World Bank report backs Indias stand
New Delhi: India, for decades, has demanded at the UN climate negotiations that it must be given a greater carbon space in the atmosphere to allow its 600 million poor access to electricity. The industrialized nations have argued that if India grows and powers its poor, the already limited space left in the atmosphere to spew out GHG gases would lead to irreversible and dangerous climate change. The World Bank report , to be released in September, has now backed the Indian stance that the high-income countries have contributed a disproportionate share of the worlds carbon emissions and still continue to do so.
India and other developing countries have long contended that the massive emissions from the rich nations since the industrialization era have choked up the atmosphere and left little space for other nations emerging late on the economic growth pathway to increase their power production.
Earlier studies have shown that historical emissions amount to about 1,100 tonnes of CO2 per capita for the UK and the US, compared with 66 tonnes for China and 23 tonnes for India. Since 1840, seven out of every 10 tonnes of CO2 emitted has come from the rich countries.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Where are the global problem solvers
Where are the global problem solvers
We need to think hard, and collaboratively, about the worlds real technological options, and then pursue a common global framework that allows us to move into a new era, one based on sustainable technologies, says Jeffrey D Sachs
ONE odd and disturbing aspect of global politics today is the confusion between negotiations and problem-solving . According to a timetable agreed in December 2007, we have six months to reach a global agreement on climate change in Copenhagen. Governments are engaged in a massive negotiation, but they are not engaged in a massive effort at problemsolving . Each country asks itself, How do I do the least and get the other countries to do the most, when they should be asking instead, How do we cooperate to achieve our shared goals at minimum cost and maximum benefit
These might sound like the same thing, but they are not. Addressing the problem of climate change requires reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, which in turn involves choices in technology , some of which already exists and much of which needs to be developed. For example, coal plants, if they are to remain a major part of the energy mix, will need to capture and store their CO2, a process called carbon capture and sequestration , or CCS for short. Yet this technology remains unproved.
Similarly, we will need renewed public confidence in a new generation of nuclear power, with plants that are safe and reliably monitored. We will need new technologies to mobilise large-scale solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. We might try to tap bio-fuels , but only in forms that do not compete with food supplies or with precious environmental assets.
The list goes on. We will need improved energy efficiency, through green buildings and more efficient appliances. We will need to switch from cars with internal-combustion engines to hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery-powered , and fuel-cell-powered vehicles.
Achieving a new generation of electric vehicles will require a decade of public and private partnership to achieve basic technological development (such as improved batteries), a more robust electric grid, new infrastructure for re-charging the automobiles, and much more. Similarly , it will take a decade of public and private investments to demonstrate the feasibility of coal-fired plants that capture their carbon dioxide.
The switchover to new technologies is not mainly a matter of negotiation but of engineering, planning, financing, and incentives . How can the world most effectively develop, demonstrate, and then spread these new technologies Where the benefits are unlikely to accrue to private investors, who should pay for the early demonstration models, which will require billions of dollars How should we preserve private incentives for research and development while committing to transfer successful technologies to developing countries
These are pressing, unsolved questions. Yet the global negotiations on climate change are focusing on a different set of questions. The negotiations are mainly about which groups of countries should cut their emissions, by how much, how fast, and relative to which baseline year. Countries are being pressed to cut emissions by 2020 by certain percentage targets , without much serious discussion about how the cuts can be achieved. The answers depend, of course, on which lowemission technologies will be available, and on how fast they can be deployed.
CONSIDER the United States. To cut emissions sharply, the US will need to switch over this decade to a new fleet of automobiles, powered increasingly by electricity. The US will also have to decide on the renewal and expansion of its nuclear power plants, and on the use of public lands to build new renewable energy plants, especially using solar power. And the US will need a new power grid to carry renewable energy from low-density population sites such as the southwestern deserts for solar power and the northern plains for wind power to the highdensity populations of the coasts. Yet all of this requires a national plan, not simply a numerical target for emissions reduction.
Similarly, China, like the US, can reduce CO2 emissions through increased energy efficiency and a new fleet of electric vehicles. But China must consider the question from the vantage point of a coal-dependent economy. Chinas future choices depend on whether clean coal can really work effectively and on a large scale. Thus, Chinas emissions path depends crucially on early testing of the CCS technologies.
A true global brainstorming approach would first discuss the best technological and economic options available, and how to improve these options through targeted research and development and better economic incentives. The negotiations would discuss the range of options open to each country and region from CCS to solar, wind, and nuclear power and would sketch a timetable for a new generation of low-emission automobiles, recognising that market competition as well as public financing will set the actual pace.
Based on these building blocks, the world could agree on allocating the costs for speeding the development and spread of new low-emission technologies. This global framework would underpin national and global targets for emissions control and for monitoring the progress of the technological overhaul. As new technologies are proven, the targets would become more stringent. Of course, part of the strategy would be to create market incentives for new low-emission technologies , so that inventors could develop their own ideas with the prospect of large profits if those ideas are right.
My plea to discuss plans and strategies alongside specific emissions targets might seem to risk impeding the negotiations. But if we dont have a strategy to accompany our targets, the worlds governments might not accept such targets in the first place, or might accept them cynically, without any intention of actually meeting them.
We need to think hard, and collaboratively , about the worlds real technological options, and then pursue a common global framework that allows us to move into a new era, one based on feasible and sustainable technologies for energy, transport, industry, and buildings.
We need to think hard, and collaboratively, about the worlds real technological options, and then pursue a common global framework that allows us to move into a new era, one based on sustainable technologies, says Jeffrey D Sachs
ONE odd and disturbing aspect of global politics today is the confusion between negotiations and problem-solving . According to a timetable agreed in December 2007, we have six months to reach a global agreement on climate change in Copenhagen. Governments are engaged in a massive negotiation, but they are not engaged in a massive effort at problemsolving . Each country asks itself, How do I do the least and get the other countries to do the most, when they should be asking instead, How do we cooperate to achieve our shared goals at minimum cost and maximum benefit
These might sound like the same thing, but they are not. Addressing the problem of climate change requires reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, which in turn involves choices in technology , some of which already exists and much of which needs to be developed. For example, coal plants, if they are to remain a major part of the energy mix, will need to capture and store their CO2, a process called carbon capture and sequestration , or CCS for short. Yet this technology remains unproved.
