The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

Adopt a Negotiator PARYAS

by Leave a Comment

The Science of Climate Change – 

Since the industrial revolution, several million tonnes of heat trapping (or greenhouse) gases have been released into the atmosphere, accumulating steadily and trapping more and more heat. Around the start of the industrial revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) were a fairly constant 280 parts per million. Today, the overall amount of GHGs has exceeded 430 ppm; more than a 35 percent increase from pre-industrial levels1.  

In June 1988, James Hansen, a scientist with NASA, told politicians in the United States that he was almost 99 percent sure that the reason for record high temperatures that year was not from ‘natural variations’, but from the growing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. NASA today, has a whole new research centre on climate change, at its Jet Propulsion Laboratory (an odd connection it may seem, but nervetheless… you can even travel through their climate time machine and get a view of the earth’s recent climate change history).

 

Scientists have been recording atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations for a couple of hundred years now, and the Mauna Loa atmospheric measurements are the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations available in the world. Considered to be one of the most favourable locations for measuring carbon dioxide concentrations, the data we are at the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide ever to be recorded – a whopping 380 parts per million.

The data is for real: our greenhouse gas emissions have not stopped at the level seen in the graph, but are continuing to increase at the rapid rate of 2.5 ppm each year2 – an alarmingly high rate.

Parallel to the increase in greenhouse gas levels, and as anticipated by scientists2, global mean temperatures have increased. In effect, the earth has warmed by 0.76 ºC since the 1900s2. Each decade, the temperature has increased by about 0.2 ºC. Not surprisingly then, all of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 19902.

According to the World  Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the top ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the last twelve years. Arctic sea ice was also at a record low level. In September 2007, the Northwest Passage in the Arctic was ice-free for the first time in satellite record history. (NASA)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been bringing out the latest climate science   Scientific evidence and modeling suggests that a 2 ºC rise in average global temperatures represents a ‘tipping point’. Unless the level of greenhouse gases is stabilized, the associated severity of impacts will continue to escalate, and over the next few decades, we would face unavoidable economic and ecological costs2. To prevent the planet from warming to more than this temperature, concentrations of greenhouse gases must not exceed 550 ppm of CO2 equivalent.  

 

Adopt a Negotiator PARYAS

by Leave a Comment

Precisely at a time when India is confronted with development imperatives1, we will also be severely impacted by climate change. As a developing country, India can little afford the risks and economic backlashes that are associated with the effects of climate change. With 27.5% of the population still below the poverty line, reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change is essential15.

Like many other developing countries, several sections of the Indian populace will not be able to buffer themselves from the impacts2,8 of global warming. With close economic ties to natural resources and climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, water and forestry, India may face a major threat15, and will likely require serious adaptive capacity to combat climate change.

Many studies have underscored the nation’s vulnerability to climate change8. These reports suggest that with changes in key climate variables, namely temperature, precipitation and humidity, crucial sectors like agriculture, health and rural development are likely to be affected in a major way. Impacts are already being seen in unprecedented heat waves, cyclones, floods, salinisation of the coastline and effects on agriculture, fisheries and health8.

The future impacts of climate change, identified by the Government of India’s National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change includes:

  §  Decreased snow cover, affecting snow-fed and glacial systems such as the Ganges and Bramhaputra. 70% of the summer flow of the Ganges comes from meltwater§  Erratic monsoon with serious effects on rain-fed agriculture, peninsular rivers, water and power supply§  Drop in wheat production by 4-5 million tones, with even a 1ºC rise in temperature§  Rising sea levels causing displacement along one of the most densely populated coastlines in the world, threatened freshwater sources and mangrove ecosystems §  Increased frequency and intensity of floods. Increased vulnerability of people in coastal, arid and semi-arid zones of the country§  Studies indicate that over 50% of India’s forests are likely to experience shift in forest types, adversely impacting associated biodiversity, regional climate dynamics as well as livelihoods based on forest products. Such changes have a direct effect on our 7500 km coastline, our largely agri-based economy, water security to millions of people living in the ‘bread basket’ of the country: the Gangetic plain, and to a large section of our populace that has scarce access to basic facilities. 

