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
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Friday, July 17, 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
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
Thursday, July 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
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
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
Monday, July 13, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The issue of climate change
The issue of climate change
MANOJ PANT
COMEDecember and developed and developing countries will meet in Copenhagen to deliberate the issue of climate change. The issues are also well known. At the base is the Kyoto Protocol under which signatory countries agree to peg their carbon emission levels at or below some historical level, namely, 1990. Almost all the countries are members of the protocol. However, while India and China have ratified the treaty (indicated their acceptance of reduction in emissions) the United States has still not done so. Other developed countries have committed to some target level of emission reduction by 2012 (about 3-8 % of the 1990 level). Finally, developing countries are not bound to any target emission reduction commitments.
There is already a mechanism (called the Clean Development Mechanism) for trading carbon credits so that developed countries (in particular, the EU countries), who have to reduce their emission, can achieve this reduction level by paying for green projects in developing projects. The logic is that it is total global reductions which matter not those in any one country. By sponsoring a green project in a developing country the EU and developed countries are then paying for already having emission levels way above the permissible levels, by helping to keep emission down in developing countries. The US, of course, is not a part of this market for emission reduction as it has not indicated any intention yet of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM then represents a market solution to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
So what will the Copenhagen meeting do First, it has to bring the US on board. As a country which still constitutes about 35% of world consumption and a still larger share of world production, global emission reductions are hardly meaningful without US commitments. Second, the US in particular is probably going to insist that developing countries (the large ones, India and China, in particular) also commit to target emission levels. With Barack Obama not as opposed ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as George Bush was, the Copenhagen meet will really boil down to negotiating the second issue.
The parallels with the Uruguay round trade negotiations under the WTO are quite remarkable. Prior to 1995, developing countries were signatories to GATT but not committed to any tariff reductions (the non-reciprocity clause). Post-1995 the introduction of the single undertaking clause meant that non-reciprocity was history and developing countries had to also commit to tariff reduction levels but to a lesser degree than developing countries. Since 1995, developing countries have argued (rightly so) that developed countries have to show commitment to opening their markets to textile and agricultural exports of developing countries before any new commitments from developing countries.
The similarities are obvious. For the principle that guides negotiations at the WTO is an increase in world trade. At Copenhagen the principle would be reduction in global emissions. Unfortunately, the similarity ends there. WTO is committed to increasing world trade in private goods and services between firms in different countries. In Copenhagen the issue is decrease in world emissions which are in the nature of public goods. The difference needs some elaboration.
It could well be argued that the CDM will achieve a market solution to reduction in global emissions. But scientists argue that this would not be sufficient to achieve the reductions necessary to halt global warming. At the WTO, the current stalemate in the Doha round only postpones trade expansion to a future date: not an earth-shaking event. But failure at Copenhagen would have much more disastrous consequences.
In a fascinating book, Collapse, Jared Diamond has argued that, historically, one root cause of collapse of societies over the last many centuries has been neglect of environmental issues. The main problem seems to be that environmental degradation is often non-reversible . This is particularly true of forests which impact all the other elements , soil, water, oceans, etc. Forests, are also a major defence against excessive carbon emissions.
So what can we do One option is to assume technology will now come to the rescue and/or that global warming is a myth. But what if we are wrong After all, the current technological developments in cooling technology from ammonia to freon gases is one of the root causes of greenhouse gas emission. Can we then proceed as we seem to do today on the basis of a North-South confrontation and tradeoffs calculated from CGE models The latter is an especially dangerous option given the extreme susceptibility of such models to initial assumptions.
Climate change has disastrous consequences and there are no tradeoffs. Maybe this is one issue we should leave to the scientists
MANOJ PANT
COMEDecember and developed and developing countries will meet in Copenhagen to deliberate the issue of climate change. The issues are also well known. At the base is the Kyoto Protocol under which signatory countries agree to peg their carbon emission levels at or below some historical level, namely, 1990. Almost all the countries are members of the protocol. However, while India and China have ratified the treaty (indicated their acceptance of reduction in emissions) the United States has still not done so. Other developed countries have committed to some target level of emission reduction by 2012 (about 3-8 % of the 1990 level). Finally, developing countries are not bound to any target emission reduction commitments.
