Take note: climate is warming but weather is variable

By: Kaavya Nag

Do you sometimes feel, like I do right now, that unless people are convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the climate is indeed changing, no amount of scientific fact is going to make Mohammed go to the mountain? 

 

Why has it become so convenient to confuse weather and climate?

The 2009 cold wave in Europe and some parts of North America was all it took to bring down the average confidence in the threat of climate change.

"If its so cold, how can the climate change"?

Unfortunately, even scientists have to get defensive about their positions, reiterating that global temperatures (the planet as a whole) continue to rise, 'regardless of the fact that some parts of the United States are now experiencing an atypically cold weather'.

Now that there is a heat wave in the United States and North America (July 8th 2010), climate change has 're-become' the culprit for the extreme temperatures. 

But for how long will this heat-wave remain in public memory?

Obama might make impassioned statements defending climate change; Ban ki-Moon might do so too. Scientists may come out in the defense of other fellow scientists, and US Government scientists might try to take a dig at climate skeptics. But these are not the real 'convincers'.

Opinion is shaped by reading (or listening or watching) the same convincing (need not mean true) arguments again and again. And if every second newspaper article says 'yes we have soaring temperatures, but ...', or,'yes there is a cold wave, so don't you see ...?', what would you believe? 

At the least, you would start doubting that climate change is real.

I ask why well educated individuals writing in the public domain make it so easy to blinker themselves to some fundamental differences between weather and climate. Focusing on short periods of time to prove that global warming is not occurring is a misuse of the definition of climate, as much as it is a misleading way to use statistics.

Equity versus atmospheric carbon space

By: Kaavya Nag

For as long as countries have come together to talk about climate change and what to do about it, one of the core issues of debate has been how to apportion the responsibility of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, in a fair and equitable manner.

The inheritance of this carbon-dioxide burden, is not equal among countries. Historically, some are more responsible than others. The issue of who will do how much, and in what proportion to their historical resposibilities (called 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) in climate jargon), has become an issue without whose resolution a solution to climate change is not likely. 

India has historically hardlined for this CBDR principle (as have most developing countries), but has stuck to a per-capita approach to emissions.The arguement has long been that the per capita emissions of an average Indian are much lower than even the global average, and that India and Indians therefore, have the 'right to develop' (since development implies an increase in emissions). 

Recently however, there has been some independent thinking from scientists and academicians within India, asking for a reasessment of the per capita approach. Key scientific associations involved in the debate are the Delhi Science Forum (DSF) and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). These and other organisations including the Centre for Policy and Resarch, have been pushing the Indian government to look at a slightly different approach to emissions, considering the rapid rate with which India's emissions are growing.

In this context, TISS has come out with a model that reallocates the available 'carbon space' of the atmosphere while ensuring that the total sum of emissions does not exceed the estimated dangerous limit. The model has been constructed based on a realistic evaluation of the current occupation of carbon space by countries. 

The report indicates that many developing countries have not utilised their full proportion of 'available' carbon space (subject to industrialised countries that currently use up that space making it available for countries like India), which is close to 17% of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 2050, while carbon space is around 4 %.

Admitted, India needs to develop in order to alleviate poverty, raise standards of living and increase capacity to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. But can it do so while making a conscious effort to move towards a low-carbon economy, and not utilise its full quota of future carbon space?

Read the report:  Meeting equity in a finite carbon world

Why we need Mr. Paryavaran Bhavan (Jairam Ramesh)

By: Kaavya Nag

Is it that we never expected to see someone, that too a political someone like Jairam Ramesh, take the reins of his new job, hit the ground running, show such corporate-style efficiency and competence, and be so clued-in about the whole thing?

Not in our dictionary of expectations: Ability to be efficient, ability to 'see my point of view', be a Blackberry-modern thinker.

Unstated fact: we credit them with little intelligence, expect them to turn a deaf ear to issues they should care about (which includes what we care about).

But let’s face it, Ramesh is a capable and well-connected politician with a mission, one entrusted to him by the PM. 

Said Dr Singh: “India has not caused the problem of global warming. But try and make sure that India is part of the solution. Be constructive; be proactive”

Ramesh could well have taken his role in international climate politics extra-seriously, and remain the de-facto Indian ambassador for climate change. But he carries out his domestic (and real job-profile) duties with the same amount of rigour. Ramesh has pushed for setting a framework in place – whether on policies, systems of operation or regulations. Things that will last even after he is gone from the post. One of the first things he did, to show his commitment to transparency, was to change the wooden doors of his office to glass. (If I were an under-the-table-dealings minister who took his place, would I be unable to re-install the wooden doors or what!)

