The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

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?

2009 – Why it is time to make history – 1 Jun 2009

by Leave a Comment

2009 – Why it is time to make history


1 Jun 2009

On an icy day in January, a new President in the United States took the oath of office with soaring words of hope, idealism and courage. At a time of the worst global recession in living memory and a multitude of challenges, he did not shrink from reality but embraced the capacity to change it. And those who heard him were lifted.

Speaking to the millions in America but heard by billions around the world, President Barack Obama said “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”

Obama spoke of America, but he could have been speaking of the world. We are everywhere in need of renewal and hope. None more so than on the climate challenge where we need fresh vision and a politics that looks forwards not backwards. The stakes are so high that anything less than an audacious, global effort to reconcile our differences and make peace with the planet will fail humanity. We will not regret it in our parochial nationalisms as Indians or Americans, but as humans – as a species that failed itself, and condemned the rest.

This is why 2009 matters and why COP15 must not fail.

Across America, the winds of change are blowing. The President has listened to a people hungry for action on climate change. He brings not only the capacity to change, but the willingness to change. For those who have longed for American to re-emerge from the shadows and exert decisive political leadership, the time is now. For those who have pointed to America and said action was not possible, the excuses have run out.

Obama is no miracle-worker and the battle will be hard. But the change he represents is real and the hope for it global. In India too, in a nation reeling from terrorist attacks and a multitude of insurgencies, faith in our political class is low, but we are finding our heroes in everyday citizens who rise to the occasion when disaster strikes. Polls show that many of us have been lifted by the change in the US and that – almost uniquely – the one issue we Indians feel can now progress is climate change. On that, we are willing to do our part.

This is as it should be. CSM’s mobilisation work on climate change up and down India has shown a deepening concern about climate change and willingness to act – not in response to someone else acting first, and not with a multitude of caveats, but a pro-active act of leadership in our own self-interest. If this does not sound like government policy, that is because it isn’t – as yet. But the Government should take note. There is a movement emerging in the country for leadership on climate change and India’s policymakers will have to respond.

The time to do so is now. For fifteen years since the first conference of parties to the climate change convention in 1994, we have heard a litany of excuses for why action on climate change was either unnecessary, or too expensive or for others to undertake. Fifteen long years when the world community failed to act to stabilise global greenhouse emissions at safe levels. Instead in the past ten years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased faster than at any other point since continuous records began in 1960.

The time for finger pointing is over. This year we must come together with a new spirit and a collective will to succeed. Not only has the science hardened, but scientists have given us a short and diminishing time horizon for dealing with this generational challenge. Ten years at most.

The State of the World Report 2009 says that global emissions must peak by 2020 and then start going into reverse by 2050 if we are to return to safe concentration levels. Even if we succeed in reducing emissions 80 percent by 2050, we will still be locked into an unprecedented level of warming, ecosystem risk and disruption. The impacts will be global and many irreversible.

What does this mean for India and what must we do to secure success in Copenhagen?

India’s vulnerability to climate change and the urgent need for adaptation strategies is long established. Impacts are already manifesting themselves in unprecedented heat waves, floods, cyclones and other extreme weather events. Those most to suffer, as ever, are the poor and the marginalized. Our water resources are fragile and the melting of our glaciers catastrophic. This spells disaster for a country already at the edge of its ability to manage natural and social calamities as the past year has shown.

For India 2009 is a moment of decision. How can a country with one-sixth of the global population, and more billionaires than Japan, not play a leadership role on climate change? As the world’s third largest economy and the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India’s positive engagement will be crucial to constructing a “Global Deal” on climate at Copenhagen.

An enlightened approach would take ownership of the problem, recognizing that while India is not an historical emitter, our emissions now – at a time when the implications of such actions are crystal clear – are not without consequence.
In the coming months as India goes to the Polls, we must make climate change a central plank of political debate. Food, fuel and water – what could be more elemental? India is home to one third of the world’s poor – 400 million of whom have no access to electricity – and a still growing, youthful population. The challenges are great but so too is the need for a new vision based on sustainability and equity as the organising principles of our society.

We have eleven months to build a new consensus and the political conditions for an historic agreement. As the new man in the Oval Office says, the time for cynicism is over. For a challenge of such epic proportions, India cannot be a junior partner, we must play our full role in making it happen.

Malini Mehra is the founder & CEO of the Centre for Social Markets, an India and UK-based non-profit promoting entrepreneurship, corporate and civic leadership on sustainable development and human rights. She has served as an advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and was selected as a Principal Voice on corporate responsibility issues by CNN for its “Principal Voices” series

Email: malini@csmworld.org

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

Climate challenge india bulletin

by Leave a Comment

The serious issue of climate change and its potentially dramatic impacts on humans, global ecosystems and the Earth’s climatic systems, has now taken its place among the key concerns of governments, policy makers and the global populace. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are now at levels never seen in the history of mankind, and are unequivocally,

Events: Climate Challenge India

by Leave a Comment

CSM announces the premier of its documentary “In Good Company” – a film about climate change and corporate leadership in India. On the eve of a major new global agreement, this film challenges India to take leadership and brings a new force into view. India’s corporate leaders and entrepreneurs who are poised to take the country into a green future and change the shape of business.

In Good Company
click this image for more!