi that kill a student’s curiosity and joy of learning. Have you seen the chapter on climate change in any EVS (environmental science) text book lately? It hardly invites the student to ask any serious questions. Nothing in it even vaguely connects to anything the student can observe or meaningfully do.
  • Subjects are not connected to each other. Until we stop compartmentalizing subjects, we will end up training students, not educating them. One simple unit on climate change can help students learn
    • Statistics (calculate mean annual rainfall and monthly minimum and maximum temperatures for each year for the past decade),
    • Computer studies (use software to graph the data and visually examine trends),
    • Biology (learn about importance of species and their sustenance),
    • Chemistry (the nature of green-house-gas molecules and how they affect climate),
    • Geography (how does where you live matter in climate change),
    • Language (write about climate change topics; this will also help you develop a scientific vocabulary in the language you are learning),
    • History (how did the industrial revolution contribute to climate change and what does it mean in today’s history; current events are history that is going on NOW),
    • Physics (how do heat and pressure work in creating different atmospheric conditions and what happens when these are changed),
    • Economics (how are industry, agriculture and other economic sectors affected by climate change),
    • Business studies (how do businesses adapt to climate change, what are green markets, “green” jobs, etc.), and so on.
  • Teachers are not given enough support (if at all) to make these connections in their classes. Many of our teachers are passionate about teaching well. However, we need to give them the teaching resources, content, and training to teach in new, effective, and interesting ways.
  • Care-givers (parents, guardians, etc.) need to become more actively involved in children’s studies. Every trip to the market (whether it is a supermarket or the vegetable mandi at the street corner) can be a lesson in the environmental and other costs of foodstuffs. Every practice at home can be carefully managed to reduce its ecological impact. This kind of engagement will not only help children learn climate-affirmative behaviors but also help strengthen the bonds between generations (grandparents, parents, children).

All these have to become part of our education in general, climate change education in particular.

CSM begins its outreach engagement with workshops and other activities from the 2nd Saturday of August at the Army Public School, Bangalore. Look for more information on these and other activities for students, teachers, and eventually for care givers too.

Meanwhile, if you know of innovative practices that your teachers are using to make climate change a part of your classroom experience, let me know.

If you are a teacher, I would love to hear from you about any interesting and effective means you are using to teach students about climate change.

If you are a parent or guardian, please let me know if you are doing anything with your children to help them learn about climate change and make changes in their behaviors to become more eco-friendly.

You can use the comment box below to tell the world about your innovation and effort.

Until next week then.

 

 

“Shabhaash, India ! “

Biome Solutions


Chitra and Vishwanath have created a company that specializes in eco-friendly design of buildings.
Using local resources and with great care to conservation of resources,

they have been creating new ways of doing old business.

Goes to show you… being climate-affirmative is good sense and good business.

Climate Curious !

by Leave a Comment

There are some simple things we can each do to reduce our impact on the environment… and therefore, on climate change. I admit that I practice several, but not all. Not yet. I am trying to get there. So, don’t think I am preaching to you from on high! It is merely a question of reminding ourselves to do these things.  And then following through.

It is important not to feel disheartened when we catch ourselves not having done what we ought to. Or having done what we ought not to. More importantly, we need to persevere.

But first, a small story.

On a beach, a boy was busily throwing things into the sea. An elderly man was on his walk. He saw this boy and asked him what he was doing. The boy said, “I am throwing these stranded jellyfish back into the sea so they can live.” The elderly man chuckled and said, “There are millions of such jelly fish on the beach! Are you gonna throw each of them back? Get real, sonny. You can’t save all the jellyfish.” The boy smiled and said, “Well, I made a difference for that one jellyfish!” 

We cannot, individually, change the world or the way it acts. But individual actions add up. If there are no individual actions, there is no global action.

So, here are some things we can do to be ‘climate-affirmative.’  For each one, I also give you my own confession — to what extent I am or am not following these.