There is already a mechanism (called the Clean Development Mechanism) for trading carbon credits so that developed countries (in particular, the EU countries), who have to reduce their emission, can achieve this reduction level by paying for green projects in developing projects. The logic is that it is total global reductions which matter not those in any one country. By sponsoring a green project in a developing country the EU and developed countries are then paying for already having emission levels way above the permissible levels, by helping to keep emission down in developing countries. The US, of course, is not a part of this market for emission reduction as it has not indicated any intention yet of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM then represents a market solution to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
So what will the Copenhagen meeting do First, it has to bring the US on board. As a country which still constitutes about 35% of world consumption and a still larger share of world production, global emission reductions are hardly meaningful without US commitments. Second, the US in particular is probably going to insist that developing countries (the large ones, India and China, in particular) also commit to target emission levels. With Barack Obama not as opposed ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as George Bush was, the Copenhagen meet will really boil down to negotiating the second issue.
The parallels with the Uruguay round trade negotiations under the WTO are quite remarkable. Prior to 1995, developing countries were signatories to GATT but not committed to any tariff reductions (the non-reciprocity clause). Post-1995 the introduction of the single undertaking clause meant that non-reciprocity was history and developing countries had to also commit to tariff reduction levels but to a lesser degree than developing countries. Since 1995, developing countries have argued (rightly so) that developed countries have to show commitment to opening their markets to textile and agricultural exports of developing countries before any new commitments from developing countries.
The similarities are obvious. For the principle that guides negotiations at the WTO is an increase in world trade. At Copenhagen the principle would be reduction in global emissions. Unfortunately, the similarity ends there. WTO is committed to increasing world trade in private goods and services between firms in different countries. In Copenhagen the issue is decrease in world emissions which are in the nature of public goods. The difference needs some elaboration.
It could well be argued that the CDM will achieve a market solution to reduction in global emissions. But scientists argue that this would not be sufficient to achieve the reductions necessary to halt global warming. At the WTO, the current stalemate in the Doha round only postpones trade expansion to a future date: not an earth-shaking event. But failure at Copenhagen would have much more disastrous consequences.
In a fascinating book, Collapse, Jared Diamond has argued that, historically, one root cause of collapse of societies over the last many centuries has been neglect of environmental issues. The main problem seems to be that environmental degradation is often non-reversible . This is particularly true of forests which impact all the other elements , soil, water, oceans, etc. Forests, are also a major defence against excessive carbon emissions.
So what can we do One option is to assume technology will now come to the rescue and/or that global warming is a myth. But what if we are wrong After all, the current technological developments in cooling technology from ammonia to freon gases is one of the root causes of greenhouse gas emission. Can we then proceed as we seem to do today on the basis of a North-South confrontation and tradeoffs calculated from CGE models The latter is an especially dangerous option given the extreme susceptibility of such models to initial assumptions.
Climate change has disastrous consequences and there are no tradeoffs. Maybe this is one issue we should leave to the scientists
Friday, July 10, 2009
PLASTIC BAGS
Environmental bodies feel that plastic bags have to be phased out and that banning them is the only feasible solution as govt failed to keep the menace in check
Environmentalists on Thursday expressed dismay over minister of state for environment and forestss comment that a ban on plastic bags was a bad idea. Bharati Chaturvedi, director of NGO Chintan, said the Centre should in fact be disincentivising plastics and giving fiscal incentives to alternatives. Plastic bags were banned not because the municipality was unable to do its work but because it was a petroleum product. How can plastic be seen out of context Society has come to a consensus that plastic bags have to be phased out to reduce our carbon footprints. The government cant ignore that, she said. Even if one were to go by Rameshs claim that the inability of the civic bodies to handle waste in cities led to such a ban, it is important to note that even if the waste was collected, the country has no mechanism to deal with it. Dikshit accepted that two incineration plants the government was trying to set up had not materialised. Incineration is a highly expensive process. European cities have spent millions of Euros on their plants to ensure emission control. We in India do not have such resources, said Agarwal. Vinod Jain, on whose PIL plastic bags were banned in the city, pointed out that various government agencies had failed completely in monitoring the recycling and manufacturing units, and in the citys context, banning was the only foolproof solution. The plastic industry has failed to take any responsibility for dealing with plastic waste though the court gave it as much as four years. Agreed that plastic on its own might not be hazardous, but what does the minister intend doing with all the waste, he asked.
