The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

India Climate Watch – September 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – SEPTEMBER 2009 (Issue 6)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s desk
India shifts on climate
UN Climate Summit
Major Economies Forum
G20 – Pittsburgh
AOSIS Summit
Kathmandu to Copenhagen
Foreign Visits to India
South Asian Youth Climate Forum
MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Malini Mehra, Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha

 

From the Editor’s Desk

With the start of the UN General Assembly in New York this month being heralded by the UN Climate Summit at Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon’s instigation, the UN system is now in full campaign mode on climate change. In an unprecedented move, the UN has adopted a ‘Seal the Deal’ campaign emphasizing the need to finalise a global deal on climate change at the UNFCCC talks in Copenhagen this December. After years of diplomatic neutrality, the UN has become an NGO and is campaigning hard on climate change. Across the UN system, bodies ranging from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to UNICEF, the UN’s children fund, have taken on the ‘Seal the Deal’ logo and all major UN documents are being badged with the logo to drive home the message that 2009 must be the year of action on climate change.

The message has been taken on institutionally and has been driven forth determinedly by the Secretary-General. But have the UN’s 192 member states taken it on board? If the response to the BAN Ki-Moon’s call for head of state attendance at the UN Climate Summit was any indication, then there is a slow gathering of political interest. 150 heads of state responded to his call, making it the largest gathering of world leaders on climate change in history. An encouraging sign. But had the location been Washington DC instead of New York, there might have been more impact. It is the 100 Senators seated in the US Capitol who need to see that the world is moving on climate change. It is time they did too.

India shifts on climate

On 11 September 2009, at a business conference in Delhi, in the presence of the visiting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said it was time for India to stand up and be counted. He said India would “unilaterally and voluntarily” take “bold new responsibilities” to take targeted CO2 emissions cuts, something it has “evaded doing in the past”. Gone was the taboo of mitigation. The Minister ran through a number of current and planned measures under the Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change that could reduce emissions by promoting a shift to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Measures included generating power from clean coal technology; 15-20% of total energy generation from renewable energy (excluding hydro); new efficiency requirements for appliances by 2010; fuel efficiency norms by 2012; reducing emissions from agriculture; and ensuring compliance of public buildings with energy conservation laws by 2012.

All of these were designed to show that India was moving and recognised the importance of reducing emissions as it grew its economy in the years to come to provide development for its people. Ramesh revealed that the government was considering laws on mitigation modelled on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, domestic legislation that had set a defined band for government deficits. He was apparently reviewing draft legislation which would set broad ‘indicative’ targets, not mandatory targets, for the five most polluting sectors of the Indian economy. This would, he said, amount to India having “a legislative agenda for mitigation which will bring credibility to the actions via domestic political consensus.” The emissions would be quantified and monitored domestically with the resultant figures shared with the rest of the world.

Ramesh’s words were a stunning reversal of government policy and were part of a pattern of growing reforms within his Ministry. In his first 100 days in office, Ramesh has gone on the front foot with a series of initiatives to improve communication. The GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC climate negotiations have been bundled into one omnibus document. His ministry has released a report on the role of India’s forests in carbon sequestration – part of the REDD+ offensive. The results of five modeling studies on India’s GHG emissions have been published with a call for the report to spark discussion and debate. Good communication moves and a shift away from the previous closed culture of the ministry.

It is in this context of making good on his promise to be the new broom that sweeps clean that his September 11th remarks should be seen. These were not off the cuff comments. This was a deliberate statement made in presence of the Prime Minister of the host country of this year’s Climate Summit. The message was clear India was in the game and ready to play. It was time to shake off India’s reputation as being negative, defensive and obstructionist in the negotiations. In Ramesh’s words “we are proactive, constructive, we want a fair and equitable agreement in Copenhagen”.

Abridged from ‘Jairam finds his voice – India shifts on climate policy’.

UN Climate Summit

On 22nd September, the UN launched an unofficial week of climate activities in New York. The day prior – 21 September – had seen the first Global Day of Action on climate change organized by the TckTckTck coalition, 350.org and other activist groups. With a coordinated global ringing of alarm clocks citizens around the world issued a ‘Global Wake-up Call’ to world leaders to take action on climate change.

