Doing better on climate change

Doing better on climate change

BJRN LOMBORG


TACKLING global warming, we are often told, is the defining task of our age. An army of pundits tells us that we need to cut emissions, and cut them immediately and drastically. But this argument is clearly losing the battle for hearts and minds.
Global warming has now become the lowest-priority policy problem among Americans, according to a new Pew survey. Another Pew survey showed that China, the worlds biggest emitter, cares even less than the US about global warming. Just 24% of Chinese regard global warming as a very serious problem, making China the worlds least concerned country. In the UK, an Opinium survey shows that most voters think green taxes are mainly for raising cash rather than the environment, and seven out of 10 are not willing to pay more in taxes to combat climate change.
At the same time, the proposed solutions for the problem of global warming have been awful. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. Leaders met again in Kyoto in 1997 and promised even stricter carbon cuts by 2010, yet emissions keep increasing, and Kyoto has done virtually nothing to change that.
What is most tragic is that when leaders meet in Copenhagen this December, they will embrace more of the same solution: promises of even more drastic emission reductions that, once again, are unlikely to be fulfilled. Measures that consistently over-promise and under-achieve at vast cost do not win hearts and minds in the best of times. And this is manifestly not the best of times. Fortunately, we have a much better option, with a much better chance of success: we should make lowcarbon energy sources like solar power become a real, competitive alternative to old energy sources, instead of the preserve of rich people who want to feel greener.
We should therefore invest on an effective scale in inventing new technology. Contrary to what one would imagine, the Kyoto Protocol has not prompted this research. Indeed, research investment has plummeted since the 1980s and has actually not increased since, even among Kyoto-participating countries.
Investing heavily in R&D of low-carbon energy , solar power, or other new technologies would become cheaper than fossil fuels much more quickly. Estimates show that for every $1 spent, we would do $16 worth of good.
Every country should agree to spend 0.05% of its GDP on low-carbon energy R&D . The total global cost would be 15 times higher than current spending on alternative energy research, yet six times lower than the cost of Kyoto. An agreement of this nature could be the new Kyoto treaty for the world the principal difference being that this protocol would actually make a difference and stand a good chance of global acceptance . Why not do both: invest in R&D , but still promise to cut carbon emissions now
Kyoto-style policies can only be an ever expensive distraction from the real business of weaning us off fossil fuels. There are two fundamental reasons why a focus on reducing carbon emissions is the wrong response to global warming. First, using fossil fuels remains the only way out of poverty for developing countries . Coal provides half of the worlds energy . In China and India, it accounts for about 80% of power generation, and is helping Chinese and Indian labourers enjoy a quality of life their parents could barely imagine. Capping emissions means, effectively, ending this success story for hundreds of millions of people . There is no green energy source affordable enough to replace coal in the near future. Instead, our upsized research will make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels by circa 2050.
Second, immediate carbon cuts are expensive and the cost significantly outweighs the benefits. If the Kyoto agreement had been fully implemented throughout this century, it would have cut temperatures only by an insignificant 0.2C (0.3F), at a cost of $180 billion every year. In economic terms, Kyoto only does about 30 cents worth of good for each dollar spent.
And deeper emission cuts like those proposed by the European Union 20% below 1990 levels within 12 years would reduce global temperatures by only one-sixtieth of one degree Celsius (one-thirtieth of one degree Fahrenheit) by 2100, at a cost of $10 trillion. For every dollar spent, we would do just four cents worth of good.
The saddest thing about the global warming debate is that nearly all of the key protagonists politicians, campaigners, and pundits already know that the old-style agreement that is on the table for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures.
Unless we change direction and make our actions realistic and achievable, it is already clear that the declarations of success in Copenhagen this December will be meaningless . We will make promises. We will not keep them. And we will waste another decade. Instead, we must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto. We can do better.


(The author is an adjunct professor at the
Copenhagen Business School)
(C): Project Syndicate, 2009

CO2-eating molecule new tool against warming

CO2-eating molecule new tool against warming

Washington:The accidental discovery of a bowl-shaped molecule that pulls carbon dioxide out of the air paves the way for exciting new possibilities to deal with global warming.
These possibilities include genetically engineering microbes to manufacture those carbon dioxide catchers , said JA Tossell, a Maryland University scientist who led the study. He noted that another scientist discovered the molecule while doing research unrelated to global climate change.
Carbon dioxide was collecting in the molecule, and the scientist realised that it was coming from air in the lab. Tossell recognised that these qualities might make it useful as an industrial absorbent for removing CO2.
Tossells new computer modelling studies found that the molecule might be wellsuited for removing carbon dioxide directly from air, in addition to its previously described potential use as an absorbent for carbon dioxide from electric power plants and other smoke stacks. These findings are slated for publication in the Aug 3 issue of Inorganic Chemistry. IANS