In Delhi, the implementation of the plastic ban had not been very successful though some indivuduals and market associations have taken the initiative to switch over to alternatives. Thanks to the ban, several small scale units manufacturing cloth and jute bags have also sprung up. Recently, the government announced that it had finally formulated the process under which defaulters will be penalised for using plastic bags in prohibited areas.
neha.lalchandani@timesgroup .com
POINT Counterpoint
Union minister JAIRAM RAMESH says: Switching over to paper bags would lead to cutting down of trees
But...
Recycled paper, being promoted by the Delhi govt, does not entail cutting down of trees. Most low-end paper bag production use old newspapers
Ministerspeak: Plastic is chemically inert and not per-se hazardous to health or environment
But...
PVC in plastic is definitely a cause of concern. India does not have any mechanism for handling the waste in which case plastic can clog drains, water bodies and leach into soil at landfill sites
Ministerspeak: Plastic has been banned only in India and Bangladesh
But...
The list of countries that took action against plastic is long
Bangladesh
| Total ban in 2002
Zanzibar
| Complete ban in 2006
Ireland
| Levying heavy fine since 2006
San Francisco
| Became first US state to ban bags from large stores in 2007
China
| Banned free plastic bags in 2008. Production, sale and use of ultra thin bags are prohibited
Switzerland
| One needs to pay for plastic bags
PLASTIC FACTS
500 billion-1 trillion plastic bags used worldwide each year Use started in department stores in late 1970s They were introduced in supermarket chains in the early 1980s First plastic bags for food appeared in the US in 1957 North America and western Europe account for nearly 80% of world's plastic usage A quarter of plastic bags used in wealthy nations are produced in Asia
RECYCLING OF WASTE PLASTIC
No of people associated directly in Delhi | 2 lakh Places where recyling is taking place | Mongolpuri, Seelampur, Narela, Bawana, Mundka
RECYCLING BAGS
1
Plastic waste and scraps collected by ragpickers taken to the scrap markets
2
Scrap sorted out and sold to pellet (danna) manufacturers
3
Waste shredded, washed, treated and melted into pellets
4
Pellets sold to manufacturers who process it into polythene bags
BAN THE BAG
We want to encourage Delhiites to get rid of plastic bags completely. In place of plastics, we are actively encouraging jute and recycled paper
Sheila Dikshit CHIEF MINISTER, DELHI
It makes sense to ban plastic bags if there are alternatives available. And in this case, alternatives are present. This will reduce the load of non-biodegradable waste at the landfills
Kushal Yadav CO-ORDINATOR , TOXINS CAMPAIGN, CSE
Failure to manage waste is not entirely the municipality's fault. The Centre
also needs to take an initiative to formulate a plastic waste management policy
Ravi Agarwal DIRECTOR, TOXICSLINK
There is societal consensus on the fact that use of plastic has to be brought
down. The ban was not about plastic as much as about not using a petroleum product
Bharati Chaturvedi DIRECTOR, CHINTAN
The country has no mechanism to handle plastic waste at present.
Will the minister give a personal undertaking for plastic waste management if he doesn't want a ban on it
Vinod Jain DIRECTOR, TAPAS
Environmentalists on Thursday expressed dismay over minister of state for environment and forestss comment that a ban on plastic bags was a bad idea. Bharati Chaturvedi, director of NGO Chintan, said the Centre should in fact be disincentivising plastics and giving fiscal incentives to alternatives. Plastic bags were banned not because the municipality was unable to do its work but because it was a petroleum product. How can plastic be seen out of context Society has come to a consensus that plastic bags have to be phased out to reduce our carbon footprints. The government cant ignore that, she said. Even if one were to go by Rameshs claim that the inability of the civic bodies to handle waste in cities led to such a ban, it is important to note that even if the waste was collected, the country has no mechanism to deal with it. Dikshit accepted that two incineration plants the government was trying to set up had not materialised. Incineration is a highly expensive process. European cities have spent millions of Euros on their plants to ensure emission control. We in India do not have such resources, said Agarwal. Vinod Jain, on whose PIL plastic bags were banned in the city, pointed out that various government agencies had failed completely in monitoring the recycling and manufacturing units, and in the citys context, banning was the only foolproof solution. The plastic industry has failed to take any responsibility for dealing with plastic waste though the court gave it as much as four years. Agreed that plastic on its own might not be hazardous, but what does the minister intend doing with all the waste, he asked.