The effects of climate change can only only be stalled if the world as a whole begins to move towards a low-carbon economy. However, with emissions increasing year after year rather than reducing, there is an urgent need for countries of the world to set their economies on a low-carbon strategy. We stand to lose on too many counts to allow a ‘economy-politics-business’ as usual scenario to continue.

 

why India needs to take leadership

by Leave a Comment

Climate change – why India needs to take leadership

To mark the 60th anniversary of India’s Independence, the Centre for Social Markets (CSM) publishes a powerful new pamphlet calling for enlightened leadership on the greatest challenge of our times – climate change.

Climate Change –
Why India needs to take leadership

By Malini Mehra

Sixty years on from India’s Independence, the country is a rising global star with ambitions to match. But global climate change could wreck that rosy future. As a tropical country with a long coastline and a large population, India could be amongst the worst affected. The time to act is now. This paper makes a powerful case for enlightened leadership from India’s political class on climate change. Calling it the challenge of a generation, it argues that climate change must be re-framed not as an agenda of fear and entitlement, but of growth and opportunity. Addressing it now could be the best means for a country like India to secure peace, development and quality of life for its billion-plus people. If India truly aspires to greatness, there could be no other issue more timely or compelling.
This pamphlet is being issued as part of CSM’s initiative – a nationwide public engagement effort to generate positive action on climate change.
We invite comment and feedback on the pamphlet:
Please send your comments to info@csmworld.org marked ‘Climate Change India – Pamphlet’. Thank you.

Shankar Sharma – Hydel Projects, Environment and MoEF, Jun 09

by Leave a Comment

Hydel Projects, Environment and MoEF

The union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting our forests, rivers and environment such that a sustainable & healthy life style is achievable for our people. Protecting the ecologically very precious and highly sensitive natural resources such as Western Ghats and Himalayas from damaging hydel projects is one amongst few important mandates for the MoEF. In this background the ineffectiveness of environmental clearance process of MoEF to minimise the harm on the already devastated Western Ghats or Himalayas Or Coastal India by such projects can be observed in the proposal by Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPCL) for a 2200 MW Gundia Hydel Project in Hassan district.

It is reported in the media that the foundation stone laying ceremony for this project was launched on 26th May, 2009 without the formal clearance from the MoEF. This project with a meager annual benefit of about 32% of the proposed installed capacity of 400 MW is probably one of the least beneficial projects to our society because of the huge socio-environmental costs associated. Of the total land requirement of more than 973 hectares, 754 hectares of thick evergreen forests, 33 hectares of river course and 101 hectares of agricultural land will have major impact on the flora and fauna of the rich rainfall forests of Western Ghats. As also reported in the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) minutes (20th EAC meeting on 20th and 21st Nov. 2008) there are many endangered and endemic species of flora and fauna in this area, which may not be able to be effectively rehabilitated at all.

While a task force has been set up by the Karnataka State Government to conserve and develop Western Ghats the destruction of such a large chunk of forest in it will negate the main objective of the task force.
The concerned authorities seem to have conveniently forgotten that minimizing the deforestation is the first step in the conservation of Western Ghats. At a time when Global Warming has become an existential issue for the humankind and for a densely populated country of ours, the proposed destruction of thick rain-forests of Western Ghats will only exacerbate Global Warming. Whereas it is well-known that the electricity sector is responsible for about 24% of all Green House Gases (GHGs) (and about 42% of CO2), and that the tropical forests are a very good sink for CO2 , human activities such as Gundia hydel projects will not only destroy such forests but emit methane, which is a much more potent GHG than CO2.

At the global scale the value of ecological functions as well as resources of the environment (both terrestrial and aquatic) has been estimated to be about $33 trillion per year, which is almost twice the global domestic product. Fresh water ecosystems are considered to be ecologically more valuable than the terrestrial ones.

In addition to the violation of various guidelines of MoEF, there are many techno-economic and environmental issues of concern in the Detailed Project Report (DPR) to anybody interested in the welfare of our society. No analysis of various costs and benefits of the project have been carried out in an objective way to determine whether the project is in overall interest of the society. Because of the irrational set of procedural issues needed to get clearances this ghastly project had no objective analysis of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ to the society. The heavy opposition to the proposed Gundia project and the irrefutable evidence of potential harm to the nature has been largely ignored by the concerned ministries of the Union government and the state government as exemplified by the foundation stone laying ceremony of the project without the formal environmental clearance. The systemic weaknesses in according clearances to such high impact projects are so many and so pervasive that the state governments seem to be convinced that getting environmental clearance is only a matter of time and that it is just a political game.