Similarly, we will need renewed public confidence in a new generation of nuclear power, with plants that are safe and reliably monitored. We will need new technologies to mobilise large-scale solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. We might try to tap bio-fuels , but only in forms that do not compete with food supplies or with precious environmental assets.
The list goes on. We will need improved energy efficiency, through green buildings and more efficient appliances. We will need to switch from cars with internal-combustion engines to hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery-powered , and fuel-cell-powered vehicles.
Achieving a new generation of electric vehicles will require a decade of public and private partnership to achieve basic technological development (such as improved batteries), a more robust electric grid, new infrastructure for re-charging the automobiles, and much more. Similarly , it will take a decade of public and private investments to demonstrate the feasibility of coal-fired plants that capture their carbon dioxide.
The switchover to new technologies is not mainly a matter of negotiation but of engineering, planning, financing, and incentives . How can the world most effectively develop, demonstrate, and then spread these new technologies Where the benefits are unlikely to accrue to private investors, who should pay for the early demonstration models, which will require billions of dollars How should we preserve private incentives for research and development while committing to transfer successful technologies to developing countries
These are pressing, unsolved questions. Yet the global negotiations on climate change are focusing on a different set of questions. The negotiations are mainly about which groups of countries should cut their emissions, by how much, how fast, and relative to which baseline year. Countries are being pressed to cut emissions by 2020 by certain percentage targets , without much serious discussion about how the cuts can be achieved. The answers depend, of course, on which lowemission technologies will be available, and on how fast they can be deployed.
CONSIDER the United States. To cut emissions sharply, the US will need to switch over this decade to a new fleet of automobiles, powered increasingly by electricity. The US will also have to decide on the renewal and expansion of its nuclear power plants, and on the use of public lands to build new renewable energy plants, especially using solar power. And the US will need a new power grid to carry renewable energy from low-density population sites such as the southwestern deserts for solar power and the northern plains for wind power to the highdensity populations of the coasts. Yet all of this requires a national plan, not simply a numerical target for emissions reduction.
Similarly, China, like the US, can reduce CO2 emissions through increased energy efficiency and a new fleet of electric vehicles. But China must consider the question from the vantage point of a coal-dependent economy. Chinas future choices depend on whether clean coal can really work effectively and on a large scale. Thus, Chinas emissions path depends crucially on early testing of the CCS technologies.
A true global brainstorming approach would first discuss the best technological and economic options available, and how to improve these options through targeted research and development and better economic incentives. The negotiations would discuss the range of options open to each country and region from CCS to solar, wind, and nuclear power and would sketch a timetable for a new generation of low-emission automobiles, recognising that market competition as well as public financing will set the actual pace.
Based on these building blocks, the world could agree on allocating the costs for speeding the development and spread of new low-emission technologies. This global framework would underpin national and global targets for emissions control and for monitoring the progress of the technological overhaul. As new technologies are proven, the targets would become more stringent. Of course, part of the strategy would be to create market incentives for new low-emission technologies , so that inventors could develop their own ideas with the prospect of large profits if those ideas are right.
My plea to discuss plans and strategies alongside specific emissions targets might seem to risk impeding the negotiations. But if we dont have a strategy to accompany our targets, the worlds governments might not accept such targets in the first place, or might accept them cynically, without any intention of actually meeting them.
We need to think hard, and collaboratively , about the worlds real technological options, and then pursue a common global framework that allows us to move into a new era, one based on feasible and sustainable technologies for energy, transport, industry, and buildings.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Dutch twosome pedals rickshaw culture home
Dutch twosome pedals rickshaw culture home
Anindya Chattopadhyay | TNN
New Delhi: The humble cycle-rickshaw just got a leg-up .
One of its league is on its way to Holland thanks to the fascination of two Dutch University students who were so much impressed by the unique three-wheeler that they bought one from Pahargunj on Tuesday and got it shipped to their homeland.
Michael Dordrecht (18) Peter-Paul Vossepoea (20) have just finished school and are on a tour of India. The duo is ecstatic about their new buy and cant wait to wheel it to the university when they join it on returning home. But they are aware that their unusual vehicle that cost them a measly Rs 8,000, adding to its many attractions may suffer from a scarcity of spares back home, so they have also bought eight tyres, a couple of tubes and some nuts and bolts for their new acquisition.
Said Peter: There is a preoccupation with eco-friendly transport in Dutch campuses . So, we have to cycle a lot but that is not always comfortable because of the sun. This is a unique mode of transport because you can take passengers, it has a hood and is perfectly eco-friendly .
But their transport needed some modifications for its Dutch sojourn. The hood had to be readjusted to suit the Dutch height. On an average , we are six feet so this was a little small. We have taken care of that too. Getting a permit will not be an issue, said Michael, adding that the rickshaw will make for a comfortable ride from their home in Rioustraat to the university . The rickshaw has been done up too on either side of it are the names of its two owners Michael and Peter, written in Hindi. At the centre is the registration number of the rickshaw DL-0909 .
The sight of two firangs on a rickshaw one as passenger and the other as the rickshaw-puller caused much mirth in the crowded lanes of Pahargunj. Peter also obliged some of his amused onlookers by giving three passengers free rides.
Proud of how they are transporting the great Indian culture to Holland, Michael said: If some day rickshaws are abolished in India, there will always be a small city in Holland which will have one.
anindya.chattopadhyay
Anindya Chattopadhyay | TNN
New Delhi: The humble cycle-rickshaw just got a leg-up .
One of its league is on its way to Holland thanks to the fascination of two Dutch University students who were so much impressed by the unique three-wheeler that they bought one from Pahargunj on Tuesday and got it shipped to their homeland.
Michael Dordrecht (18) Peter-Paul Vossepoea (20) have just finished school and are on a tour of India. The duo is ecstatic about their new buy and cant wait to wheel it to the university when they join it on returning home. But they are aware that their unusual vehicle that cost them a measly Rs 8,000, adding to its many attractions may suffer from a scarcity of spares back home, so they have also bought eight tyres, a couple of tubes and some nuts and bolts for their new acquisition.
Said Peter: There is a preoccupation with eco-friendly transport in Dutch campuses . So, we have to cycle a lot but that is not always comfortable because of the sun. This is a unique mode of transport because you can take passengers, it has a hood and is perfectly eco-friendly .