In Delhi, the implementation of the plastic ban had not been very successful though some indivuduals and market associations have taken the initiative to switch over to alternatives. Thanks to the ban, several small scale units manufacturing cloth and jute bags have also sprung up. Recently, the government announced that it had finally formulated the process under which defaulters will be penalised for using plastic bags in prohibited areas.
neha.lalchandani@timesgroup .com
POINT Counterpoint
Union minister JAIRAM RAMESH says: Switching over to paper bags would lead to cutting down of trees
But...
Recycled paper, being promoted by the Delhi govt, does not entail cutting down of trees. Most low-end paper bag production use old newspapers
Ministerspeak: Plastic is chemically inert and not per-se hazardous to health or environment
But...
PVC in plastic is definitely a cause of concern. India does not have any mechanism for handling the waste in which case plastic can clog drains, water bodies and leach into soil at landfill sites
Ministerspeak: Plastic has been banned only in India and Bangladesh
But...
The list of countries that took action against plastic is long
Bangladesh
| Total ban in 2002
Zanzibar
| Complete ban in 2006
Ireland
| Levying heavy fine since 2006
San Francisco
| Became first US state to ban bags from large stores in 2007
China
| Banned free plastic bags in 2008. Production, sale and use of ultra thin bags are prohibited
Switzerland
| One needs to pay for plastic bags
PLASTIC FACTS
500 billion-1 trillion plastic bags used worldwide each year Use started in department stores in late 1970s They were introduced in supermarket chains in the early 1980s First plastic bags for food appeared in the US in 1957 North America and western Europe account for nearly 80% of world's plastic usage A quarter of plastic bags used in wealthy nations are produced in Asia
RECYCLING OF WASTE PLASTIC
No of people associated directly in Delhi | 2 lakh Places where recyling is taking place | Mongolpuri, Seelampur, Narela, Bawana, Mundka
RECYCLING BAGS
1
Plastic waste and scraps collected by ragpickers taken to the scrap markets
2
Scrap sorted out and sold to pellet (danna) manufacturers
3
Waste shredded, washed, treated and melted into pellets
4
Pellets sold to manufacturers who process it into polythene bags
BAN THE BAG
We want to encourage Delhiites to get rid of plastic bags completely. In place of plastics, we are actively encouraging jute and recycled paper
Sheila Dikshit CHIEF MINISTER, DELHI
It makes sense to ban plastic bags if there are alternatives available. And in this case, alternatives are present. This will reduce the load of non-biodegradable waste at the landfills
Kushal Yadav CO-ORDINATOR , TOXINS CAMPAIGN, CSE
Failure to manage waste is not entirely the municipality's fault. The Centre
also needs to take an initiative to formulate a plastic waste management policy
Ravi Agarwal DIRECTOR, TOXICSLINK
There is societal consensus on the fact that use of plastic has to be brought
down. The ban was not about plastic as much as about not using a petroleum product
Bharati Chaturvedi DIRECTOR, CHINTAN
The country has no mechanism to handle plastic waste at present.
Will the minister give a personal undertaking for plastic waste management if he doesn't want a ban on it
Vinod Jain DIRECTOR, TAPAS
G8 climate talks divide rich and poor countries
L'AQUILA (Italy): The chasm between rich and poor on how to address climate change burst into the open at the G8 summit on Thursday, showing how difficult it will be to persuade the world to make lifestyle and economic sacrifices needed to save the planet from global warming.
President Barack Obama urged emerging economies to do more to curb global warming, while the UN chief demanded developed countries set an example and take more concrete steps to reduce pollution.
Especially reluctant to commit to change were two budding powers that are just now getting comfortable economically: India and China.