So while we may disagree with some of the policies he pushes for, or with the way in which some policies have turned out, we cannot question his integrity.
Despite his wrong-place (when in China) and inappropriate statements on an issue that did not concern his ministry (it did the Home Ministry), or his many vocal statements in the past concerning environmental issues (India will win the Nobel Prize for dirt and filth if there was one, locking horns with transport minister Kamal Nath over environment clearances), he continues to do his job as environment minister with considerable efficacy. (Pray why is an environment minister (no lesser rank mind you), asking legitimate questions about environment clearances frowned upon for asking them?)

In our defense (and there are gaping holes in it), no previous environment minister has set the precedent for such efficacious and even prolific productivity. 

Citizen consultations (what’s that?) on BT Brinjal, follow-up actions (!) regarding cancellation of environmental clearance (really?), inviting comments (inviting comments – are you sure?) on ToR for Elephant Task Force, sector-specific EIA manuals that will provide users and other stakeholders greater clarity about the environmental clearance project (again, really?), a paperless National CDM Authority (not bad), pollution indices for major industrial clusters…

All of the above and many more, all on a website that is updated as fast as a private news-channel (transparency again).

We didn't expect this much yaar! That, really, is our defense.

So even if you sensationalise the man’s many foot-in-mouth statements, and dull some of the sheen on his productivity by saying not all of the output was beneficial, admit that India has never had such a capable, intelligent and go-getter environment minister. None have been as approachable or responsive, and none have been as committed to ‘doing the job’. And none have been as cool.

Never before has the environment ministry and minister made as many headlines or environment and environment issues got so much national coverage. If not a Nobel Prize we can certainly ask for a Limca record for maximum headlines from an environment ministry.

To poke more holes in our defense, Jaago Re! This is the 21st century, and we need to expect our netas to deliver on more counts than 12th standard pass, no criminal records and Lok Sabha attendance (in a white Ambi).

At the end of the day, we need Ramesh just where he is, and definitely not outside the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

BEE's masterstroke: Bachat Lamp Yojana

By: Kaavya Nag

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency has pitched for and bagged the world's largest carbon credit project - the Bachat Lamp Yojana . The BLY aims to prevent 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere, and make CFL bulbs cheap enough for 400 million energy inefficient incandescent bulbs to be replaced.

Thomas Edison's first full-scale test of the incandescent bulb in 1879 lasted 13.5 hours. It was one of the first successful experiments to commercialise the light bulb. Over a hundred and thirty years down the road, the modern version, with a tungsten filament in place of the carbon filament that Edison and others first experimented with, is just as inefficient as its ancestral prototypes. Poultry farms across India use it to heat their coops -  not surprisingly - because roughly 90 percent of the power it consumes is emitted as heat.

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency estimates that there are over 400 million light points in India using incandescent lights (ICLs). Replacing these ICLs can potentially reduce over 6000 MW in electricity demand. 

That metric is just what the Bureau of Energy Efficiency's aims to get at. But it aims to overcome the cost barriers to CFLs - currently priced between Rs. 80 and 130, by subsidising it through a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project, and making CFLs available at Rs 15 per bulb. The subsidy to consumers will be met through financial investors lending the upfront finance to electricity distribution companies (DISCOMs), who can then sell CFL bulbs at the decided rate. Investors will make back their investment when they sell carbon credits in international carbon markets, either to countries who have to meet their UN targets, or to interested companies in Europe.

The BEE masterstroke is that individual state governments or power companies will not have to register each of their projects under the UN's CDM system (a long-drawn out process). Unfortunately, there is no law in India that is phasing out ICLs, unlike some other countries, and this is a barrier to implementation. The BLY scheme will mostly amount to a 'demonstration', although it will definitely amount to a lot of energy and emissions saving. But the BEE hopes that by 2012 (by which time the project comes to a close), there will be more willing domestic consumers, increased scale of operation, and lowered retail costs to CFLs.

India & China: The Renewable Energy 'Outsourcees'?

By: Kaavya Nag

News reports coming out of the United States suggest that India and China are 'stealing' US solar jobs - what with companies halting manufacture of solar panel components in America. In this capitalistic global economy, profits mean too much for private companies to have nationalistic or altruistic bottom-lines. So if BP solar made a purely business decision by halting production in the US while opening manufacturing plants in India and China, then such a move should come as no surprise.

Agreed - such news is alarming, because it gets one thinking this could well be the precursor to another outsourcing blitzkrieg. But blaming third-world eager beaver private players for snatching away US skilled and semi-skilled jobs may not be a completely fair diagnosis.