The UN’s Climate Summit marked the largest ever gathering of heads of state on climate change. The Secretary-General, BAN Ki-Moon, had called the Summit as an unprecedented moment to raise political will ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit in December. According to the UN, 150 countries participated in the Summit. In his Chairman’s Summary at the close of the day, BAN Ki-Moon said: “Today marked the moment when the political momentum has shifted in favour of sealing a fair, effective and ambitious global climate deal in Copenhagen.” He highlighted five key issues in the climate negotiations that constituted areas of convergence among leaders present at the UN Summit:  “A package on adaptation; ambitious mid-term mitigation targets by industrialized countries; supported actions by developing countries to slow the growth of their emissions; scaled-up financing and technology support to unlock investment and catalyze green growth; and equitable governance that address the needs of developing countries.”

The day had opened with a high-level line-up of heads of states and celebrities. The UN Secretary General was joined by the presidents of the USA, China, France, the Maldives and Costa Rica, along with the prime ministers of Japan, Rwanda and Sweden. Two Indians joined them on the opening panel, Dr RK Pachauri, head of the IPCC and 13-year old schoolgirl Yugratna Srivastava from Lucknow, representing global youth.

Obama’s UN damp squib

One man’s speech was perhaps more eagerly awaited than any other. President Barack Obama made his debut speech at the United Nations at the Climate Summit. However, despite high expectations, the President Obama cut a disappointing figure. Facing one hundred heads of state, he was unable to commit to leadership on something that BAN Ki-Moon called the “pre-eminent geo-political and economic issue of the 21st Century.” The President’s speech was aspirational but vague. There were no targets and no numbers – either on emissions cuts or climate finance. This time the soaring rhetoric was not matched by substance.

Others did much better. Japan’s new premier, Yukio Hatayomo, catapulted his country onto the climate A-list with promised emissions cuts of 25% by 2020 – up 17% from previous figures – and substantial new and additional finance to help poor countries fight climate change. President Nasheed of the Maldives, a nation on the frontlines of climate extinction, committed to make his country carbon neutral within a decade. China’s President Hu Jintao, stopped short of the grand announcement that had been anticipated by many, but spoke of the momentous investments the country was making into resource conservation and energy efficiency. China is now the largest producer of renewable energy in the world and the President promised to cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by a “notable margin” by 2020 at 2005 levels

India at the UN Summit

With the exception of the visible presence of Dr Pachuari and Yugratna Srivastava at the opening of the UN Climate Summit, India’s presence was low-key to virtually invisible. The country was not represented at head of government or head of state level, instead the Indian Delegation was led by Foreign Secretary, S M Krishna, accompanied by MoEF Minister Jairam Ramesh. India was not noted as one of the participants in the two parallel sets of Roundtables held during the Summit for participating governments. Indian business was, however, represented in the private sector session of the day and both Dr JJ Irani, Chairman of Tata Sons, and Pramod Chaudhari, CEO of Praj Industries, engaged actively in addressing the role of business on climate change.

Major Economies Forum

The Major Economies Forum is a Bush-administration legacy that has been continued by the Obama Administration. President Obama announced the launch – or rather resumption – of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate on March 28, 2009.  According to the US, the Forum is “intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies, 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.”

The 17 major economies participating in the Major Economies Forum are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Collectively they account for upto 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.

 

The US was host to the latest monthly round of MEF meetings on September 17-18, 2009. Todd Sterns, Special Envoy for Climate Change headed the US participation at the MEF in Washington DC and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman served as chair. The Indian delegation was led by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran, and this was the first meeting since the MEF at leaders level took place on July 9, 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy.

As media participation is restricted and little information on the proceedings is made public, the actual deliberations remain secret and speculation tends to pass for informed comment. What is apparent is that the MEF has not as yet developed as an external Forum outside of the UNFCCC’s strictures which can be used by participant countries to push for greater progress than possible within the highly-politicized UNFCCC. The next MEF meeting is to be hosted by the British and may see greater transparency as to both the substance of the discussions and the outcome of the proceedings.

G20 – Pittsburgh

As part of two weeks of international climate change events, the US was host to the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, PA, on 24-25 September 2009. The Pitsburgh Summit was themed around green jobs and green recovery and suitably held at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the world’s first and largest green convention center. At the G20, the world’s financial representatives and leaders came together to discuss economic policies and address the global financial crisis. Although climate change was on the agenda, very little progress was made. While advance was expected to be made on the thorny issue of climate finance, countries such as China declined to engage in such discussions outside of the UNFCCC. While the US sought to use the Summit to make progress in addressing fossil fuel subsidies, India was far more interested in addressing the global financial crisis.