Obama said industrialized countries, the United States included, had a ``historic responsibility'' to take the lead in emissions reduction efforts because they have a larger carbon footprint than developing nations.
``And I know that in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. So, let me be clear: Those days are over,'' he said.
But he said developing nations have to do their part, as well. ``With most of the growth in projected emissions coming from these countries, their active participation is a prerequisite for a solution,'' Obama said.
Two days of negotiations between the world's major industrial polluters and developing nations failed to make any major breakthrough on firm commitments to reduce carbon emissions. While both sides said for the first time that global average temperatures shouldn't rise over 2 degrees Celsius, they didn't set any joint targets to reach that goal.
And significantly, the Group of Eight industrialized nations made no firm commitment to help developing countries financially cope with the effects of rising seas, increased droughts and floods, or provide the technology to make their carbon-heavy economies more climate friendly.
The results indicate how difficult it will be to craft a new climate change treaty by December, when nations from around the world will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to negotiate a successor to the 1987 Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012.
``That leaves us with quite a lot of work to do,'' said the chief U.N. climate change negotiator, Yvo de Boer.
The comments came at the conclusion of a meeting of the 17-nation Major Economies Forum, which includes the G8 - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan and the United States - and other emerging countries: China, which has overtaken the U.S. as the world's biggest polluter, and India, which is close behind. Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Australia, South Korea and the European Union also are in that club of the world's major polluters.
The G8 did set a long-term commitment to reduce their carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. But they made no shorter-term target, despite warnings from a U.N. panel that they must cut emissions between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels 150 years ago.
Most scientists agree that even a slight increase in average temperatures would wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
Countries like China and India - the next generation of big polluters - want the industrial countries to commit to reducing carbon emissions by 40 percent over the next decade before they commit to any reductions of their own. Without that commitment from the G8, they refused to make any targets of their own.
``The ground for a breakthrough can only be prepared if the G8 leaders reach consensus on the midterm binding goals of cutting greenhouse emission and stop asking the developing nations to act first as an excuse for their not committing to the binding goals,'' China's official Xinhua News Agency said in a commentary earlier this week.
The failures earned the G8 a sharp rebuke from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
``The policies that they have stated so far are not enough, not sufficient enough,'' Ban said Thursday. ``This is the science. We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative and a historic responsibility for the leaders for the future of humanity, even for the future of planet Earth.''
Obama did announce Thursday that the Group of 20 major economies would take up the climate financing issue at their meeting in September in Pittsburgh - a move environmentalists said could help break the logjam while sending developing countries a signal that the G8 is serious about financing.
``To get the finance ministers focused on this topic is a useful way of pushing forward one of the key agenda items,'' de Boer said.
He stressed that it was perfectly understandable for developing countries to refuse to commit to reduction targets when they have no idea how they're going to pay for them or what industrialized countries are going to commit to in the short term.
That failure of the G8 ``made it very much a black box for the developing countries ... because if you don't know what the industrial countries are going to commit to by 2020 and you don't know what financing is going to be on the table for developing countries, it becomes very much a leap of faith.''
Annie Petsonk, lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that the outcome of the talks were natural given that there are five months to go before the Copenhagen treaty summit.
``It's no surprise if developing nations aren't rushing in to sign up for new goals and targets right away,'' she said. ``This is a negotiation after all. But the starting gun has sounded and everyone knows they need to go home and start thinking seriously about what they can bring to the table.''
President Barack Obama urged emerging economies to do more to curb global warming, while the UN chief demanded developed countries set an example and take more concrete steps to reduce pollution.
Especially reluctant to commit to change were two budding powers that are just now getting comfortable economically: India and China.
Obama said industrialized countries, the United States included, had a ``historic responsibility'' to take the lead in emissions reduction efforts because they have a larger carbon footprint than developing nations.
``And I know that in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. So, let me be clear: Those days are over,'' he said.
But he said developing nations have to do their part, as well. ``With most of the growth in projected emissions coming from these countries, their active participation is a prerequisite for a solution,'' Obama said.
Two days of negotiations between the world's major industrial polluters and developing nations failed to make any major breakthrough on firm commitments to reduce carbon emissions. While both sides said for the first time that global average temperatures shouldn't rise over 2 degrees Celsius, they didn't set any joint targets to reach that goal.