But their transport needed some modifications for its Dutch sojourn. The hood had to be readjusted to suit the Dutch height. On an average , we are six feet so this was a little small. We have taken care of that too. Getting a permit will not be an issue, said Michael, adding that the rickshaw will make for a comfortable ride from their home in Rioustraat to the university . The rickshaw has been done up too on either side of it are the names of its two owners Michael and Peter, written in Hindi. At the centre is the registration number of the rickshaw DL-0909 .
The sight of two firangs on a rickshaw one as passenger and the other as the rickshaw-puller caused much mirth in the crowded lanes of Pahargunj. Peter also obliged some of his amused onlookers by giving three passengers free rides.
Proud of how they are transporting the great Indian culture to Holland, Michael said: If some day rickshaws are abolished in India, there will always be a small city in Holland which will have one.
anindya.chattopadhyay
Monday, June 22, 2009
GREENHOUSE GASES DUE TO AIRCONDITIONING
Gas that saved ozone layer making world warmer
Research Shows Replacements Of Ozone-Destroying CFCs Are Powerful Greenhouse Gases
The green movements greatest triumph the abolition of ozone-destroying CFC gases in the 1980s may become its biggest embarrassment after research showing that their replacements are sharply accelerating global warming.
CFC, or chlorofluorocarbon , gases were widely deployed in air-conditioning and refrigeration units before they were found to destroy the ozone layer and banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. They were replaced by HFCs hydrofluorocarbons gases which have far less effect on ozone but which have since been revealed as extremely powerful greenhouse gases. A tonne of HFC-23 used in refrigeration has the same global warming potential as 14,800 tonnes of CO2. A tonne of HFC-134 a, widely used in vehicle air-conditioning units, is equivalent to 1,430 tonnes of CO2. The problem has been increased by the rising demand for refrigeration and air-conditioning because of economic expansion and population growth in Asia.
A study out this week will warn that, by 2050, HFCs could account for up to 19% of global warming. By 2050, the contribution of HFCs to global warming will be more than that of current global CO2 emissions from houses and office buildings, said Guus Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, who did the research.
The contribution of HFCs to global warming is currently small, but can increase to between 9% and 19% of the total CO2 contribution by 2050.
He found that by 2050 the demand for HFCs was likely to have increased by 800% compared with todays figures.
A separate study conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a campaign group, found the biggest source of HFC emissions was air-conditioning in vehicles.
Research Shows Replacements Of Ozone-Destroying CFCs Are Powerful Greenhouse Gases
The green movements greatest triumph the abolition of ozone-destroying CFC gases in the 1980s may become its biggest embarrassment after research showing that their replacements are sharply accelerating global warming.
CFC, or chlorofluorocarbon , gases were widely deployed in air-conditioning and refrigeration units before they were found to destroy the ozone layer and banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. They were replaced by HFCs hydrofluorocarbons gases which have far less effect on ozone but which have since been revealed as extremely powerful greenhouse gases. A tonne of HFC-23 used in refrigeration has the same global warming potential as 14,800 tonnes of CO2. A tonne of HFC-134 a, widely used in vehicle air-conditioning units, is equivalent to 1,430 tonnes of CO2. The problem has been increased by the rising demand for refrigeration and air-conditioning because of economic expansion and population growth in Asia.
A study out this week will warn that, by 2050, HFCs could account for up to 19% of global warming. By 2050, the contribution of HFCs to global warming will be more than that of current global CO2 emissions from houses and office buildings, said Guus Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, who did the research.
The contribution of HFCs to global warming is currently small, but can increase to between 9% and 19% of the total CO2 contribution by 2050.
He found that by 2050 the demand for HFCs was likely to have increased by 800% compared with todays figures.
A separate study conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a campaign group, found the biggest source of HFC emissions was air-conditioning in vehicles.
SPIRITUAL BY NATURE
SPIRITUAL BY NATURE
Once upon a time, we knew how to live amicably with nature, in a spirit of give and take. We need to go back to the future and redefine development, says Narayani Ganesh
Rome: One hundred legislators from across the world converged here to participate in the G8+5 Legislators Forum on Climate Change ahead of next months G-8 Summit in the Italian city of LAquila . Add two-dozen journalists and pundits and our guilt quotient shoots up with our expanding carbon footprint. But as the conference wore on, my thoughts began to wander
As a little girl, I would often tour the garden with my grandmother. She would gently pluck leaves off the Tulsi plant for her daily puja. She would first circumambulate the plant three times, chanting a shloka, asking it seemed, permission to take a few leaves. Then she would offer water to the plant, seeking its blessings. Sometimes when she felt tired, she would ask me to get the leaves for her, while she bathed little images of gods and goddesses in her sacred alcove . One evening I decided to be better organized. So off I went after dinner , plucked the Tulsi, carefully wrapped the leaves and left them in the refrigerator, pulling them out triumphantly in the morning, very pleased with myself.
The normally sweet-tempered grandmother was livid. Dont you know that you should never pluck leaves and flowers at night When I asked her why, she answered that nocturnal insects and bugs might bite you. More important, she said, the plants are asleep at night, so it was insensitive to disturb them. The real reason was probably more scientific. There is no photosynthetic activity at night, so plants tend to release more carbon dioxide than oxygen. The converse would be true during the day. If you wander around a garden full of trees and plants at night, you might end up inhaling more carbon dioxide . You might also tread upon and kill garden insects or startle them, inviting an attack.
Whatever the reason, Indic tradition was environmentally sensitive ; anything that was an integral part of nature was considered sacred . Children were given lots of ecofriendly advice dont throw garbage in the river; dont tug at leaves and branches, treat them gently ; dont desecrate river banks; dont sleep under trees at night; wash regularly . The reasons given were and still are probably because I say so or otherwise God will punish you! But, these practices surely evolved out of a need to live amicably with ones natural surroundings, in a spirit of give and take.
Ecological sanctity is something that is common to traditional systems across the world. It is not unusual for almost every culture to praise the sun, offer thanks to water bodies and plants, conserve water, leave some land fallow to enable rejuvenation , forbid fishing or tree-cutting for certain periods of the year when its the breeding season for fish or growing time for plants.