The eventual Communique issued out of the G20 at Pittsburgh consisted of 7- paragraphs.The relevant sections of the paragraphs on energy and climate change were as follows:

On fossil fuel subsidies, the key sections are as follows:
 
“We commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms.  This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based of their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit.  We ask the international financial institutions to offer support to countries in this process.  We call on all nations to adopt policies that will phase out such subsidies worldwide.”

“We request relevant institutions, such as the IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank, provide an analysis of the scoope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementation of this initiative and report back at the next summit.”

The key sections on climate finance, read:

“As to financing we think the following principles should be explored as a resource to the UNFCCC negotiations:

  • Green growth is indispensible to sustainable growth.
  • Effective and efficient finance to address climate change must be integrated with development planning, policies, and investments.
  • Public and private financial resources to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries need to be scaled up urgently and substantially, with public resources utilizing a variety of delivery channels and drawing upon the expertise of existing institutions.
  • Carbon markets need to be improved, in terms of their development, oversight, and expansion.
  • It is important to consider means to leverage private sector investment.

 
We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen.”
 
Given the significance of a good deal on climate finance to the possibility of a good deal at Copenhagen, these conclusions now raise the stakes for the remaining high-level finance minister meetings that take place before the UNFCCC meeting in December. Namely the EU finance ministers meeting in October and the next G20 Finance Ministers meeting in November.

AOSIS Summit – 1.5 to stay alive

Bahamas. Maldives. Mauritius. Cyprus. Seychelles. Papua New Guinea. No longer are the names of these countries associated with exotic locations, white sands and tourist destinations. They are now associated with island survival in the face of climate change. States such as the Maldives, the Bahamas and Kiribati are so low-lying that the adverse effects of climate change will threaten their very existence. Sea level rise by even 1 meter above current levels will inundate costal zones, make drinking water saline, impact agriculture and fishing, and affect infrastructure now and in the future.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is a coalition of 43 small and low-lying coastal countries that have the most to lose from global climate change and have come together to assert their interests. AOSIS nations are pushing for the latest science to be incorporated into global policies to prevent dangerous climate change. This includes stronger mitigation commitments and a greater sense of urgency.

AOSIS held an agenda-setting Summit on 21st September in New York, one day ahead of the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit. At their Summit, AOSIS heads of state signed a joint declaration urging the world to act quickly and substantially on climate change, and to limit temperature increases “well below” 1.5 º C.
Tillman Thomas, Prime Minister of the Grenada said “We see climate change as a threat to our survival… and failure by rich countries to act would be tantamount to a kind of benign genocide”. 

The AOSIS summit was a key opportunity to highlight the vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS), but also to express the high level of disappointment within AOSIS member states at the “apparent lack of ambition” within the negotiation process.  They called upon the international community to take “urgent, ambitious and decisive action” that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect vulnerable countries, communities, cultures and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change.

AOSIS along with the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are now the two major negotiating blocks at the UNFCCC calling for environmental integrity, and asking for the atmosphere to be placed before markets and money on the list of things ‘to prioritise’ at climate negotiations.

Despite being among those least responsible for the climate crisis, AOSIS and LDC states have quickly become the moral voice of the negotiations, pushing for the highest level of ambition, the largest emission cuts, and the smallest degree of temperature rise.

Despite the grave tone of the Declaration, Vice-Chair of the AOSIS summit, President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives addressed the UN climate summit the following day and called on world leaders to seize the opportunity, and focus on what countries can do. He asked for “island survival” to become the benchmark for climate change mitigation success. Arguing that negotiations have, until now, revolved around a “prohibitive list”, he pushed for fresh thinking and positive lists that would change the nature of negotiations and herald real change.

Kathmandu to Copenhagen: Addressing climate risk

The Government of Nepal hosted a South Asian regional climate change conference, “From Kathmandu to Copenhagen: A Vision for Addressing Climate Change Risks and Opportunities in the Himalaya Region” on August 31 – September 1, 2009 in Kathmandu, Nepal.  This was part of a Joint Initiative of the Government of Nepal, Department for International Development (DFID), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), and the World Bank.

The focus of the regional conference was the South Asia Himalayas which comprise the world’s highest mountains, store the largest body of ice outside of polar region and are the source of some of the world’s greatest rivers, fed by the monsoon. These rivers supply the world’s most densely populated flood plains, settled by over 700 million people in the region. Since the region shares geological formations such as, the Himalayas  and river basins, natural hazards frequently transcend national boundaries. Over 50 percent of South Asians – more than 750 million people – have been affected by natural disasters in the last two decades. With climate change, the frequency and incidence of such natural disasters is projected to increase.