And significantly, the Group of Eight industrialized nations made no firm commitment to help developing countries financially cope with the effects of rising seas, increased droughts and floods, or provide the technology to make their carbon-heavy economies more climate friendly.
The results indicate how difficult it will be to craft a new climate change treaty by December, when nations from around the world will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to negotiate a successor to the 1987 Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012.
``That leaves us with quite a lot of work to do,'' said the chief U.N. climate change negotiator, Yvo de Boer.
The comments came at the conclusion of a meeting of the 17-nation Major Economies Forum, which includes the G8 - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan and the United States - and other emerging countries: China, which has overtaken the U.S. as the world's biggest polluter, and India, which is close behind. Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Australia, South Korea and the European Union also are in that club of the world's major polluters.
The G8 did set a long-term commitment to reduce their carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. But they made no shorter-term target, despite warnings from a U.N. panel that they must cut emissions between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels 150 years ago.
Most scientists agree that even a slight increase in average temperatures would wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
Countries like China and India - the next generation of big polluters - want the industrial countries to commit to reducing carbon emissions by 40 percent over the next decade before they commit to any reductions of their own. Without that commitment from the G8, they refused to make any targets of their own.
``The ground for a breakthrough can only be prepared if the G8 leaders reach consensus on the midterm binding goals of cutting greenhouse emission and stop asking the developing nations to act first as an excuse for their not committing to the binding goals,'' China's official Xinhua News Agency said in a commentary earlier this week.
The failures earned the G8 a sharp rebuke from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
``The policies that they have stated so far are not enough, not sufficient enough,'' Ban said Thursday. ``This is the science. We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative and a historic responsibility for the leaders for the future of humanity, even for the future of planet Earth.''
Obama did announce Thursday that the Group of 20 major economies would take up the climate financing issue at their meeting in September in Pittsburgh - a move environmentalists said could help break the logjam while sending developing countries a signal that the G8 is serious about financing.
``To get the finance ministers focused on this topic is a useful way of pushing forward one of the key agenda items,'' de Boer said.
He stressed that it was perfectly understandable for developing countries to refuse to commit to reduction targets when they have no idea how they're going to pay for them or what industrialized countries are going to commit to in the short term.
That failure of the G8 ``made it very much a black box for the developing countries ... because if you don't know what the industrial countries are going to commit to by 2020 and you don't know what financing is going to be on the table for developing countries, it becomes very much a leap of faith.''
Annie Petsonk, lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that the outcome of the talks were natural given that there are five months to go before the Copenhagen treaty summit.
``It's no surprise if developing nations aren't rushing in to sign up for new goals and targets right away,'' she said. ``This is a negotiation after all. But the starting gun has sounded and everyone knows they need to go home and start thinking seriously about what they can bring to the table.''
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Breaking the climate deadlock
Breaking the climate deadlock
If we focus on clear, practical and achievable goals, major reductions in carbon emissions can be made so as to ensure that the world will fashion a radical new approach to climate change within a manageable time frame, says Tony Blair
TODAY, JULY 9, THE leaders of the worlds largest economies are meeting in LAquila , Italy, at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) to discuss progress towards a new global climate agreement. In six months, a deal is supposed to be struck in Copenhagen , so the MEF meeting comes at a vital moment. When many of the same leaders met in April to address the economic crisis, they rightly pledged to do whatever is necessary. The same spirit needs to animate the LAquila meeting.
There is enormous good will to do so. The new US administration is supporting strong American action. China is setting ambitious targets for reducing energy intensity and making massive investments in renewable energy. India has put forward its own action plan. Europe has set a goal of cutting emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if there is an ambitious global agreement. Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions. Across the world, commitments are forthcoming.
But practical challenges remain. What is being asked is that global emissions be less than half their 1990 levels by 2050, having peaked before 2020. Since emissions from the developing countries are on the whole lower than those of the developed world and will need to continue to rise in the short-term as they maintain economic growth and address poverty it has been proposed that developed countries cut emissions by at least 80% relative to 1990 by 2050, with major steps towards this goal over the next decade.