Any student of history will know that an explanation for present-day happenings could well lie in the past. So simply pointing a convenient finger at India and China for taking away what is not theirs, may not be an objective enough analysis.

China's first-mover advantage

Long before the phrase 'low-carbon' became uber-cool, China had enacted (in 2006) a series of laws and policies that would push the country's renewable energy mix up to 15 percent. What this effectively did, was to create the space for clean-energy businesses to thrive in the settings of a booming national economy.

In this capitalistic world, and one in which China fought for no caps on trading in other sectors, developed countries were justifiably peeved with the Chinese government's active policy of creating unfair market barriers for foreign firms hoping to get a slice China's profit pie.

But we have to give it to China - they had the foresight and the stubborn will to enforce their policies. We also cannot claim that their renewable energy boom came in 2010 - everyone had seen it coming since 2008. China has now become the fastest growing wind-energy market, the world's largest producer of wind turbines, and is home to Suntech, the world's largest producer of solar photovoltaics by volume.

The elephant moves pre-Copenhagen

India has awoken late - just pre-Copenhagen. But in the short (by Indian standards) span of one year, missions have been approved and budgets allocated to respective ministries and agencies. The juggernaut has been set in motion, and will move faster in two years from now - at least for solar energy production and energy efficiency.

Also heartening is the knowledge that our leaders know that they need to capitalise on the time they have now, and on the world's opinion of India.

Domestic moves towards renewable energy in the energy mix and a lower-carbon economy will obviously have desired and beneficial side-effects. Those could even multiply with South-South cooperation - if the camaraderie between Brazil, South Africa, China, Russia and India develops the way it has in the past six months. 

US inaction post-Copenhagen

The US Climate Bill bore the promise of change. To the world, a first-step commitment to tackle climate change, to potential job-seekers in the US, clean-energy jobs, to potential entrepreneurs, the promise of a booming business. But is has been so late in coming, that one cannot blame other first and fast-movers for seizing the opportunity first.

When every nation wants to be a 'deal maker' and everybody wants to 'be the change', opportunity can be created, capitalised on, taken, and lost, but it cannot be 'stolen'.

India before the low-carbon tipping point

By: Kaavya Nag

Renewable energy is now in fashion in India, and one of its biggest promoters is the government. That is undoubtedly a good thing, because so as far as reach goes, they beat anyone else. What with the power to make policies, issue policy directives, enact bills and create directed programmes such as the Remote Village Electrification Programme.

Apart from policy and programme related actions, the Union government has taken it upon itself to green the Parliament House, and to push for all government buildings to install solar panels on their premises. Then there is the very likely possibility of solar electricity getting subsidised by 30 percent for those who wish to install solar panels on their rooftops (grid connected). If states back this with more subsidy, home owners could get a total of 50 percent subsidy on power generation from solar panels.

A proposal by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy to mandate all mobile service providers to to get their power from solar panels rather than from diesel, could translate into a saving of 5 million tonnes of CO2 annually, and about 2 billion litres of diesel each year.

All of these initiatives are either part of or tie into, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM).

New Delhi, courtesy the Commonwealth Games has taken it upon itself to go greener. The Thyagaraja Stadium will be run on solar energy for the period of the games, following which the power it generates will go to the grid. Naveen Patnaik, Orissa's CM has pushed through rural electrification using solar power, for 3000 remote villages across the state. The Punjab government in collaboration with US companies are all set to create a network of solar power plants that are expected to generate 1000 MW of solar power.

Then there are the private and the public-private players. BHEL wants to re-enter the wind turbine manufacturing market. Suzlon just landed a massive deal to produce wind turbines for a company in Gujarat.

The list of announcements and projects in the pipeline goes on. Although India is a big country, the thought that comes to mind is, are we on the path to a game-changer? Are we at that tipping point that Malcom Gladwell so expertly enumerates in his book with the same title? Arguably India is a big country with a billion plus people, and clearly, we are still far from that tipping point. But just to preempt some thought, are the 'settings' right for us to get there there and beyond?

The government is trying to tweak settings across the board - the JNNSM and the NMEEE are two examples. Even hard core 'developmentalists' would agree that a move towards energy sources that ensure energy security are in any nation's best interests. And we have no dearth of people and networks who can potentially create a meme so powerful that it spreads like a virus.

So here's to a new hope and a new tipping point!

Why the State is key to a real green jobs market

By: Kaavya Nag

The pre and aftermath of Copenhagen has undoubtedly been the heightening of interest in the key words: green jobs (among others of course). However, the excitement and buzz around the notion of a low-carbon job, runs ahead of the actual creation of a successful 'green job' market.