TOILET PAPER

Like A Babys Bottom

Arun Bhatia


As our house guest, at dinner hed had the usual spicy thali meal with us. In the morning, from our guest bedroom , this American friend said: Hmmm. I know now why you people carry water to the toilet. We desis are on the right track. Have been on the right track for a while now by carrying water to the toilet. For, recent findings are that the tender , delicate American buttock is causing more ecological damage than the nations gas-guzzling cars and fast food. Green campaigners are saying that the American public wants extra soft, quilted and multiply products when they go to the bathroom. Says Alan Hershkowitz, scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council: This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the environmental devastation from manufacturing it from trees is enormous. Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age.
It is made from virgin wood because longer fibres in virgin wood are easier to lay out and fluff up. But it is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution. The chemicals used in pulp manufacture and cutting down forests have a significant impact. In fact, there is a campaign by Greenpeace on raising American consciousness about the costs of their toilet habits. Greenpeace is countering the big ads by the paper industry honchos, who are pushing luxury brands . The majority of the toilet roll sold in the US comes from virgin forests, says Hershkowitz. Not so in Europe and Latin America, where 40 per cent of toilet paper comes from recycled products. Greenpeace says that we have this myth in the US that recycled anything is so low quality, its like cardboard and impossible to use. The big paper product manufacturers use celebrities to push the so-called comforts of luxury brand toilet paper and tissue . These brands put quilting and pockets of air between several layers of paper. They are damaging the environment. A news report suggested that Kimberly-Clark , a paper products major, spent $25 million in the third quarter of 2008 on advertising to persuade Americans against trusting their bottoms to cheaper brands. I couldnt say all this to the American friend. He was a guestatithi devo bhavah and all that.

THE EVILS OF PLASTIC BAGS

Unfriendly Packaging

We must come up with alternatives to plastic


Plastic is convenient. It is cheap, too. So plastic bags are ubiquitous in cities, towns and hill stations. From mega grocery store chains and retail outlets to pushcart vendors , eateries and restaurants, the plastic bag is the wonder solution to storage and cartage. Sadly it also kills hundreds of thousands of birds, whales, seals and turtles every year the world over. In India, discarded plastic bags choke not only drains leading to flooding in cities but cows, too. The animals eat leftover food-filled bags discarded on the roads, and suffer the consequences. Polythene bags are not biodegradable . In landfills, they leach toxic chemicals into the soil, contaminating groundwater. Polythene bags that are of less than 40-micron thickness are more harmful not only to the environment; as popular wraps for takeaway foods, they impact public health as well.
The issue at hand is to work out how we can reduce the risks with better usage and disposal methods as well as eventually replace plastic with safer options. A complete ban might not be the answer. Recycling is an option, and this could apply not only to recycling better quality plastic bags but also waste paper. The advantage of allowing bags that are more than 40 microns thick is that they have some economic value, and thus provide some incentive for recycling . Another option would be a plastic tax, which would lead to greater reuse of plastic as well as a shift towards more ecologically friendly packaging.
Reuse, reduce and recycle the three Rs of polythene use may be a popular mantra among schoolchildren, but we dont take it seriously enough as adults. The throwaway culture is a major reason for increase in toxic garbage and sewage clogging. There are many alternatives to polythene bags. Encourage the use of jute bags and baskets that were used by shoppers before plastics. Use bags made of recycled paper, or else shopping trolleys and rucksacks or backpacks.
Bangladesh banned thin polythene bags in 2002 to solve the problem of blocked drains and flooding and it has worked. Delhi began with a ban early this year but the momentum seems to be petering out. Biodegradable polythene made of starch is another, less affordable option. A total ban on thin polythene bags coupled with practising the three Rs will help us take significant steps towards curbing the plastic menace.