Developing countries will also need to play their part, significantly slowing and peaking emissions growth in the coming decades . For the US, such commitments would mean cutting emissions to around onetenth of todays per capita level, while for China itd mean creating a new low-carbon model of economic development. For all countries, this is a major challenge a revolution that implies a huge shift in policy.
The good news is that if we focus on clear, practical, and achievable goals, major reductions can be made in order to ensure that, whatever the precise interim target, the world will fashion a radical new approach within a manageable time frame. A new report from the Breaking the Climate Deadlock project, a strategic partnership between my office and The Climate Group, shows how major reductions even by 2020 are achievable if we focus action on certain key technologies, deploy policies that have been proven to work, and invest now in developing those future technologies that will take time to mature.
Perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge is that fully 70% of the reductions needed by 2020 can be achieved by investing in three areas: increasing energy efficiency, reducing deforestation, and use of lower-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and renewables. Implementing just seven proven policies renewable energy standards (e.g., feed-in tariffs or renewable portfolio standards); industry efficiency measures; building codes; vehicle efficiency standards; fuel carbon content standards; appliance standards , and policies for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) can deliver these reductions.
All seven policies have already been successfully implemented in countries around the world, but they need scaling up. While cap-and-trade systems or other means of pricing carbon emissions can help provide incentives for businesses to invest in lowcarbon solutions, in the short term at least, these seven policy measures and direct action and investment by governments are needed to achieve the targets.
IN THE longer term, we also need technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), expanded nuclear power, and new generations of solar energy, together with the development of technologies whose potential or even existence is still unknown . The important thing for Copenhagen is that decisions are taken now for investments that will yield benefits later.
For example, the overwhelming majority of new power stations in China and India necessary to drive the industrialisation that will lift hundreds of millions out of poverty will be coal-fired . That is just a fact. So developing CCS or an alternative that allows coal to become clean energy is essential for meeting the 2050 goal. But we need to invest now, seriously and through global collaboration, so that by 2020 we are in a position to scale up CCS or be ready to deploy other alternatives.
Renaissance of nuclear power will require a big expansion of qualified scientists and engineers. Electric vehicles will need large adjustments to infrastructure. Smart grid systems can enable big savings in emissions, but require a plan for putting them into effect. These measures will take time, but require investment now. Meanwhile , in the short term, low energy lighting and efficient industrial motors may sound obvious, but we are nowhere near using them as extensively as we could.
So we know what we need to do, and we have tools available to achieve our goals. MEF leaders can, therefore, have confidence in adopting the interim and longterm targets recommended by the scientific community: keeping warming to below two degrees celsius; peaking emissions within the next decade; and at least halving global emissions by 2050 versus 1990.
Developed countries will be able to commit to reducing their emissions by 80% versus 1990 by mid-century , as many have already done, and provide the necessary financial and technology support for developing countries adaptation and mitigation efforts. With that support, developing countries in turn will need to design and implement Low-Carbon Growth Plans that significantly slow and eventually peak their emissions growth. By making these commitments, the MEF leaders, whose countries account for more than threequarters of global emissions, would lay a firm foundation for success in Copenhagen.
Between LAquila and Copenhagen, there will undoubtedly be difficult discussions over interim targets for developed countries. While such targets are important , what matters most is agreement on the measures that ultimately will set the world on a new path to a low carbon future.
For years, the emphasis has rightly been on persuading people that there must be sufficient will to tackle climate change. But leaders, struggling to cope with this challenge even amidst economic crisis, need to know that there is also a way. Only by combining the two will we succeed. Fortunately , such a way immensely challenging but nonetheless feasible exists.
If we focus on clear, practical and achievable goals, major reductions in carbon emissions can be made so as to ensure that the world will fashion a radical new approach to climate change within a manageable time frame, says Tony Blair
TODAY, JULY 9, THE leaders of the worlds largest economies are meeting in LAquila , Italy, at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) to discuss progress towards a new global climate agreement. In six months, a deal is supposed to be struck in Copenhagen , so the MEF meeting comes at a vital moment. When many of the same leaders met in April to address the economic crisis, they rightly pledged to do whatever is necessary. The same spirit needs to animate the LAquila meeting.