Success is relative, but a real green job market would be one that fuels the clean energy economy. And for that, we need a pre-planned change in the policy climate. One that fuels a clean energy economy and takes green jobs along with that growth curve.

We don't need targets just for the National Solar Mission, we need a bigger vision. We need a thought-space in India's national climate policy, on how to use this opportunity to create green jobs (not just jobs). We need the people deciding national policies to pen down the pathways by which the country will get green jobs fuel clean growth, and for clean growth fuel green jobs. That will be the real game-changer.

If not, it is likely that a green job will remain a 'green MBA', a LEEDs certified green building consultant, and a carbon analyst. And clearly, only some buildings will be green, not all. In addition, the words 'green job' will continue to give the impression that such work automatically brings you below-par a normal job vis-a-vis the pay scale or career prospect path, possibly because you tend to associate the word green with non-profit.

If we want green jobs to deliver to their true potential, an electrician in a retrofit company, a public transport employee and an engineer in a wind energy company won't be the only ones holding a green job. Even the plain old investment banker, librarian and local salesman should fit the bill. 

While the librarian and salesman are currently idealistic green jobbers, they are not unreachable Utopian goals.We can get to Stage I of green jobbing the country by getting the State to create demand for green jobbers, and focus on capacity building though green skill training. Focus on the industries and development that can scale-up green jobs. A good start would be the energy efficiency, renewable energy and agriculture sectors. Green skill training does not create a 'green certified' mechanic, rather it incorporates additional new technology and methods training into existing curricula.

To get to Stage II, we need policy reforms that will create the regulatory environment and give the impetus for low-carbon growth. Including mandatory industry standards in product supply chains and life cycles, operations and maintenance. That is what will move green jobs into the 'open sea' of competition, and make many more jobs green than they currently are.

And the colour of the 2010-11 Union Budget is...

By: Kaavya Nag

Pranab Mukherjee's Union Budget of 2010-11 proposes an initial step forward in India's transition to clean energy and lower emissions. In his budget speech he said 'while we must ensure that the principle of 'polluter pays' remains the basic guiding criteria for pollution management, we must also give a positive thrust to development of clean energy'. And so the budget aims to give that thrust to clean energy through a series of initiatives: higher outlays, tax and customs breaks (some continued from 2009-10), and a clean energy fund.

Note however the government target of adding 78,000 MW of power by 2012. For this, and in keeping with Planning Commission recommendations, Pranab Mukherjee announced the government's plan to accord the highest priority to capacity addition in the Power Sector. Plan allocation has been doubled from 2,230 crore last year to 5,130 crore this year. The eventual aim of such capacity addition is to get power to the 500 million Indians who currently have no access to electricity. However, the means to that end are currently through increased production of coal and of supercritical thermal power plants.

After a wait of nearly two years, the pet mission of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) - the Jawharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (NSM) has gotten its first allowance. Accordingly, the outlay of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)'s has nearly doubled: from 620 crore (USD 135 million) in 2009-10 to 1000 crore (USD  218 million) in 2010-11. Another major proportion of money for the NSM is expected to come from a clean energy cess on coal (both domestic and imported) - at Rs 50 (USD 1) per tonne. This money, will be channeled through the National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF) - designated for funding research and innovative projects in clean energy technologies.

This coal cess is expected to generate 3250 crore in 2010-11. For sure, inflow to the NCEF is bound to increase as coal consumption rises in the country year on year (as it has been over the past few years), and is expected to be able to generate millions for the NCEF.

The second NAPCC pet mission - the yet-to-be-announced National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE) - is second in line. While mission details are not out as yet (but rumoured to be launched on 1 April 2010), money-before-plan seems to be the approach for this mission. Nevertheless, energy conservation gets143.94 crore, and the Bureau of Energy Energy Efficiency (BEE) gets 66.92 crore.

These provisions as well as a boost to the renewable energy sector through a cut on excise duty for electric vehicle parts, wind turbines, LED lights and CFL lights promises growth in these sectors. LED lights, wind turbine components and solar cycle rickshaws get reduction in excise duty. Small hydro, solar and micro power projects in Ladakh (J&K) get 500 crore.

However, there is as yet no concerted strategy for India - one that lays out India's plans for changing its renewable energy mix by (for example) 30 percent by 2020, 40 percent by 2025, and 60 percent by 2050. These is as yet no plan that will help realise India's voluntary commitment to the international community - of 20-25% reduction of emission intensity by 2020.

Business as usual is likely to be the growth trend: with coal continuing to make up a major proportion of the energy mix of the country in the near future.