So how and when did the regression begin, leading us to the brink of a planetary-scale catastrophe How did the climate change scenario get played out, with us as villains, spewing pollution into the air and disgorging the bowels of the earth, destroying forests and species and accelerating global warming What if glacial melting causes sea levels to rise too fast for us to adapt to face the challenges and mitigate the threat
As hunter-gatherers , we might have gone hungry if we killed too many animals, upset the food chain, natural balance and flora and fauna. We would have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. When we learnt to cultivate the land, we settled down to an agricultural way of life. Yet we were careful not to overdo it, for we would have sucked all the nutrients out. But with industrialization , things changed.
Most would say thats about the time when industrialization enabled us to produce more than we needed our relationship with other constituents of Planet Earth began to flounder. So the regression began when currency and trade expanded and flourished in place of the barter system. When faster, higher, stronger no longer referred only to the aspirations of Olympics contestants but translated as the way to achieve steadily increasing rates of economic growth measured in terms of Gross National Product (GNP). When the worth of a country came to be measured by how much it produced and consumed rather than how much it conserved. When people bought products and services even when they didnt really need them.
Instead of living off the land, we began to exploit it. The baseline was no longer peaceful coexistence with nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition was misinterpreted as unbridled licence to humans to exploit natural resources in the belief that man was created to have dominion over all other species: And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
The Talmud and rabbis who interpret scripture stress that dominion did not mean making everything else subservient to man, but acting responsibly for yourself and others. It certainly does not sanction the unlimited right to use and abuse animals, minerals and fossil fuels. We just need to know when to stop extracting stuff. As in any other relationship, balance and harmony are all about reciprocity and mutual respect.
Subjective though they are, annual opinion polls gauging a peoples happiness show that there is really no direct correlation between a countrys GNP and its happiness quotient. Perhaps this is because GNP thrives on expansion of consumption and the production of goods and services but happiness is determined by contentment. This is not to say the world needs immediately to revert to the barter system, shut down all factories, dump motorized transport and start walking.
Obviously, we cannot go back to the pre-industrial era, throwing away the benefits of medical cures, easy transport, instant communication, access to knowledge and skills. But we do need to redefine development and its objectives so that they are more sustainable not by eschewing technology but by embracing it to enable a life of harmony and sustainability , care and compassion, mutual benefit and contentment.
Once upon a time, we knew how to live amicably with nature, in a spirit of give and take. We need to go back to the future and redefine development, says Narayani Ganesh
Rome: One hundred legislators from across the world converged here to participate in the G8+5 Legislators Forum on Climate Change ahead of next months G-8 Summit in the Italian city of LAquila . Add two-dozen journalists and pundits and our guilt quotient shoots up with our expanding carbon footprint. But as the conference wore on, my thoughts began to wander
As a little girl, I would often tour the garden with my grandmother. She would gently pluck leaves off the Tulsi plant for her daily puja. She would first circumambulate the plant three times, chanting a shloka, asking it seemed, permission to take a few leaves. Then she would offer water to the plant, seeking its blessings. Sometimes when she felt tired, she would ask me to get the leaves for her, while she bathed little images of gods and goddesses in her sacred alcove . One evening I decided to be better organized. So off I went after dinner , plucked the Tulsi, carefully wrapped the leaves and left them in the refrigerator, pulling them out triumphantly in the morning, very pleased with myself.
The normally sweet-tempered grandmother was livid. Dont you know that you should never pluck leaves and flowers at night When I asked her why, she answered that nocturnal insects and bugs might bite you. More important, she said, the plants are asleep at night, so it was insensitive to disturb them. The real reason was probably more scientific. There is no photosynthetic activity at night, so plants tend to release more carbon dioxide than oxygen. The converse would be true during the day. If you wander around a garden full of trees and plants at night, you might end up inhaling more carbon dioxide . You might also tread upon and kill garden insects or startle them, inviting an attack.
Whatever the reason, Indic tradition was environmentally sensitive ; anything that was an integral part of nature was considered sacred . Children were given lots of ecofriendly advice dont throw garbage in the river; dont tug at leaves and branches, treat them gently ; dont desecrate river banks; dont sleep under trees at night; wash regularly . The reasons given were and still are probably because I say so or otherwise God will punish you! But, these practices surely evolved out of a need to live amicably with ones natural surroundings, in a spirit of give and take.
Ecological sanctity is something that is common to traditional systems across the world. It is not unusual for almost every culture to praise the sun, offer thanks to water bodies and plants, conserve water, leave some land fallow to enable rejuvenation , forbid fishing or tree-cutting for certain periods of the year when its the breeding season for fish or growing time for plants.
So how and when did the regression begin, leading us to the brink of a planetary-scale catastrophe How did the climate change scenario get played out, with us as villains, spewing pollution into the air and disgorging the bowels of the earth, destroying forests and species and accelerating global warming What if glacial melting causes sea levels to rise too fast for us to adapt to face the challenges and mitigate the threat
As hunter-gatherers , we might have gone hungry if we killed too many animals, upset the food chain, natural balance and flora and fauna. We would have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. When we learnt to cultivate the land, we settled down to an agricultural way of life. Yet we were careful not to overdo it, for we would have sucked all the nutrients out. But with industrialization , things changed.
Most would say thats about the time when industrialization enabled us to produce more than we needed our relationship with other constituents of Planet Earth began to flounder. So the regression began when currency and trade expanded and flourished in place of the barter system. When faster, higher, stronger no longer referred only to the aspirations of Olympics contestants but translated as the way to achieve steadily increasing rates of economic growth measured in terms of Gross National Product (GNP). When the worth of a country came to be measured by how much it produced and consumed rather than how much it conserved. When people bought products and services even when they didnt really need them.
Instead of living off the land, we began to exploit it. The baseline was no longer peaceful coexistence with nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition was misinterpreted as unbridled licence to humans to exploit natural resources in the belief that man was created to have dominion over all other species: And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
The Talmud and rabbis who interpret scripture stress that dominion did not mean making everything else subservient to man, but acting responsibly for yourself and others. It certainly does not sanction the unlimited right to use and abuse animals, minerals and fossil fuels. We just need to know when to stop extracting stuff. As in any other relationship, balance and harmony are all about reciprocity and mutual respect.
Subjective though they are, annual opinion polls gauging a peoples happiness show that there is really no direct correlation between a countrys GNP and its happiness quotient. Perhaps this is because GNP thrives on expansion of consumption and the production of goods and services but happiness is determined by contentment. This is not to say the world needs immediately to revert to the barter system, shut down all factories, dump motorized transport and start walking.