  1.  Use fewer utensils when eating at restaurants. This means less water consumed in washing the utensils. The water supply involves a lot of non-gravity energy and this energy use pollutes the atmosphere. Restaurants are places where we can reduce our impact. Here are some examples:
    • Order roti and curry. They serve the roti on a small plate, give you the curry in a bowl of somd kind, and a larger plate to eat the two from. Return the larger plate. It is un-necessary. Take the roti from the small plate, dip into the curry in the bowl and eat.
    • You go to a buffet meal. Use the same plate for every helping. (Just make sure nothing from your plate spills into any of the food on the buffet table!)
    • At a hole-in-the-wall eatery (“darshini” as it is often called), you order 1 plate idli, 1 khara bhath? You take a pair of spoons for the idli? Use the same spoons for the khara bhath.
    • My status: Practice this 98% of the time.
  2. Fewer plastic bags while shopping. Even the small department stores will pack different things in different small plastic bags. If you MUST have a plastic bag to carry your shopping items, you can ask them to put everything in one bag. (Of course, you don’t mix the packet of bleaching powder with the palak in the same bag 🙂 ) When you shop for vegetables/fruits at supermarkets, they put each in a different plastic bag (tomatos in in one, oranges in another, etc) so that it is convenient to weigh and put a price sticker on it. You can weigh the vegetables/fruits without a plastic bag, get the price sticker printed, and put as many kinds of vegetables/fruits as you can into one plastic bag. Small saving, but remember, it all adds up eventually. We have to do our bit.
    My status:     Practice this 99% of the time.
  3. Take a bus rather than a private vehicle or auto or taxi. This is a difficult one. In many cities in India, certainly in Bangalore, despite reasonably good public transport systems, it takes a lot of time to do more than one thing on a trip. So we end up taking an auto/taxi to the precise point where we need to go. But if we can afford a little time, and if the discomfort is reasonably low, it would be better to take public transportation. Using public transportation takes some effort and is not best suited for everyone (e.g.: the elderly, physically challenged, etc.). More vehicles used = more pollutants put out = negative impact on clime.
    My status: I rarely practice this. Shame on me! I will try to change.
  4.  Leaving lights and other electrical appliances on even when unnecessary. This is largely a matter of habit! When we are the last person to leave the office or room or whatever, we really should turn off the appliances that are not needed. This can be, and has to be, learned. We can form “nag treaties” — we all agree to nag each other about leaving things on even when they should not be on. If this does not work, escalate it to fines. But fines can become too easy — i will leave the lights on, what is the fine? 5 rupees? Here you go!  Even whole nations want to do this at a global level (more on that in a future blog).
    My status: Practice this about 75% of the time. A LOT of room for improvement.

Ultimately, it has to be a matter of pride for each of us that we are ‘climate-affirmative’ — that is, we act in ways that lead to lower environmental impacts.

What are other practices you would recommend?  What is your own status on each of these? 

Write them in the comment box below or email them to me at chandra at csmworld dot org.

See you next week!

 

 

“Shabhaash, India ! “

Saalumarada Thimmakka

“What does a barren woman know of the pain of childbirth?”
Such insults are even today thrown at childless women in our culture.
Thimmakka (of Hulikal, Magadi, Karnataka) suffered this, too.
But she showed ‘em! How?

She planted roadside trees and nurtured them as her own children.

She cared! She acted! She made a difference!

So should we!

Read about her work and impacts (a) here, (b) here, (c) here, and (d) here.

(Image courtesy: www.indiamentoring.com)

Climate Curious !

by Leave a Comment

… my mother always used to scold me when I was young. I used to throw water outside our house on all four sides in the summer to cool the house in the evening. I used to resent it then. What did SHE know? But now I listen to her… in my heart. And in my actions…

Living in Jayanagar, Bangalore, we were abundantly supplied with water from the Kaveri water supply project. This water so much that the pressure used to wear out the washers in our taps! During the summer months, I used to take two very long showers … morning and later afternoon. Again, she would say that.

Decades later, I learned the link between the environment and folk sayings. Many folk sayings convey environmental knowledge from generation to generation. This particular saying was widespread in southeastern Tamil Nadu which is even now an area of low and undependable rainfall. Water is still a very precious commodity.

Such folk sayings are part of what we call folk lore — that is, wisdom about local environments. With time, the word “local” changes in some ways. The wisdom becomes applicable more widely not just locally.

This is true of the saying above.

My mother was no scientist. Nor were the many generations of people who knew the importance of water conservation. Generations of people everywhere in the world have known about environmental issues and put that knowledge in the form of sayings that are easy to remember, using imagery that is easy to relate to, etc.

Were they scientists? Did they have “hard” and “numeric” data on which to base their sayings. But they were very good environmental empiricists. Environmental empiricists are people who can observe patterns in their environments and draw conclusions about how things work.

Environmental scientists have a different approach, the ‘scientific method’ — they form a hypothesis, make observations and record data, then they analyze the data, and so on to arrive at their conclusions.

The empiricists depend on observation and intuition.

Neither these scientists nor these empiricists are ever 100% right or wrong. The difference may be that these scientists’ work may be widely applicable. The empiricists’ knowledge may be applicable more locally.

Time often changes the geographic scope of knowledge. So, water conservation is important everywhere, even where fresh water is plentiful.