So despite a partial roll-back of fossil-fuel subsidies and an increase in taxation on motor vehicles, a clean energy fund funded by dirty energy is rather similar to nature conservation grants coming from petroleum and mining companies. Much like the old Hindi saying 'Ek hath se lo, ek hath se do'. (Give something away with one hand and take an equivalent amount back with the other).

Disclaimer: admitted - funds must start somehow and somewhere. For now, what better than levy a charge on coal. Therefore, by no means does one trash the fund itself, nor its intent. One just questions the point of having a source that you eventually, and ideally want to contain.

The colour of the budget is pale green.

Tell the truth about climate change

By: Kaavya Nag

Media reporting on climate: Effective in clouding perspectives, but to what effect?

Ever since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change retracted a statement saying that Himalayan glaciers are 'likely to melt by 2035', speculation in the media has been rife as to whether the Himalayas are melting at all. Anyone with some capacity of reason would realise that the number (2035) was not as important as worldwide observations that corroborate the 'widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades, which are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century'. 

This clearly goes to show that glaciers around the world are retreating. If by some magical force or chance of probability, Himalayan glaciers remain immune to such effects, we still need tremendous investment in Himalayan glacier research to tell us that very fact. The fact remains that there are woefully few studies on Himalayan glaciers - particularly those published in international peer-reviewed journals, to come to the conclusion that there is little, no, or all reason to worry.

The IPCC on January 20th officially acknowldeged that this 2035 number was based on 'poorly substantiated rates of recession for the disappearance of Himalyan glaciers'. While there is little doubt that the IPCC comes under the scanner for failing to implementing scientific best practice in preparing its own reports, the ramifications of that point are 'outside the scope of this article'.

Media-created super-hype - of Himalayan glaciers not melting by 2035' gives the average reader who has no initiation into the methods of scientific process, nor the gift of deciphering scientific jargon (sometimes superbly complicated and often undecipherable), the opinion that there is little to worry about as far an Himalayan glaciers are concerned.

But the fact remains that studies about the state of Himalayan glaciers are woefully inadequate. Even mountain research organisations such as ICIMOD repeatedly bring up the issue. Nepal and Bhutan wouldn't cry hoarse about something they are not threatened by or not experiencing (read glacier lake outburst floods).

But the fact remains that media persons reporting on sensitive and highly scientific issues such as climate change must be 'initiated' enough to understand what scientists are trying to say through their publications. 

Admittedly scientists are not a communicative lot when it comes to their findings - they publish their reports but do not publish a common man's decoded version of the same. In their defense, they are often constrained by the ethics of science, of remaining objective about their findings. 

The constrained nature of scientific expression must literally 'get the goat' of a media culture that depends on controversies and immedeate conclusions to get the necessary eyeballs. But this, more than anything, increases media responsibilty levels. It demands that the media understand the importance of objectivity in science as much as the ramifications of raking up enough dust to create a storm - one that makes everyone forget the reason for the harangue in the first place. 

Through the entire month of raging controversy, how many voices of reason did we hear? How many were more concerned about what future steps needed to be taken in order to gain a better understanding of the Himalayan ecosystem and its glaciers? The answer is there to all to see. Not even governments raised a voice.

Instead, media was rife with scientists vindicating themselves, ministers defending their pet 'grey literature' and unsubstantiated reports, and general IPCC-bashing. What's more, it was a field day (month or more) for climate sceptics (more on that in a separate article), and a black month for those of us who know that climate change is a reality we must now come to terms with.

This Indian New Year: sweet news on climate action

By: Kaavya Nag

Yugadi marks the beginning of a new year in the Deccan regions of India: ‘yuga’ means era and ‘adi’ means new beginning. While the day that marks Yugadi is still a few months away, India’s new engagement to the Copenhagen Accord and with climate change has begun this January.

To mark the new year, in typical Bevu-Bella (Neem and Jaggery) style (although certainly not intentional) India is preparing a bitter-sweet offering for climate change – one that symbolizes life’s highs and lows.

The bella news first - the announcement of a planning commission body that will draw out a detailed roadmap for the implementation of India’s carbon intensity reduction plans. The group has till April to finalise its report, and will present its report in September. Drawing heavily from representatives of the public and private sector including Deepak Puri of Moser Baer and Tulsi Tanti of Suzlon, the report aims to be the foundation of India’s low carbon strategy.

Sweeter bella news second – PM Manmohan Singh, at the launch of the Solar Mission today said India should aspire to have Solar Valleys, along the lines of Silicon Valley, transforming India’s energy prospects. PM Singh said the ambitious 20,000 MW target is doable despite the costs it entails, if we ‘single-mindedly strive to achieve it as a priority national endeavour’. While some civil society bodies are skeptical of the 20,000 MW target, which might require an investment of 54 billion USD over the next twelve years, what is heartening is that the government is not yet willing to give up its ambitions.