Obviously, we cannot go back to the pre-industrial era, throwing away the benefits of medical cures, easy transport, instant communication, access to knowledge and skills. But we do need to redefine development and its objectives so that they are more sustainable not by eschewing technology but by embracing it to enable a life of harmony and sustainability , care and compassion, mutual benefit and contentment.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Scared silly about global warming
Scared silly about global warming
BJRN LOMBORG
THE continuous presentation of scary stories about global warming in the popular media makes us unnecessarily frightened. Even worse, it terrifies our kids.
Al Gore famously depicted how a sea-level rise of 20 feet (six metres) would almost completely flood Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh and Shanghai, even though the UN estimates that sea levels will rise 20 times less than that, and do no such thing. When confronted with these exaggerations, some of us say that they are for a good cause, and surely there is no harm done if the result is that we focus even more on tackling climate change. A similar argument was used when George W Bushs administration overstated the terror threat from Saddam Husseins Iraq.
But this argument is astonishingly wrong. Such exaggerations do plenty of harm. Worrying excessively about global warming means that we worry less about other things. We focus , for example, on global warmings impact on malaria instead of tackling the half-billion people suffering from malaria today with prevention and treatment policies that are much cheaper and dramatically more effective than carbon reduction would be.
Exaggeration also wears out the publics willingness to tackle global warming. If the planet is doomed, people wonder, why do anything A record 54% of US voters now believe the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. A majority of people now believes incorrectly that global warming is not even caused by humans. In the UK, 40% believe that global warming is exaggerated and 60% doubt that it is man-made .
But the worst cost of exaggeration is the unnecessary alarm that it causes particularly among children. Recently, I discussed climate change with a group of Danish teenagers. One of them worried that global warming would cause the planet to explode and all the others had similar fears.
In the US, the ABC television network recently reported that psychologists are starting to see more neuroses in people anxious about climate change. An article in The Washington Post cited nine-year-old Alyssa, who cries about the possibility of mass animal extinctions from global warming. In her words: I dont like global warming because it kills animals , and I like animals. From a child who is yet to lose all her baby teeth: I worry about [global warming] because I dont want to die.
The newspaper also reported that parents are searching for productive outlets for their eight-year-olds obsessions with dying polar bears. They might be better off educating them and letting them know that, contrary to common belief, the global polar bear population has doubled and perhaps even quadrupled over the past half-century , to about 22,000. Despite diminishing and eventually disappearing summer Arctic ice, polar bears will not become extinct. After all, in the first part of the current interglacial period, glaciers were almost entirely absent in the northern hemisphere , and the Arctic was probably ice-free for 1,000 years, yet polar bears are still with us.
Another nine-year old showed The Washington Post his drawing of a global warming timeline. Thats the Earth now, Alex says, pointing to a dark shape at the bottom. And then its just starting to fade away. Looking up to make sure his mother is following along, he taps the end of the drawing: In 20 years, theres no oxygen. Then, to dramatise the point, he collapses, dead, to the floor.
And these are not just two freak stories. In a new survey of 500 US pre-teens , it was found that one in three children aged 6-11 feared the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they dont have a future because of scary global warming stories. We see the same pattern in the UK, where a survey showed that half of children aged 7-11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep. This is grotesquely harmful.
And let us be honest. This scare was intended . Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that. When every prediction about global warming is scarier than the last one, and the scariest predictions often not backed up by peer-reviewed science get the most airtime, it is little wonder that children are worried.
Nowhere is this deliberate fear mongering more obvious than in Al Gores Inconvenient Truth, a film marketed as by far the most terrifying film you will ever see. Take a look at the trailer for this movie on YouTube. Notice the imagery of chilling, larger-than-life forces evaporating our future. The commentary tells us that this film has shocked audiences everywhere , and that nothing is scarier than what Gore is about to tell us. Notice how the trailer even includes a nuclear explosion.
The current debate about global warming is clearly harmful. It is time we demanded that the media stop scaring us and our kids silly. We deserve a more reasoned, more constructive, and less frightening dialogue.
(The author is adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School) (C): Project Syndicate, 2009
BJRN LOMBORG
THE continuous presentation of scary stories about global warming in the popular media makes us unnecessarily frightened. Even worse, it terrifies our kids.
Al Gore famously depicted how a sea-level rise of 20 feet (six metres) would almost completely flood Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh and Shanghai, even though the UN estimates that sea levels will rise 20 times less than that, and do no such thing. When confronted with these exaggerations, some of us say that they are for a good cause, and surely there is no harm done if the result is that we focus even more on tackling climate change. A similar argument was used when George W Bushs administration overstated the terror threat from Saddam Husseins Iraq.
But this argument is astonishingly wrong. Such exaggerations do plenty of harm. Worrying excessively about global warming means that we worry less about other things. We focus , for example, on global warmings impact on malaria instead of tackling the half-billion people suffering from malaria today with prevention and treatment policies that are much cheaper and dramatically more effective than carbon reduction would be.
Exaggeration also wears out the publics willingness to tackle global warming. If the planet is doomed, people wonder, why do anything A record 54% of US voters now believe the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. A majority of people now believes incorrectly that global warming is not even caused by humans. In the UK, 40% believe that global warming is exaggerated and 60% doubt that it is man-made .
But the worst cost of exaggeration is the unnecessary alarm that it causes particularly among children. Recently, I discussed climate change with a group of Danish teenagers. One of them worried that global warming would cause the planet to explode and all the others had similar fears.
In the US, the ABC television network recently reported that psychologists are starting to see more neuroses in people anxious about climate change. An article in The Washington Post cited nine-year-old Alyssa, who cries about the possibility of mass animal extinctions from global warming. In her words: I dont like global warming because it kills animals , and I like animals. From a child who is yet to lose all her baby teeth: I worry about [global warming] because I dont want to die.
The newspaper also reported that parents are searching for productive outlets for their eight-year-olds obsessions with dying polar bears. They might be better off educating them and letting them know that, contrary to common belief, the global polar bear population has doubled and perhaps even quadrupled over the past half-century , to about 22,000. Despite diminishing and eventually disappearing summer Arctic ice, polar bears will not become extinct. After all, in the first part of the current interglacial period, glaciers were almost entirely absent in the northern hemisphere , and the Arctic was probably ice-free for 1,000 years, yet polar bears are still with us.