Our elders had many practices that we would today call ‘green’ and ‘eco-friendly’. Often, these were based on cost considerations. Whatever the motivation might have been, the impacts were… well, eco-friendly. And climate-friendly.

Look at another example. Food. Not long ago, I remember in my own youth in Bangalore, if I wanted plums, I had to wait for the winter to find them. Likewise apples were seasonal, so were every fruit imaginable… jackfruit, guava, mangos. There was a seasonal celebration of those fruits. They ripened in their season. Foods prepared followed these seasons. This seasonal consumption kept us — and the environment — healthy.

Wait, what does this have to do with climate change?

Well, it’s like this. We now have all fruit all year round. There are two things to thank for this: (1) geography, (2) technology, and (3) “globalization.”

Okay, I can’t count! THREE things!

In similar climates around the world, the growing and harvesting seasons of many vegetables and fruits occur in different times of the year. This has always been true. But now, technology enters the picture and makes things move around more. Technology overcomes geography! (As a geographer, you have no idea how MUCH that disturbs me sometimes!) Technology enables chemical intervention to control when fruits and vegetables reach harvestable status, how long they can be preserved, how far and how fast they can be transported, etc. And all these have become increasingly cheaper. With globalization, countries are making it increasingly easier for produce to move internationally.

Go to a grocery store in urban India and notice the apples from Washington (USA) and China, the pears from China, Rambutan from southeast asia, etc. Transporting, refrigerating, preserving, packing … all these processes put out emissions into the atmosphere. Thus, their carbon footprint is vastly greater than when we had seasonal foods.

Plus they are not that great for your health out of season and with all those chemicals used.

Here’s what I want you to do for me. I want to hear from you about green practices that exist in your family NOW! If you have elders in your family ask them about how they conserved food, water, fuel, materials, etc. If you find out more about these things, you will likely see the wisdom of their practices today, too.

They may be older, but they are not yet done teaching.

Nor are we done learning from them.

Yet.

“Shabhaash, India ! “

“Shit!”  “What CRAP!” “RUBBISH!” These are not dirty words!
“Waste” can become a totally un-cool term !
Look at what Poonam Bir Kasturi is doing that you can do, too!
And what does she call this treasure trove?

DailyDump!!

 
 

Gadhia Solar – Member of the Week

by Leave a Comment

The Climate Challenge India portal is now three weeks in the running. For the week of 6th July to 13th July, we profile the Gadhia Solar, an innovative solar thermal energy company, focused on providing energy solutions by using parabolic concentrated technologies, backed by technical support from HTT GmbH of Germany.

PIONEERING SOLAR IN INDIA!
Idea of bringing in clean, affordable and sustainable energy into daily practices in India

The idea came when Mr. Gadhia was requested by his wife to help her solve a problem she always faced, when talking to villagers not to cut forest and when she was faced by questions from villagers as to how they should cook and survive without using wood as it was their primary source of energy. He was asked for help because he worked in the field of Energy.

Initially he thought it would be simple and researched for solution and came across box solar cookers and they were being promoted in India for more than 50 years and so thought/assumed that the villagers did not know about it and thus offered it as a solution.To their surprise villagers knew of solar cookers but the problem they faced with same was that it was too slow, it could not fry and make chappaties etc.

Thus began their journey to offer clean, affordable and sustainable energy but with equipments that fulfilled people’s expectations, needs and were user friendly. Following which they introduced in India Parabolic Solar Cookers based on technology transfer from their inventor friend Dr. Dieter Seifert of Germany which enabled faster cooking and cooking of all traditional items. Then on they graduated to Community Solar Cooking and from there to Institutional cooking.They have responded to the needs of cooking by developing better, bigger and cost effective solar cookers to cater to needs of different target groups

Projects with maximum impact

They have been fortunate to do many prestigious projects which have brought them name and fame and business including the World’s Largest Solar Steam Cooking System at Tirumala Tirupati Temple which cooks 30,000 meals per day. That has had maximum impact because on an average 70,000 people visit Tirupati Temple every day and 30,000 out of them eat solar cooked food and get convinced that food can be cooked with Solar energy and take the positive message of Solar energy and environmental protection home after that experience.

BUT for them the most satisfying projects were the Smoke-Free villages they did along with NEDCAP where the whole village cooks without consuming any conventional fuel like LPG or Kerosene or wood and cooks with 26 solar cookers and 23 biogas plants.

According to them the real impact in turn of saving environment and protecting our planet earth will happen when common man starts using renewable energy but that can happen not just with Technology but with help of Social Engineering so that the common man can have access have to such technologies. In smoke-free villages they achieved the same with the help of micro-financing and income generation so that people pay from their profits and not from their pockets!