It is also very sad that the environmental clearance application process appear to favor the project proponent, which the proponents are misusing to the hilt. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report in the present case contains many misrepresentations and false claims, but the process does not allow these to be brought to the notice of the EAC because only the project proponent is allowed to make presentation before the EAC, but not others. Hence, even if some intentional misrepresentations of considerable impact in the EIA or DPR are noticed by the local people, there is no scope for the same to be brought before the EAC. It is the same story with the minutes of the Public Hearing. Very rarely the minutes of such Public Hearing carry the relevant issues objectively, and more often the minutes are prepared unduly in favor of the project proponent. It is also very unfortunate that the EAC has no mandate to deny the environmental clearance for any project, but only to seek additional information form the project proponents, in which case the project proponent may contrive more misrepresentations. Unless the people opposing the project on socio-environmental grounds are given adequate opportunity to explain their view points and unless they are taken into objective account, the whole process of environmental clearance can at the best be termed as a charade.

The discussion on the true costs and benefits to the society are not mandatory in the DPR. Hence there is no scope for the public to know how far the benefits outweigh the costs. The practice so far has been that the direct costs only to the project proponent without any reference to the societal costs, (the so called externalities such as R&R costs, environmental and health costs, loss of livelihood to the displaced etc) are mentioned. Additionally, the DPR has no requirement to discuss the various options available to meet the stated objective. Only one option, ie the project proposal is considered. It is sad to know that the DPR has no mandate to assure the public that all the alternatives available are discussed and that the best option is chosen. In the case of Gundia hydel project no other alternative to get 400 MW or its equivalent is discussed. In such a case how does the project proponent can demonstrate to the state’s public that the proposed hydel project associated with permanent damage to a section of the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats is the best option available?

In the present case of Gundia hydel project the single objective is to assist the state of Karnataka to meet the electricity demand. But no other alternative to get 400 MW or its equivalent is discussed in the said DPR. It is well known that few techno-economically viable options exist at much less societal costs to achieve this objective. One very simple option is to replace inefficient incandescent lamps in the state by energy efficient CFLs. This measure at negligible cost to the society alone can provide the equivalent of more than 400 MW of virtual additional power capacity. As compared to permanent damages to nature and perpetual costs to the society from the proposed hydel project, the benefits from this measure are perpetual, with least impact on the society and least gestation period, and almost at negligible cost to the state government. The reduction in T&D losses in the state from the present level of 25% to 10% can virtually add about 1,000 MW to the net power availability. Effective Demand Side Management (DSM) and optimum energy conservation measures can add few hundreds of MW virtual power capacity. The vast renewable energy potential of the state can be tapped effectively at minimum environmental impact. The DPR in this case has not even mentioned these options. Even though KPCL, the project proponent, may not have these options in its business objective it is not impossible to include these in its articles of association. What is important here is that the society is deprived of the benefits from such benign options whereas the unacceptable levels of burden from the proposed project are being thrust on it. If our society fails to exercise such diligence in protecting the environment at every step the much touted National Action Plan on Climate Change will have no meaning, and the National Forest Policy will remain simply as a document to show.

The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), which has the constitutional obligations to verify the essential nature of the project before it accords concurrence to a hydel project, also seem to be failing in its duty of care. A representation to CEA in the case of Gundia hydel project, highlighting various discrepancies and the absence of cost benefits analysis, seems to have evoked no response.