Another nine-year old showed The Washington Post his drawing of a global warming timeline. Thats the Earth now, Alex says, pointing to a dark shape at the bottom. And then its just starting to fade away. Looking up to make sure his mother is following along, he taps the end of the drawing: In 20 years, theres no oxygen. Then, to dramatise the point, he collapses, dead, to the floor.
And these are not just two freak stories. In a new survey of 500 US pre-teens , it was found that one in three children aged 6-11 feared the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they dont have a future because of scary global warming stories. We see the same pattern in the UK, where a survey showed that half of children aged 7-11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep. This is grotesquely harmful.
And let us be honest. This scare was intended . Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that. When every prediction about global warming is scarier than the last one, and the scariest predictions often not backed up by peer-reviewed science get the most airtime, it is little wonder that children are worried.
Nowhere is this deliberate fear mongering more obvious than in Al Gores Inconvenient Truth, a film marketed as by far the most terrifying film you will ever see. Take a look at the trailer for this movie on YouTube. Notice the imagery of chilling, larger-than-life forces evaporating our future. The commentary tells us that this film has shocked audiences everywhere , and that nothing is scarier than what Gore is about to tell us. Notice how the trailer even includes a nuclear explosion.
The current debate about global warming is clearly harmful. It is time we demanded that the media stop scaring us and our kids silly. We deserve a more reasoned, more constructive, and less frightening dialogue.
(The author is adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School) (C): Project Syndicate, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Can India really afford cheap cars
IN PRINCIPLE
Can India really afford cheap cars
MARTIN WRIGHT
The news that GM India is poised to launch a twolakh car took me back to an incident in Lucknow in March last year.
I had almost tripped over a scooter lying on its side in the dust, its front wheel still spinning . Moments before it had been carrying a family of four, plus chicken. Now, they were all on the ground, except the chicken which had run away.
You cant travel long on Indias crowded roads without stumbling on a crash of some sort. This Lucknow family just lost a chicken. About 90,000 people lose their lives on the roads every year and only 5% of them are in cars.
Hence, of course, the appeal of the one-lakh Nano, and of GMs slightly pricier competitor , promising as they do to put relatively safe motoring within reach of tens of millions of ordinary families.
Less appealing, of course, is the projected surge in pollution. If these cars sell in anything like the numbers their manufacturers hope, they will catapult India into the premier league of carbon emitters casting doubt on the countrys new-found commitment to tackle global warming.
Once the climate cost is factored in, theres no such thing as a cheap car. India is acutely vulnerable to climate chaos, and some of the very same people wholl benefit from the Nano will also lose out as wild weather wreaks havoc on the countrys agriculture.
Does safer, smoother travel for middle-income Indian families have to come at the price of the planet Do we always have to choose between protecting the environment and lifting people out of poverty Not a bit of it. Theres growing evidence that smart innovation can make life sweeter as well as more sustainable. Forwardlooking think tanks like Malini Mehras Centre for Social Markets, or Forum for the Future in the UK, argue that the best hope to win public support in the fight against climate change is to focus on this opportunity agenda .
So, how could this apply to the Nano Petrol-powered , its a great social revolution, yes but an electric Nano could be all of that and an environmental one, too. It would be ideally suited to the sort of short, urban hops that will constitute the vast majority of its use, so its limited range wouldnt be a problem. It could be recharged by solar power while its owner is at work or even out in the fields. Standing idle, the Nanos battery could trickle power into the grid helping to smooth out the networks notorious instability.
And the innovation doesnt have to stop there. You might not be able to afford an electric Nano but why own something that you dont use every day So what about a state-sponsored Tata Zero Carbon Car Club, of the sort springing up across European neighbourhoods , giving people the benefits of using a vehicle when they need it, without the hassle and cost of owning one when they dont It could help cut congestion , too: all the evidence suggests that car club members drive less than private car owners because they dont feel they have to justify their hefty investment in their vehicle by using it in preference to the bus or metro.
But surely all this simply wouldnt be affordable Well, not necessarily not if the government grasped the nettle of subsidy reductions on the one hand, and carbon trading on the other.
The government spends billions of dollars a year on fuel subsidies effectively making pollution cheap. If some of that went instead to developing 21st century clean transport both personal and mass transit it could bring dividends. After all, as the age of cheap easy oil stutters to a close, investing heavily in fossil-fuelled infrastructure now is about as visionary as sinking your fortune into sailing ships 100 years or so back.
The dawn of a worldwide carbon market really cant come too soon for India. With its per capita emissions a fraction of those of the West and even China the country could expect to earn billions from selling carbon credits. That could be another source of revenue for cleantech R&D and another source of opportunity for Indian business, as it fights to compete in a low-carbon global economy.
It all calls for fresh, not to say courageous, thinking always a rarity in politics. But the Nano might help here, albeit in unintended ways. If a swarm of the one lakh miracles slows the pace of the capitals traffic from sluggish to stationary, it might convince even the most sceptical minister that there has, surely , to be a better way.
The writer is editor-in-chief
of Green Futures magazine
Can India really afford cheap cars
MARTIN WRIGHT
The news that GM India is poised to launch a twolakh car took me back to an incident in Lucknow in March last year.
I had almost tripped over a scooter lying on its side in the dust, its front wheel still spinning . Moments before it had been carrying a family of four, plus chicken. Now, they were all on the ground, except the chicken which had run away.
You cant travel long on Indias crowded roads without stumbling on a crash of some sort. This Lucknow family just lost a chicken. About 90,000 people lose their lives on the roads every year and only 5% of them are in cars.
Hence, of course, the appeal of the one-lakh Nano, and of GMs slightly pricier competitor , promising as they do to put relatively safe motoring within reach of tens of millions of ordinary families.
Less appealing, of course, is the projected surge in pollution. If these cars sell in anything like the numbers their manufacturers hope, they will catapult India into the premier league of carbon emitters casting doubt on the countrys new-found commitment to tackle global warming.
Once the climate cost is factored in, theres no such thing as a cheap car. India is acutely vulnerable to climate chaos, and some of the very same people wholl benefit from the Nano will also lose out as wild weather wreaks havoc on the countrys agriculture.