Best practices towards concrete solutions to climate change

Gadhia Solar is constantly working to make the solar technology more cost effective and user friendly and such that it can do multi-tasking and be used for multiple applications. They have helped German Government conduct Carbon-neutral Conference by supplying them Gold Standard CERs from their Solar Cooking Projects making it a win-win situation where the user of solar cookers gets an income for having not put co2 in atmosphere and the buyer of his CERs is happy to have fulfilled his commitments under Kyoto protocol.

Contribution to economy,development and contributing positively to further renewable technologies

The real contribution of Business towards economy and development will be when Sustainable Development is taken into consideration. Gadhia Solar right from the beginning concentrated on developing technology using local raw material, using local skills and the product be such that it can be installed and operated and repaired by local technician. By this business method they helped create jobs and value addition at local level.

Another point they are working on is that their renewable energy products should also help the local economy in fulfilling its needs to address problem of poverty elevation. For example they are of the opinion that food processing with Solar Energy can contribute immensely not just by saving fuel and reducing environment BUT will also enable farmers to convert their perishable product into non perishable product and thus are empowered to hold on to their products till they get better price and not forced to sell it to middle-man.
How can membership to the CCI platform contribute to what the Gadhia Solar is doing?

CSM partner Gadhia Solar says:

“ We feel that CCI Platform will make positive difference by focusing the attention of Mass and Media on the problems and solutions and also show that there is immense potential and possibility for us to take charge of our fate and that we don’t have the luxury and time to wait and watch and as Obama would have said- YES WE CAN…..”

Solar technology of tomorrow

According to Gadhia Solar, the most effective “Solar Technology of Tomorrow” would be the system they are working on where each Multi-storey building would have Solar Thermal Concentrators on their terrace and the heat would be piped into each apartment either as steam or hot oil and used for cooking, for air-conditioning of the apartment, for generating hot water for bathing and washing of clothes and utensils, for producing drinking water by desalination or pasteurization and in the end for running small turbine to produce electricity. Thus each building can be Energy self sufficient.

Companies role in shaping the green economy

Mr. Gadhia thinks it is the beginning of the “Solar Age” and just like the last age was driven by IT the next age would be driven by Green Economy and there is a need for many more Social Entrepreneurs who would not be driven just by a profit motive but with zeal to do something for the environment and people.

New and On-going projects across the country

Gadhia Solar is working on challenging projects where steam/ heat from Solar Concentrators would be used not just for cooking but also for Industrial heating and cooling applications and for other applications which the society needs at large e.g. drinking water from sea water and Solar Crematoriums.

–    Installing a 100 TR Solar Air-conditioning plant for a Cancer Hospital run by Muni Seva Ashram and after gaining some experience in solar cooling would like to use solar cooling for cold storages which is the need of the future to give boost to Agriculture.

–    Installing a Solar

–    Signed MOU with Gujarat Government to install 100 MW Solar Power Plant using Solar Concentrators and waiting to sign PPA.

Prospects of solar energy applications in rural areas

Mr. and Mrs. Gadhia’s heart beats for rural population but are saddened by the fact that people (middle class and rich) who can afford to buy and use Solar Cooking and Energy do not want to use it people who want to (and need) use solar cookers cannot afford to buy it. They are trying to overcome the problem with Social Engineering and are confident that the people in rural area would take up use of it thankfully.

Trend for institutions moving towards clean-energy technologies on the rise

It has been positive noticeable change as earlier the decisions to go for solar systems were based only on economics but now with awareness many institutions are willing to go for clean-energy technology even if the pay-back is not as attractive.

Role of innovation in Gadhia Solar’s move to a greener future?

It is only due to innovation that Gadhia Solar could make a mark in the field of Solar Energy. With the introduction of Solar Concentrators and its commercialization they introduced a product that fulfilled peoples need i.e. to cook faster and all items. For community cooking, they got feedback that there was need for Solar system which would enable cooking in the comfort of a kitchen and thus introduced Solar technology. Where, the solar rays were reflected and concentrated in the kitchen through a small opening in the wall allowing cooking in comfort of a kitchen. They then introduced Solar Steam Cooking where solar steam is used for cooking meals for thousands.

Comment on India’s Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change and how it can shape the prospects of the green and clean-tech sector

“We feel that it is a very important step and will bring Green and Clean-tech Sector to Center Stage. Untill now the area was dominated by enthusiasts and idealists who drove the field with dedication and perseverance but now professionalism has to come in to take it to the next stage” – Gadhia Solar