As of now, the neem-taste is mellow – it appears that the BASIC countries are still to coordinate the pledges and proposed actions for emission reductions they will put forward before 31st January this year. On the invitation of Jairam Ramesh, BASIC country ministers are due to meet in the third week of this month – and one only hopes that they do not shy away from putting out their targets, and do so without the fear of these pledges being converted into international commitments in the future.

May this year be filled with more good news!!!!

Action Stations!

By: Kaavya Nag

Two years of promises and hope ended in major disappointment as we watched world leaders – the biggest muscle-flexers at that – pushing for a greenwash, poorly drafted Copenhagen Accord, to which not a single country could be held accountable for its actions.


The world was expecting something not unlike what we see in the movies as a Copenhagen Outcome - a happy end to a bad patch in history – a kalyug of sorts. But let’s face it: what we have is the Copenhagen Accord – a document that makes no promises on emission reduction targets in the mid or long term (the one thing the planet badly needed).


Nevertheless, that is what we have. It might not be as good as “what could have been”, or “what could have emerged out of the Long-term Cooperative Action process” of the UN Climate Convention. But it is admittedly better than a failure of talks. And yes, it is better than having a deal in which the (now) second largest emitter of greenhouse gases refuses to accept its fair share of responsibility for the sake of protecting its sovereignty or for reasons best known to it.


For now, the existence of the Accord means we have work to do. It is time to invest in re-pushing for all countries to convert a modified Copenhagen Accord into a legally binding and fair outcome by Mexico City 2010. It is time to push all major economies to pledge ambitious targets into Annex I and II of the Copenhagen Accord by 31st January 2010.
Instead of ourselves beginning a blame-game analyses and explaining to the world what we think went wrong, it is time to ‘adjust maadi’ and move on from here. Let us push for ambition from now on, rather than wishing for what could have been.


Why would we be so willing to settle for such a bad deal so easily? Simply because we would be naïve to think that the Copenhagen Accord will be retracted. And to think that us fighting over points of order and history, and what should have come out, will help combat global climate change.


We need the forward-look and proactive civil society engagement on this, and as soon as possible. 

Making a big deal out of a bad deal

By: Kaavya Nag

Nations of the world had a small window of opportunity to zero-in on a deal that would begin taking serious steps towards preventing dangerous climate change. Admittedly, the decisions would not have been easy to take, nor to follow through. But certainly, taking those hard decisions would have been the right thing to do.


Never before has there been such large-scale political willingness to act on climate change. And thanks to the Danish Presidency, never before had 112 heads of state come to a climate conference to lock-in some serious ambition. But that opportunity was lost because leaders managed to cook the climate soup and evaporate all ambition.


If only you peruse the Copenhagen Accord, you will see the glaring absence of two things crucial to a strong deal – numbers and strong legal terms.

Copenhagen Accord: What it says and [doesn't say]

Deep cuts in global emissions to limit temperature rise to 2°C [Targets for emission cuts, mid-term and long-term global goals]
Peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible [Peaking year (even if only an ideal number)]
Enhanced action on adaptation (focus on small island states, Africa & least developed countries) [Mechanisms for action on adaptation]
Industrialised countries to implement (individually or jointly) economy-wide emission targets for 2020 [Details on who does how much, proportion of offsets, level of compulsion (legal or not) for targets and finances]
Developing countries - implement mitigation actions – communicated through National Communications every two years [For major economies no required deviation from BAU, details on national MRV procedures]
Scaled-up, new and additional financing and improved access to finance. Focus on mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). 30 billion USD fast-start financing for 2010-12, and 100 billion USD per year by 2020, particularly through a Green Climate Fund through a variety of sources.
Assess implementation of this Accord by 2015 [Proportion from public financing, who gives how much, how to convert pledges into action, mode of disbursing finance]


Leaders will defend the Accord saying it was the one saving grace of Copenhagen. It was the reason the talks did not collapse. The UN will try too. They are undoubtedly in serious denial. And if they think they will achieve much in Mexico City in 2010, they are sadly mistaken. That is, unless they give their negotiators some strong mandates for the planet and not their individual countries.

Yes, the Copenhagen Accord is a start. And yes, it can become something solid – once numbers and strong legal language come in, and once it becomes legally binding. But that is possible if and only if environmental integrity is preserved even in its most starved form. The Copenhagen Accord was simply not enough. It pales in comparison to what the science requires (it can in fact, almost assure us of a 3 degree Celsius world). It does not even ensure low-lying island states of their survival beyond 2050 or thereabouts, and at its core, it is by no means ethically sound - it cares two paisa for the planet.