Does safer, smoother travel for middle-income Indian families have to come at the price of the planet Do we always have to choose between protecting the environment and lifting people out of poverty Not a bit of it. Theres growing evidence that smart innovation can make life sweeter as well as more sustainable. Forwardlooking think tanks like Malini Mehras Centre for Social Markets, or Forum for the Future in the UK, argue that the best hope to win public support in the fight against climate change is to focus on this opportunity agenda .
So, how could this apply to the Nano Petrol-powered , its a great social revolution, yes but an electric Nano could be all of that and an environmental one, too. It would be ideally suited to the sort of short, urban hops that will constitute the vast majority of its use, so its limited range wouldnt be a problem. It could be recharged by solar power while its owner is at work or even out in the fields. Standing idle, the Nanos battery could trickle power into the grid helping to smooth out the networks notorious instability.
And the innovation doesnt have to stop there. You might not be able to afford an electric Nano but why own something that you dont use every day So what about a state-sponsored Tata Zero Carbon Car Club, of the sort springing up across European neighbourhoods , giving people the benefits of using a vehicle when they need it, without the hassle and cost of owning one when they dont It could help cut congestion , too: all the evidence suggests that car club members drive less than private car owners because they dont feel they have to justify their hefty investment in their vehicle by using it in preference to the bus or metro.
But surely all this simply wouldnt be affordable Well, not necessarily not if the government grasped the nettle of subsidy reductions on the one hand, and carbon trading on the other.
The government spends billions of dollars a year on fuel subsidies effectively making pollution cheap. If some of that went instead to developing 21st century clean transport both personal and mass transit it could bring dividends. After all, as the age of cheap easy oil stutters to a close, investing heavily in fossil-fuelled infrastructure now is about as visionary as sinking your fortune into sailing ships 100 years or so back.
The dawn of a worldwide carbon market really cant come too soon for India. With its per capita emissions a fraction of those of the West and even China the country could expect to earn billions from selling carbon credits. That could be another source of revenue for cleantech R&D and another source of opportunity for Indian business, as it fights to compete in a low-carbon global economy.
It all calls for fresh, not to say courageous, thinking always a rarity in politics. But the Nano might help here, albeit in unintended ways. If a swarm of the one lakh miracles slows the pace of the capitals traffic from sluggish to stationary, it might convince even the most sceptical minister that there has, surely , to be a better way.
The writer is editor-in-chief
of Green Futures magazine
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Meltdown will trigger Himalayan crisis
Meltdown will trigger Himalayan crisis
Meltdown will trigger Himalayan crisis
Glacial Thaw Will Lead To Massive Migration In India: Report
London: The melting of Himalayan glaciers due to global warming will lead to massive human migration in India which is dependent on river systems generated by these glaciers, said a report released on Wednesday.
The report claims the melting of the glaciers, also known as Water Towers of Asia will bring perils to poor section of the populations dependent on the river systems in India, China, Pakistan and other Asian countries by the year 2050. To Hindus the Ganges is sacred and is personified in Mother Ganga, representative of life giving maternal waters . Changes in the rivers and livelihoods dependent on them could bring profound economic, cultural and demographic impacts , the report warns.
Titled In Search of Shelter: Mapping the Effects of Climate Change on Human Migration and Displacement , the report announced in Bonn, Germany, says ongoing melting of the glaciers will devastate heavily irrigated farmlands of Asia by increasing floods and decreasing long-term water supplies.
The glacier-fed basins of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irawaddy , Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers now support over 1.4 billion people in India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries . The report is based on a first global survey of environmental change and migration
The report is the collaborative effort of Columbia Universitys Center for International Earth Science Information Network , the United Nations University and CARE International. It says breakdown of ecosystembased economies subsistence herding, farming and fishing, like in India will be the dominant driver of forced migration.
Glacial Thaw Will Lead To Massive Migration In India: Report
London: The melting of Himalayan glaciers due to global warming will lead to massive human migration in India which is dependent on river systems generated by these glaciers, said a report released on Wednesday.
The report claims the melting of the glaciers, also known as Water Towers of Asia will bring perils to poor section of the populations dependent on the river systems in India, China, Pakistan and other Asian countries by the year 2050. To Hindus the Ganges is sacred and is personified in Mother Ganga, representative of life giving maternal waters . Changes in the rivers and livelihoods dependent on them could bring profound economic, cultural and demographic impacts , the report warns.
Titled In Search of Shelter: Mapping the Effects of Climate Change on Human Migration and Displacement , the report announced in Bonn, Germany, says ongoing melting of the glaciers will devastate heavily irrigated farmlands of Asia by increasing floods and decreasing long-term water supplies.
The glacier-fed basins of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irawaddy , Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers now support over 1.4 billion people in India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries . The report is based on a first global survey of environmental change and migration
The report is the collaborative effort of Columbia Universitys Center for International Earth Science Information Network , the United Nations University and CARE International. It says breakdown of ecosystembased economies subsistence herding, farming and fishing, like in India will be the dominant driver of forced migration.
Three In One Solution
Three In One Solution
Act simultaneously on economy, poverty and environment
Vinod Thomas & Mohan Munasinghe
The economic crisis has quickly relegated global warming and global poverty once reliable headline generators down the list of priorities . But it is a mistake to think that governments should triage, that is, deal with poverty and the environment only after they have put the financial crisis behind us.
The reason is that we actually face a threefold global crisis: the economic downturn, rise in poverty and climate change. We cannot escape one without addressing the others . In the absence of a return to high growth, it is hard to see how poverty will be lessened or environmental actions will be financed. Equally, unless carbon emissions are cut and poverty reduced while reviving the economy, further growth prospects will be doomed.
The truth is that poverty and climate change are no longer distant threats to progress. Carbon dioxide concentration in the air has already exceeded 385 parts per million perilously close to the 400-450 level that would put us on an irreversible path to an icefree world where sea levels would have risen several meters. The consequences of this scenario for natural disasters alone will dwarf the subprime meltdown.
Similarly, allowing poverty to balloon runs the risk that political stability will be undermined and continuation of growth itself hampered , increasing the prevalence of failed states and making the world less safe for investment and trade. Some 150 million more people slipped into poverty worldwide during 2007-08 and a further 50 million this year.