Good public transport makes for green cities

Dont Miss The Bus

Good public transport makes for green cities

Chhavi Dhingra


If theres one amenity all cities require for better air quality, reduced congestion and noise as well as quicker and safer travel opportunities for all, good and efficient public transport systems would be it. Unfortunately, our cities are centred on the personal vehicle, causing environmental and social damage. Public transport, on its part, has been inadequate . In terms of receiving the governments financial support and priority or general popular acceptance, it has failed miserably. Cities like London, Singapore, Brisbane and Bogota are trying to ensure people abandon personal vehicles and use public transport, at least on weekdays . But we seem to have taken the opposite path, towards the personal two-wheeler or car. No wonder urban transport has become a serious threat to the environment.
Of 4,400 towns and cities in India, less than 15 have government-provided public transport systems. In all other urban locations, public transport is a mix of privately operated formal and informal modes, which function with hardly any regulatory oversight. Though there exists a huge demand for public transport in cities, given the rapid rates of personal motorisation, public transport shares are dwindling in terms of passenger trips and vehicle shares. The share of the public bus reduced from 11 per cent of Indias total vehicle fleet in 1951to 1per cent in 2001. While in 1951, one of every 10 vehicles sold was a bus, today its only one in every 100. The number of registered buses grew at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.6 per cent between 1951 and 2006 while other vehicles registered had a CAGR of almost 11per cent.
According to a TERI study in one of Indias large metropolitan cities, increase in public transports share from 62 per cent to 80 per cent by the year 2020 would lead to a fuel saving of 7,65,320 tonnes of oil equivalent, or about 21per cent of the fuel consumed in the baseline case. In addition, 23 per cent reduction in total vehicles (6,42,328) and road space creation (equivalent to removing 4,18,210 cars off the road) would go along with decreased traffic congestion . Air pollution would also drop significantly : a 40 per cent drop in carbon monoxide, 46 per cent in hydrocarbons, 6 per cent in nitrogen oxides and 29 per cent in particulate matter. Total carbon dioxide mitigation potential for the city over a 15-year period (2005-2020 ) would be 13 per cent. This emphasises the need to bring in more and improved public transport in cities.
Public transport in India involves multiple technical, operational, managerial, financial, institutional and organisational issues. Theres also labour, planning and quality. State and city governments have not done and are still not doing enough to plan and operate attractive transport systems, and unless we as citizens demand action now, we will suffer long vehicle queues, traffic jams on congested roads, dangerous walking conditions and bad air.
With initiatives like the National Urban Transport Policy and the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, public funds have been mobilised to build/acquire requisite public transport infrastructure (BRT, procurement of buses, etc) in 63 mission cities. This is a good move. But what about the remaining 4,000-plus towns and cities Their mobility needs must also be met so that they do not repeat the mistakes of cities that adopted an unsustainable path of personal motorisation thanks to lack of decent public transport.
We need to arrest declining shares of public transport in small and medium cities and preserve and gradually increase them. This does not call for heavy investments or sophisticated infrastructure, only a recognition of the fact that peoples growing mobility needs should be matched by the presence of affordable and attractive public transport. State and city governments will need to ensure this. Providing adequate buses running on schedule, good coverage of routes, safe and easy access to bus stops, basic passenger amenities at waiting areas, comfortable travel environment and good bus headways can go a long way.
Sometimes the most effective solutions are simply good coordination and management. For example , Delhis and Punes BRT and Volvo buses in Bangalore have been in the news for apparently not meeting expectations while systems like shared CNG three-wheelers in Surat and shared Maruti car taxis in Shillong seem to be serving mobility needs, being safe, accessible, affordable and convenient to use. The point being made is each city has unique transportation and traveller characteristics. Especially in small and medium towns where average trip lengths do not exceed 2-3 kms, informal, flexible transport systems should be looked upon as part of the public transport system, not a competition or threat to it. Finally, commitment and will on the part of city authorities are required as demonstrated by cities like London and Bogota. Unfortunately in India, transport does not even feature as a municipal function in most cities, barring a few exceptions.


The writer is associate fellow, transport and urban development, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi.

Trees made in lab to capture CO2 faster Dont Need Sunlight Or Water To Function

Trees made in lab to capture CO2 faster

Dont Need Sunlight Or Water To Function


T he thought of an artificial tree usually excites memories of building and ornamenting a Christmas centerpiece. But heres an innovation that will put those plastic branches to shame : scientists at Columbia University are developing a structure that can capture carbon 1,000 times faster than a real tree.
Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at the university , has been working on the project since 1998, according to a CNN report, and is optimistic about a near-future application.
Modern improvements in coal-fired power plants have reduced carbon emissions, but Lackner is seeking a different function. The tree would be used to trap carbon that has already been emitted into the air by car gasoline or airplane fuel, CNN reports.
Unlike the real thing, the synthetic tree doesnt need direct sunlight, water, a trunk, or branches to function, as it looks more like a cylinder than a soaring Redwood. The concept, which Lackner says is flexible in size and can be placed nearly anywhere, works by collecting carbon dioxide on a sorbent, cleaning and pressurizing the gas, and releasing it. Similar to the way a sponge collects water, the sorbent would collect carbon dioxide. Resin filters on top would capture CO2 from the ambient air. The CO2 is then removed at the bottom using a series of moisture and compression steps, according to one of the concepts developers.
Each synthetic tree would absorb one ton of carbon dioxide per day, eliminating an amount of gas equivalent to that produced by 20 cars. Lackner is also co-founder and chairman of Tuscon, Arizonabased Global Research Technologies , which is working on the technology.
Although the prospect of this is exciting, manufacturing the structures would be expensive, as each unit would reportedly cost about $30,000 to make.
Nonetheless, Lackner and his team are pushing the project full-force . CNN says he has already met with US energy secretary Steven Chu to discuss the concept, which Lackner says will have a prototype within three years. He is also writing a proposal for the Department of Energy in a continuous effort to raise attention for a concept, which he says is several hundred times more effective than the traditional windmill. AGENCIES