The blame-game has begun, and while that is not a fruitful exercise, I am most tempted to ask all leaders who drafted that agreement – what were you thinking? 

Here comes Hopen-Copenhagen!

By: Kaavya Nag

The Fifteenth Conference of Parties is here – COP15 – in Copenhagen. The outcome itself is to be a political statement – way below initial expectations. But it can still be fair, ambitious, equitable and all of the other things it once promised. While we await the start of the opening ceremony, at which the Danish Prime Minsiter Lars Lokke Rasmussen is due to speak, one cannot but help reflect on the week gone by and the rapid pace of developments back home in India.

Jairam Ramesh visited Beijing at the express request of China, to meet with other developing country giants and sign on to a counter proposal for a draft political statement, now called the BASIC draft. Soon after, he spoke in the Lok Sabha and later in the Rajya Sabha, announcing that India too would take on voluntary, unilateral and non-legally binding emission cuts. The proposal is to reduce India’s carbon intensity by 20 to 25 percent by 2020, and includes mandatory fuel efficiency standards and building codes to help make that reduction. Considering India’s historic position and unwillingness to put forward any targets or numbers, this is a watershed development of sorts. And the timing could not have been better. India was, by the time of the BASIC meeting (other than South Africa), the only key player in the negotiations to have refrained from putting forth any ‘intent of action’ statements on the table.

Jairam Ramesh’s proposal in the Lok Sabha, last Thursday, was not met with a walkout, but with concerted discussion about climate change and what it means for India. While many members of Parliament asked for India to clarify what its stand would be at Copenhagen, and were clear on developed countries acting first and fastest, the discussion indicated that climate change was on the minds of many MPs, and that many were ready for change. The Minister’s good fortune did not however, carry through to the Rajya Sabha, where opposition party members led by Arun Jaitley did stage a walkout, termed the current proposal as an ‘abandoning’ India’s historical position, and accused the government of unilaterally changing India’s position. While Jairam Ramesh and India have made it repeatedly clear that they will at no cost take on legally binding emission cuts, and there is ‘no dilution in our stand’, the BJP called the unilateral emission cut a ‘bad strategy’.

Some delegates of the Indian negotiating team also showed dissent at this announcement, and have not arrived in Copenhagen as yet. They include Ambassador Dasgupta and ex-environment secretary Prodipto Ghosh. Ambassador Dasgupta said he delayed his departure in order to seek clarifications from the minister on the implications of this cut in carbon intensity. While he claimed he had no issue with the cuts in emission intensity itself, his main concern was that this was a unilateral action that demanded no reciprocity.

While that may be a point to note, the very act of developing country giants China, India, Brazil and South Africa putting forth voluntary cuts predicates reciprocity of action from developed countries even on fundamental ethical levels. And we would be wrong in saying India has as yet played all her cards. This is the first hand – and a good one to start with at that!

India give us a number!

By: Kaavya Nag

A mid-October European Commission conference might have severely dampened our hopes of any flesh to a Copenhagen deal (the flesh itself is highly conditional and must be palatable to 192 plus nation states) anytime soon. Nevertheless, while ambitious hopes for Copenhagen may have come crashing down, what we do have is a political statement to be issued by end of COP – to be produced by the Danes as a possible basis for the upcoming negotiations starting December 7th.

If one thought that the political agreement would be easier to broker, fresh developments come from the BASIC quarter. Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) –through China’s initiative, have prepared a counter-draft. They now have a ten-page draft that details the ‘non-negotiables’ as far as the developing giants are concerned, that will be released in Copenhagen by China’s special envoy on climate change, Xie Zhenzua. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forests rushed to Beijing to represent India at the meet held on Friday 27th, and while he admits that he had no inkling of such a draft-in-making, he is inclined to agree that the four developing giants are in full agreement with one another on the points of no negotiation. In any case, such an initiative from China shows they have taken a ‘leadership role’ in the Minister’s own words.

Amidst all the brouhaha, India’s Solar Mission – officially now okayed by Parliament - went unnoticed. Could this possibly be because India is putting forward missions (and drafts of missions) without any absolute calculations as to emission reductions that would result from such actions? Why does the Indian government fear mapping even five possible trajectories of emission growth up to 2030 and then estimating – in theory only – a deviation from business as usual if all these missions and related plans were to be implemented by then? Why, that would give us a lot more bargaining power that just releasing and tom-toming missions wouldn’t it?