The conference was attended by ministers, parliamentarians, government officials from the seven regional nations, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Kyrgyz Republic. Other participants included NGOs, academic bodies, development partners and media.

The conference sought to provide a forum for countries in the Himalayan region to share knowledge and experience about common risks that climate change brings, and the immense development opportunities that could be fostered. There was also an attempt to develop a common message to the global community on regional climate change challenges. The conference also stressed the need to translate the principles of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ and historical responsibility of the developed countries as envisaged in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) into operational practice. The conference noted that the world had spent more on corporate/financial bailouts than on promoting sustainability and addressing climate change.

The conference resulted in the following key outcomes:

All attending nations agreed a Vision Document for addressing climate risks. The document states: South Asia including Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region is a climate change hot spot and highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change especially water resources. The South Asian countries must therefore come together to fill the knowledge gaps through collaborative actions and shared research aimed at enhancing capacity building to enhance their climate change responses through SAARC and other institutions as agreed. The document also states that enhanced climate change responses require additional financial and technical resources which should come from Annex 1 Parties to the UNFCCC and Development and transfer of clean technologies should not be constrained by the high upfront costs of intellectual property rights. It further asks for recognition and payment for credits from the forestry sector must include a comprehensive approach to sustainable management and conservation of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

In addition, fourteen donor agencies signed an agreement (Compact on Climate Change in Nepal) to support the Government of Nepal in its fight against climate change. The compact outlines 7 principles of participation between the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment and development partners on ways to address climate change challenges.  The agreement will support the government of Nepal to implement a series of actions designed to (a) identify and assess climate risks, particularly to the most vulnerable people and sectors, (b) elaborate, test and implement adaptive responses, and (c) establish the basis for a climate resilient economy.

It was also announced that the Global Ministerial Conference of the mountain countries will be held in Kyrgyz Republic in 2010 to discuss on issues of cooperation in the post-Copenhagen period.

Foreign Visits – Danish and British dignitaries visit India

Danish premier visit Delhi for climate talks

Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited New Delhi from September 10-12, 2009 in preparation for the UN climate conference in Copenhagen later this year. 

Premier Rasmussen held talks with his counterpart, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, along with Minister for External Affairs S. M. Krishna and Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. During the meeting, India and Denmark signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on mitigation of energy emissions and transfer of green technology. Denmark is a world leader in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources and a pioneer in promoting green technologies

Mr. Rasmussen also met Dr. RK Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to discuss the Road to Copenhagen. He stated that India’s views are extremely important both because of India’s climate change challenge, but also because India is home to 17 percent of the Earth’s population.
Finally, recognizing important role of industry in tackling the climate challenge the Danish premier hosted a business seminar on the opportunities for India in a ‘Green Economy’ in cooperation with the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII). Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh and Shell India Chairman V.S. Mehta joined Mr. Rasmussen on the panel.

Mr. Rasmussen welcomed India’s stand on climate change but hoped that all countries would come to an agreement by the year-end. He told delegates at the CII event:

“The Indian approach is very ambitious. It goes hand in hand with fighting poverty. We cannot ask you in developing countries to take on the responsibilities. You have your obligations.”

UK Ministers – Edward Miliband and Douglas Alexander visit India & Bangladesh

British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Miliband, and the Minister for International Development, Douglas Alexander, came on a two-day joint ministerial visit to Bangladesh and India to get support for a climate deal that is fair to the region’s economy and its people.

Highlights of the Bangladesh trip included:

  • The Ministers attended the launch of the British Council’s International Climate Change Champions Project
  • The Ministers called on H.E. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the members of the cabinet
  • The Ministers visited an island in Sirajganj and met some of the people most directly affected by severe storms and extreme weather and saw how they are adapting their homes and livelihoods to live with climate change.