There is enormous good will to do so. The new US administration is supporting strong American action. China is setting ambitious targets for reducing energy intensity and making massive investments in renewable energy. India has put forward its own action plan. Europe has set a goal of cutting emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if there is an ambitious global agreement. Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions. Across the world, commitments are forthcoming.
But practical challenges remain. What is being asked is that global emissions be less than half their 1990 levels by 2050, having peaked before 2020. Since emissions from the developing countries are on the whole lower than those of the developed world and will need to continue to rise in the short-term as they maintain economic growth and address poverty it has been proposed that developed countries cut emissions by at least 80% relative to 1990 by 2050, with major steps towards this goal over the next decade.
Developing countries will also need to play their part, significantly slowing and peaking emissions growth in the coming decades . For the US, such commitments would mean cutting emissions to around onetenth of todays per capita level, while for China itd mean creating a new low-carbon model of economic development. For all countries, this is a major challenge a revolution that implies a huge shift in policy.
The good news is that if we focus on clear, practical, and achievable goals, major reductions can be made in order to ensure that, whatever the precise interim target, the world will fashion a radical new approach within a manageable time frame. A new report from the Breaking the Climate Deadlock project, a strategic partnership between my office and The Climate Group, shows how major reductions even by 2020 are achievable if we focus action on certain key technologies, deploy policies that have been proven to work, and invest now in developing those future technologies that will take time to mature.
Perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge is that fully 70% of the reductions needed by 2020 can be achieved by investing in three areas: increasing energy efficiency, reducing deforestation, and use of lower-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and renewables. Implementing just seven proven policies renewable energy standards (e.g., feed-in tariffs or renewable portfolio standards); industry efficiency measures; building codes; vehicle efficiency standards; fuel carbon content standards; appliance standards , and policies for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) can deliver these reductions.
All seven policies have already been successfully implemented in countries around the world, but they need scaling up. While cap-and-trade systems or other means of pricing carbon emissions can help provide incentives for businesses to invest in lowcarbon solutions, in the short term at least, these seven policy measures and direct action and investment by governments are needed to achieve the targets.
IN THE longer term, we also need technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), expanded nuclear power, and new generations of solar energy, together with the development of technologies whose potential or even existence is still unknown . The important thing for Copenhagen is that decisions are taken now for investments that will yield benefits later.
For example, the overwhelming majority of new power stations in China and India necessary to drive the industrialisation that will lift hundreds of millions out of poverty will be coal-fired . That is just a fact. So developing CCS or an alternative that allows coal to become clean energy is essential for meeting the 2050 goal. But we need to invest now, seriously and through global collaboration, so that by 2020 we are in a position to scale up CCS or be ready to deploy other alternatives.
Renaissance of nuclear power will require a big expansion of qualified scientists and engineers. Electric vehicles will need large adjustments to infrastructure. Smart grid systems can enable big savings in emissions, but require a plan for putting them into effect. These measures will take time, but require investment now. Meanwhile , in the short term, low energy lighting and efficient industrial motors may sound obvious, but we are nowhere near using them as extensively as we could.
So we know what we need to do, and we have tools available to achieve our goals. MEF leaders can, therefore, have confidence in adopting the interim and longterm targets recommended by the scientific community: keeping warming to below two degrees celsius; peaking emissions within the next decade; and at least halving global emissions by 2050 versus 1990.
Developed countries will be able to commit to reducing their emissions by 80% versus 1990 by mid-century , as many have already done, and provide the necessary financial and technology support for developing countries adaptation and mitigation efforts. With that support, developing countries in turn will need to design and implement Low-Carbon Growth Plans that significantly slow and eventually peak their emissions growth. By making these commitments, the MEF leaders, whose countries account for more than threequarters of global emissions, would lay a firm foundation for success in Copenhagen.
Between LAquila and Copenhagen, there will undoubtedly be difficult discussions over interim targets for developed countries. While such targets are important , what matters most is agreement on the measures that ultimately will set the world on a new path to a low carbon future.
For years, the emphasis has rightly been on persuading people that there must be sufficient will to tackle climate change. But leaders, struggling to cope with this challenge even amidst economic crisis, need to know that there is also a way. Only by combining the two will we succeed. Fortunately , such a way immensely challenging but nonetheless feasible exists.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)