This threefold conundrum presents especially significant challenges for the large nations, be they emerging economies such as China and India or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries such as the United States and Japan. Their response will crucially affect the prospects for their own population as well as the direction for global development.
Yet for any one of these countries, it is unquestionably tough to attack the three heads of the hydra simultaneously. But remarkably, the current crisis offers some unique opportunities that can be seized. There are policies, investments and deals that can help these nations separately and collectively to confront two if not all three of theses dangers with a single swipe. Heres how.
First, this is the time for nations to reverse policies that sacrifice the climate in the name of immediate growth. The most egregious example is energy subsidies, which cost almost a third of a trillion dollars in 2007 worldwide. These are frequently justified as protecting the vulnerable but the bulk of subsidies does not reach the poor. They also encourage energy waste and drain fiscal resources.
Another dual-purpose policy is to set up robust social safety nets, providing a boost to consumption while lifting millions out of poverty. Conditional cash transfers in Brazil and Mexico are examples of efforts to both reduce poverty today and, by tying them to childrens education and health, also boost future growth. Outlays amounting to just about 1 per cent of GDP can make the difference.
Second, this is the chance for countries to invest a sizable share of the stimulus packages in energy efficiency. This was a core feature of Barack Obamas election pitch. Government funding for green and carbon-saving technologies , as in the US or China, could not be better timed. Taking advantage of declining capital costs of hydro, wind, geothermal and solar, it would pay to invest in these technologies now, anticipating the resurgence of fossil fuel prices.
Such investments would help sever a link that has long been the bane of anti-poverty campaigners. No country has managed to lift living standards without increasing its carbon footprint. But under the vastly changed global environment today, it is essential that they do so. Global warming hurts the poor the most. Climate change is causing a spike in natural disasters as well as gobbling up arable land and reducing water availability in critical areas.
Third, this is the moment to make deals leading to a surge in financing for development and its effective use. You only have to look at global projections to see that the boost to growth from the fiscal stimulus is envisaged to be greater in developing countries. That is because infrastructural investments or policy improvements can deliver sharper increases in growth in these economies compared to the more affluent ones.
Hard though it may be to sell to this idea in rich nations, their governments might consider proactive actions that promote capital flows to emerging economies as well as augment development assistance in lowincome settings. When the world is increasingly dependent on developing economies to re-energise the failing global economic system, support for such financial flows would be an important aspect of the global stimulus.
Policies aimed at immediate growth at the expense of social safety nets or greener investments will be suicidal. Economic, social and environmental dimensions of the recovery are no longer distinct goals with phased solutions . They are part of the same package of needed actions.
Act simultaneously on economy, poverty and environment
Vinod Thomas & Mohan Munasinghe
The economic crisis has quickly relegated global warming and global poverty once reliable headline generators down the list of priorities . But it is a mistake to think that governments should triage, that is, deal with poverty and the environment only after they have put the financial crisis behind us.
The reason is that we actually face a threefold global crisis: the economic downturn, rise in poverty and climate change. We cannot escape one without addressing the others . In the absence of a return to high growth, it is hard to see how poverty will be lessened or environmental actions will be financed. Equally, unless carbon emissions are cut and poverty reduced while reviving the economy, further growth prospects will be doomed.
The truth is that poverty and climate change are no longer distant threats to progress. Carbon dioxide concentration in the air has already exceeded 385 parts per million perilously close to the 400-450 level that would put us on an irreversible path to an icefree world where sea levels would have risen several meters. The consequences of this scenario for natural disasters alone will dwarf the subprime meltdown.
Similarly, allowing poverty to balloon runs the risk that political stability will be undermined and continuation of growth itself hampered , increasing the prevalence of failed states and making the world less safe for investment and trade. Some 150 million more people slipped into poverty worldwide during 2007-08 and a further 50 million this year.
This threefold conundrum presents especially significant challenges for the large nations, be they emerging economies such as China and India or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries such as the United States and Japan. Their response will crucially affect the prospects for their own population as well as the direction for global development.
Yet for any one of these countries, it is unquestionably tough to attack the three heads of the hydra simultaneously. But remarkably, the current crisis offers some unique opportunities that can be seized. There are policies, investments and deals that can help these nations separately and collectively to confront two if not all three of theses dangers with a single swipe. Heres how.
First, this is the time for nations to reverse policies that sacrifice the climate in the name of immediate growth. The most egregious example is energy subsidies, which cost almost a third of a trillion dollars in 2007 worldwide. These are frequently justified as protecting the vulnerable but the bulk of subsidies does not reach the poor. They also encourage energy waste and drain fiscal resources.
Another dual-purpose policy is to set up robust social safety nets, providing a boost to consumption while lifting millions out of poverty. Conditional cash transfers in Brazil and Mexico are examples of efforts to both reduce poverty today and, by tying them to childrens education and health, also boost future growth. Outlays amounting to just about 1 per cent of GDP can make the difference.
Second, this is the chance for countries to invest a sizable share of the stimulus packages in energy efficiency. This was a core feature of Barack Obamas election pitch. Government funding for green and carbon-saving technologies , as in the US or China, could not be better timed. Taking advantage of declining capital costs of hydro, wind, geothermal and solar, it would pay to invest in these technologies now, anticipating the resurgence of fossil fuel prices.
Such investments would help sever a link that has long been the bane of anti-poverty campaigners. No country has managed to lift living standards without increasing its carbon footprint. But under the vastly changed global environment today, it is essential that they do so. Global warming hurts the poor the most. Climate change is causing a spike in natural disasters as well as gobbling up arable land and reducing water availability in critical areas.
Third, this is the moment to make deals leading to a surge in financing for development and its effective use. You only have to look at global projections to see that the boost to growth from the fiscal stimulus is envisaged to be greater in developing countries. That is because infrastructural investments or policy improvements can deliver sharper increases in growth in these economies compared to the more affluent ones.
Hard though it may be to sell to this idea in rich nations, their governments might consider proactive actions that promote capital flows to emerging economies as well as augment development assistance in lowincome settings. When the world is increasingly dependent on developing economies to re-energise the failing global economic system, support for such financial flows would be an important aspect of the global stimulus.
Policies aimed at immediate growth at the expense of social safety nets or greener investments will be suicidal. Economic, social and environmental dimensions of the recovery are no longer distinct goals with phased solutions . They are part of the same package of needed actions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)