Inequality and global warming

Inequality and global warming

The G-8 failed to develop a consensus to lower carbon emissions not because developing countries, led by China and India, objected to the agreement as the western media would have us believe, says Neeraj Kaushal


IT HAS become a fad in Europe and the US to blame China and India for emitting increasing volumes of greenhouse gases, increasing pollution , and contributing to global warming . Last week, at the summit of the exclusive Group of Eight rich industrialised countries in Italy, the G-8 leaders and western media accused China and India for obstructing the G-8 s initiative to reduce carbon emissions and contain the threat of global warming. On July 9, a front page story in the New York Times charged China and India for undercutting the drive to build a global consensus by the end of this year to reverse the threat of climate change.
Whats going on The last time I checked, India had one of the lowest carbon emissions in the world. China was not as good but still many times better than the G-8 member countries. Why would India or China mind the rich exercise some restrain, and clean up some of the pollution they have emitted over the years I checked again this time the data from the US department of energys Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). According to CDIAC, in 2004, Indias per capita emission of carbon dioxide was 1.2 metric tonnes. The corresponding number was 20.4 metric tonnes for the United States and 20 metric tonnes for its northern neighbour, Canada. For the other six members of the G-8 countries, Japan, Russia, France, Italy, the UK and Germany, the per capita emission of carbon dioxide hovered between six to 10.5 metric tonnes, and for China 3.8 metric tonnes.
The G-8 wants to reduce worldwide emissions by half and emissions in the industrialised countries by 80% by 2050. The G-8 target is indeed ambitious, but vague as well. It is not clear whether the G-8 goal is to reduce the emissions from the current levels or from some historical level. The timeline of the G-8 target is also fuzzy. Would it be a 20% reduction in each decade or a 10% reduction in the first three decades and 50% cut in the last decade or some other combination There are no clear short-term or even medium-term targets.
Even if the developing countries were to trust that the G-8 has every intention of lowering carbon emissions, it does not seem that the poor countries are getting a fair deal. Even by 2050 after reducing emissions by 80% an average American (Canadian) will pollute the world at a level four times higher than an average Indian . If we were to set a carbon emission target on the principle that all human beings have just about equal right to pollute the world, the G-8 nations will have to reduce emissions by more than 80% and much sooner. China has asked the G-8 nations to lower their carbon emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2020. Now thats ambitious too, but at least this is a shorter timeline and reflects a more serious approach towards global warming.
The G-8 failed to develop a consensus to lower carbon emissions not because developing countries, led by China and India, objected to the agreement as the western media would have us believe. It is because the G-8 leaders were not able to reach an accord on short-term targets. The US does not want to commit to any short-term targets. The American Constitution does not give its President the authority to commit to any such targets with foreign countries. Anything that the US President promises will have to be approved by Congress. And if recent policy initiatives are an indication, there is little evidence that legislators in the US will agree to such drastic reduction in carbon gas emissions. Last month, the US House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Bill that promised to lower carbon emission by 16-17 % by 2020.
EXPERTSthink that the short- to medium-term effect of the Bill on carbon emissions would be nil. The Bill has to go before the US Senate where it is expected to meet stiff resistance. It may be easier for President Obama to convince the G-17 , the group of 17 countries that produce 80% of the worlds pollutants, to consider lowering emissions than to convince the US Congress to impose such targets on American industries and consumers.
Carbon emissions are directly related to a countrys level of economic development . Rich countries consume more energy and have higher emission levels and poor countries consume less and have much modest emissions. It is unlikely that developing countries would agree to absolute cuts in carbon emissions because such cuts would impose limits on their economic growth. They may agree to a somewhat lower increase in future emissions . Clearly, rich industrialised countries have to take the lead on reducing carbon emissions. They also need to provide money to developing countries so that they can pursue economic growth with cleaner sources of energy.
At the summit last week, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown did propose that the rich nations should create a $100 billion fund to help the poor countries deal with climate change. But it seems no one paid any attention to his suggestion. China is pushing for a much higher investment by the richer countries to reverse climate change. If the industrialised countries want to make any progress in reducing carbon emission, they need to have fair and rational goals.
Global warming and climate change are affecting inhabitants in the rich and poor countries. Even though rich countries produce bulk of the pollutants, global warming is hurting people living in the poor countries as well. Take, for instance, global warming which is disrupting the monsoons and causing the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, which may create huge water shortages for India and China. Scientists have been warning for years that the Ganga glacier may melt before the end of the 21st century, because of climate change, affecting the lives of billions. Reduction in emission of greenhouse gases would help not just the rich world, but the poor world as well. Leaders of developing countries, therefore, have to aggressively push the rich countries to lower their carbon emissions, and make sure that they abide by these targets.