In this context it is worth mentioning the cancellation of a similar sized hydel project in Western Ghats. A hydel project across river Bedthi in Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka was shelved in 1980s due to massive opposition by locals on socio-environmental grounds. This project which had obtained the necessary approvals was cancelled even after incurring an expenditure of few crores of Rupees to set up certain infrastructures. The total value of the environmental services that would accrue from the forest to be submerged / destroyed under the project was shown to be of much greater value than the meager benefits of producing electricity only. Even the energy equivalent of the total bio-mass available annually from the earmarked forest for the project was shown to be much higher than the electrical energy proposed to be produced from the project. The state government saw valid reasoning in these arguments and decided to shelve the project. Hence the people of Karnataka now have a right to know as to how the proposed Gundia hydel project is less harmful as compared to the Bedthi hydel project proposal in Uttara Kannada district, which was shelved in 1980s. As an integral part of our democracy all the stakeholders should be consulted effectively and the concerned authorities should demonstrate to them that such a high impact project is essential and has much more benefits than the costs.

A visit to the proposed project location and frank exchange of views with the locals and environmentalists will enable the EAC to appreciate the severity of the social and environmental issues of the proposed project. Hence EAC should visit the proposed project location at an early date and have meaningful discussions with all the stakeholders before recommending to the ministry on its opinion. It should have no hesitation to recommend denial of clearance if in its objective opinion the Gundia project is not in the best interest of the society.

These issues have commonality in case of any hydel projects whether in Western Ghats, or Eastern Ranges or Himalayas. These issues have huge significance in view of the serious threat to our environment in the form of large number of dam based hydel projects, which is being planned / implemented in various stages. The small state of Uttarakhand alone is reported to be planning more than 150 minor and major dam based projects across river Ganga and its tributaries. Similarly, the North Eastern states also are being targeted to construct many large size hydel projects totaling to about 40,000 MW capacity.

Article 48A of the Constitution of India, reads: “Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. – The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”. MoEF, which has the specific responsibility in this regard, should address the following questions in an objective sense against the application for environmental clearance for every hydel project in order to meet its constitutional obligations.

• How much is the potential value of ecological services associated with forests and fresh water resources of Western Ghats or Eastern Ranges or Himalayas or sub-Himalayan ranges?
• Can the total value of these ecological services be ever equated to meager benefits of producing electricity from one or more hydel projects?
• Can we afford to loose rich forests of our country with such huge ecological value?
• Can we rehabilitate the endangered and endemic species of these bio-diversity hotspots effectively?
• How can be the letter and spirit of the National Forest Policy target of 33% forest & tree cover be achieved if we continue to destroy the natural forests of highest ecological value ?
• Since the sole objective of dedicated hydel projects is to generate electricity only, why should suitable alternatives available to meet the electricity demand not be deployed?

Bio-diversity has many kinds of values and potential benefits for the humans and the earth as a whole. It will be a wise policy to apply Precautionary Principle and take necessary action to conserve Bio-diversity before components of it are permanently lost. This approach is advocated by the international Convention on Biological Diversity.

Keeping all these discussions in proper perspective, the MoEF should embark on bringing suitable changes to its relevant guidelines to address these serious concerns. The project approval process in the case of hydel projects should essentially include the following steps to ensure that only the most essential projects with least possible societal impacts are taken up for serious consideration.

1. Study of alternatives: Each DPR should be mandated to discuss and evaluate all the available options to meet the specific objective. In the case of hydel projects the sole objective is to produce electricity but there are many techno-economically viable and environmentally benign alternatives.
2. Costs & Benefits Analysis (CBA): Comparative study of CBA of all the available options should be
carried out to arrive at the best alternative from the society’s perspective. The onus should be on the project proponent to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubts that the proposed project is the best option in the interest of the society.
3. All direct and indirect costs and benefits to the society should be objectively evaluated in the DPR
4. Effective Pubic Consultation should be held with all the stake holders.
5. An objective EIA with legal sanction to penalize incorrect assessment should be mandated.
6. Provision for the stake holders to make presentation to EAC before the final recommendations is made.

Keeping all these long term issues in proper perspective one would expect the ministry to call for all the documents / memoranda submitted to the MoEF by the people opposed to the Gundia hydel project, and make an objective assessment of all the related issues before taking a final decision. Without an objective analysis of all the related issues and without taking the support of the stakeholders to continue with such a ghastly project will be a serious setback to the welfare of our society and a mockery of our democracy.


Shankar Sharma
Consultant to Electricity Industry
Thirthahally – 577432
shankar.sharma2005@gmail.com
shankar_sharma1955@hotmail.com