 
In India, the two young Ministers visited Kolkata and Delhi. Highlights of the Kolkata (India) trip included:

  • The Ministers visited a slum improvement project supported by Department for International Development
  • They also explored India’s first solar housing complex in Kolkata .
  • Highlights of the Delhi (India) trip included:
  • In Delhi, the Ministers held talks with their Indian counterparts on a wide range of issues on climate change and development
  • They met Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission; Rahul Gandhi, MP; Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests; and Shyam Saran, PM’s Envoy on Climate Change among others.
  • They also took a Metro ride to learn more about Delhi’s green transport initiatives along with youth representatives of IYCN.
  • Ministers also gave a speech and Q&A session at British Council. Later, Mr Alexander also launched a partnership with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and announced funding of up to £10 million to support the work of TERI over the next five years which will enable TERI to improve knowledge, policy analysis and development practice across a broad range of issues critical to growth, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability in India.
  • The ministerial visit was an opportunity to underscore three points strongly emphasized by both Miliband and Alexander during the trip.
  • Firstly, the UK recognises developed countries’ historic responsibility for climate change. The UK has set out plans to reduce its emissions by one third by 2020 compared to 1990 and Climate Change Act puts the stringent targets in legislation.

Secondly, developed countries must meet their commitment to provide finance and technology to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently launched a climate finance initiative which put a global figure of roughly $100 billion every year by 2020 to help developing countries address climate change, including adapting to its impacts.

Thirdly, while developed countries must lead on climate change, and developing countries in South Asia will not take on national emission reduction targets, developing countries must pursue low carbon development paths if the world is to have a hope of tackling climate change.

South Asian Youth Climate Forum

From Maldives to Bhutan: South Asian Youth gather forces for climate action
 
If the “demographic dividend” of South Asia’s largely young population is to pay off, it must include the active engagement of South Asian youth on climate change. This was one of the key conclusions of the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change held in Nepal from 3-6th September.

South Asians already feel the impacts of climate change, and urgent action is necessary. Youth involvement must take place at two levels: At a philosophical level, it must include the beginnings of a paradigm shift in peoples’ relationship with nature – catching them young is the best option. At a more immediate level, there needs to be a coordinated groundswell of activity and awareness on climate change with engagement in the policy and negotiation process.

Such involvement is a ‘leveragable’ option on which youth have a particularly strong position – they are key stakeholders in the future, and therefore, crucial agents of change today. Capitalising on this asset at an opportune time is vital for effective change and a more secure planet.

At a time when there has been much debate about the voices of the Global South being heard in climate negotiations, the youth of South Asia have been actively involved in garnering other young people from their countries towards a whole gamut of actions – from engagement in policy advocacy, action campaigns, clean energy projects, outreach, science, communications, arts and culture and cleaner consumerism.

So far, engagement has largely been at a national level. But recognizing that South Asia as a region is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, youth from the subcontinent came together to hold the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change this year.

The aim of the summit was to create a common platform that would bring youth from the region together and help energize action, enable information exchange, facilitate insights into climate change, and initiate efforts to align and synergize actions under a broader framework.

A key outcome of the summit was a South Asian Youth Declaration on Climate Change, as well as the initiation of youth networks in Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Youth intend to hand over copies of their declaration to the UNFCCC secretariat, SAARC countries and to the SAARC secretariat as well as national and international institutions and ministries. Another important process initiated through this platform, will be a South Asian delegation to Copenhagen, ideally with five members from each country being part of the process.

A key demand is for strong commitments from developed countries, particularly in funding mitigation and adaptation projects. However, China and India as advanced developing countries also have responsibilities in terms of emission reduction commitments. Another key demand is for a top-down, science-informed approach to setting targets for developed country and long-term emission reductions.

Chaitanya Kumar of the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) suggests youth are in a better position to leverage change, through a better understanding of the issues of their day, while capitalizing on creativity, entrepreneurial skills and political awareness. However, he also adds that there is a need for leadership from people in the policy making and business sectors to set the standards for sustainable practices across all sectors.

The youth believe that strong and relentless campaigning is necessary to get action from our leaders. In achieving actionable outcomes from this strategy, says Rishikesh Ram Bhandary of the Nepal Youth Climate Network (NYCN), Nepalese youth have been involved with writing position papers and holding briefings with government officials.  They have also been recognized as the youth partners for Nepal’s National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).

Next steps include building mutual capacities, focus on a high ‘impact factor’ at Copenhagen, and building a network that works across and along all levels – from grassroots to country-level. More action can also be expected from South Asian country nodes in the run up to Copenhagen, which will in turn be uses as a building block securing a safer future.

MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports
India’s projected emissions until 2031: 5 studies

India has historically rejected domestic greenhouse emissions reductions on the grounds that critical development and poverty alleviation would be seriously hampered. But a growing international reputation as a deal-breaker (including the collapse of the WTO talks in July 2008 for which many nations blamed India), seems to have been taken up by the Government’s high command quite seriously. A directive from the Prime Minister, allegedly asking Indian negotiators to engage positively in the UNFCCC negotiations appears to have had some effect in reframing its position on climate change.

As part of this re-branding effort, the GoI is supporting charismatic politicians such as Jairam Ramesh to argue publicly that ‘India wants to be a deal-maker’ and that ‘we have to take up bold new responsibilities that we have evaded so far’. (See Malini Mehra’s Column on the CCI Portal for more – www.climatechallengeindia.org )
Ramesh’s Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is also opening up and putting more information into the public domain. One example of this is the recently released compendium of GHG modeling studies that looks at India’s greenhouse gas emissions profile and projected emission trajectories up until 2030. The report ‘India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies’ was released by MoEF in August. Few of the studies are new (three of the studies were originally commissioned by the GoI), but they have now finally been compiled in one place and put in the public domain for discussion.
India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies

The report summarises the initial results of five studies which attempt to project India’s emissions profile over the next two decades. The five studies were undertaken respectively by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER); Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe); two studies by The Energy Resources Institute (TERI); and McKinsey and Company.

Each of the studies have differences in model structure, as well as model assumptions and parameters, and therefore project a range of results for India’s absolute and per capita emissions and energy intensities. The estimates for India’s per capita GHG emissions in 2030-31 vary in the studies from between 2.77 tonnes to 5.7 tonnes per capita per year; and in absolute terms, India’s GHG emissions by 2031 varies from 4 billion to 7.3 billion tonnes.

Subsequent phases of modeling will involve assessing mitigation options and costs, and economic and food security implications for India.

In general, the international debate on future emissions trajectories has been informed by results from complex models on energy-economy, energy-technology, GHG concentration, macroeconomic growth and impact models (water resources, agriculture, coastal impacts, diseases and so on). A majority of these studies, having been developed in the West and, it is argued, may not fully reflect the ground realities of economic growth or policy structure in India. This set of MoEF studies was initiated as an effort to use models that enable an integrated assessment of India’s emissions profile, while better reflecting regional policy and regulatory realities.

Each study also specifies an ‘illustrative’ scenario for 2030-31, that specifies total GHG emissions (indicated above), per capita GHG emissions (indicated above), GDP growth rate, commercial energy use, fall in energy intensity and fall in CO2 intensity. The common constraint across all studies for this illustrative scenario is that no new GHG mitigation policies are put in place.  Such a scenario would indicate what India’s emissions would be under a ‘business as usual scenario’.
Even while energy intensity in India as well as around the world continues to drop, there is little doubt that the major proportion of economic growth (and therefore CO2 emissions) will come from countries like India. A McKinsey analysis suggests this growth will make India the third-largest energy consumer in the world.

18 months to action

However the plus side of this growth is an opportunity to leap-frog inefficient and/or coal-based technologies provided the cost of abatement– which is significant – would be met. A scenario detailing such cuts is developed in the latter part of the McKinsey report, for which carbon emissions in the ten largest sectors (consuming and emitting) in India have been analysed.

The report suggests that capturing these opportunities would push India into a ‘blue ocean space’ in the clean technology and energy security sectors. It also says that all necessary action at the centre is actionable within 18 months, given full backing of state and local governments, plus their own carbon-efficient growth plans.

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.

India Climate Watch – April-May 2009

by Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – APRIL-MAY (Issue 2)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

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

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting
Chandra Shekhar Balachandran and Manu Sharma

 

From the Editor’s Desk

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

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

Bonn 1 – the first round begins …

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

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

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

 

The climate is changing

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

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

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

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

More transparency from the GOI needed …

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

G20: No-show for climate

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

Major Economies Forum, Washington DC

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

Latest Climate Science

Arctic Ecosystem Threatened

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

Studies on Regional Impacts

IRELAND

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

TIBET

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

SCOTLAND

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

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

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

Economic Models can Mislead

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

What’s at Stake – Human Impact

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

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

Indian Parliamentary Survey on Climate Change

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

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

Home Front – Elections & National Action Plan

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

India’s Solar Energy Mission Analysed

Claims and counter-claims

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

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

  1. 20,000 by 2020
  2. 100,000 by 2030
  3. 200,000 by 2050

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

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

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

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

NAPCC Projection

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

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

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

The key: how this could happen

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