One hopes India’s negotiators have this card up their sleeve. If they were to put down a number, a figure, and suggest that by implementing India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change and all other allied climate-friendly policies, India’s emissions would drop by say 20 percent below ‘Business As Usual’ by 2030, or to put it in a more convoluted way, that India’s rate of emission increase would decreased by 2.234% (completely hypothetical figures) each year in exponential fashion until 2030.

‘The number’ so to speak, need not imply taking that number into a legal agreement. It just means making things clear to the world in these nebulous times, that India too is capable of commitments and emission cuts, and is as serious if not more about climate change as the rest of the nation states.

While We Wait - Solar Mission Release Delayed

By: Kaavya Nag

We awaited eagerly, the launch of the National Solar mission on November 14th, as did several corporate houses, young and upcoming entrepreneurs and investors in the green business space. But we hear that the new possible release date is 19th November.

Even a recent CII green business summit held in October reflected the level of anticipation in Indian industry about the solar mission and its promised profit goodies. However, this rather secret mission’s release was delayed by a few days, as was the target year for the completion of the mission, from 2020 to 2022 – reportedly to be in sync with the 5-year plan cycles.

While citizen consultation on missions and plans seems to have become a thing of the past, even several stakeholder business houses say they have not been consulted while preparing the mission details. Consultations with businesses in the sector would have been the ideal way to get maximal industry buy-in. However, an even bigger hole in the planning process is the lack of consultation with states on the solar mission – after all, electricity and power is a state subject.

The draft of the solar mission had been approved by the PM’s council on climate change (who met again on October 26th). The official reason for delay was because Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was unavailable at the time.

In practice, the plan should have been passed by the FM long before its release. However, we hear that a key piece of financing for this mission has been dropped. Funding for the mission was to come from a cess on coal – a minor 4 paise per tonne of coal mined anywhere in the country. But the Ministry of Coal and Power objected to this surcharge. With this key financing strategy now opposed, key bureaucrats are asking how the solar mission will be funded.

Placing levies on coal mining to generate financing for solar research appears to be but a feeble attempt to address the real issue. That of subsidizing coal power, and failing to account for its environmental effects as inbuilt cost. A balm on the expensive shoulders of solar power is this small cess. But is this the best cess that could have been levied? Couldn’t a surcharge on energy production from thermal power, however small, also be incorporated into the package as a first-step towards removing subsidies from coal and oil-based power?

These are but a few chinks in the armour. A recent television interview on the forest rights Act (2006) and the glaring lack of action or even debate on it after it being passed in 2006, indicates just how famous we are for bringing in acts and rules, plans and strategies, but just how bad we can be on follow-up.

Firm in their belief: Himalayan glaciers not retreating 'rapidly'

By: Kaavya Nag

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has recently released a discussion paper reviewing glacial studies and glacial retreat in India. Minister Jairam Ramesh has a clear caveat in the report that the views so expressed are not endorsed by the Union of India, and that it is only mean to ‘stimulate discussion’. Interestingly, India does not have a position on glacier retreat in the Himalayas.

Prepared ex deputy chairman of the Geological Survey of India V.K. Raina, the paper provides a summary of the literature on glacier studies so far, but its main claim to fame is that it challenges internationally accepted views that the Himalayan glaciers are receding due to climate change. It says there is little evidence for the same, and that ‘none of the glaciers under monitoring are recoding abnormal retreat’.

Data from a large proportion of the studies considered in this report indicate that glacier mass balance – a measure of the difference between melting and sublimation – is negative, and that most monitored glaciers have retreated since the earliest records. Nevertheless (and despite credible evidence from around the world and closer home - China, Nepal, Bhutan), concluding remarks suggest ‘glaciers in the Himalayas, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat…’.

Of note also, is the fact that ‘recent years’ implies 2007-2009 – a period of time that is clearly far too short to come to such sweeping conclusions, particularly on climate-related studies.

While the report suggests that the Sonapani glacier has retreated 500 m in the last century, the Kangriz glacier has ‘practically not retreated even an inch’. These statements however, are not backed by studies, neither does the ‘even an inch’ give an indication of the exact measure. In direct contrast, photographs of these glaciers in the report clearly show significant retreat – but it might be that photographs are not sufficient evidence.

The report also suggests that while glaciers are climate indicators, they need not respond to ‘immediate climatic changes’ for if that were the case, all glaciers in the region would retreat ‘equally’. Nevertheless, elsewhere in the report, an uneven retreat pattern across nearby glaciers has been justified on the grounds of local variations.

The report omits references to key scientific literature including GSI survey and studies including Vohra (1981) on Satluj River Basin glaciers, Shukla and Siddiqui (1999) on Milam glacier, all indicating significant retreat, and other scientific including the WWF (2005) report and the ICIMOD (2007) satellite-based studies and reviews on Himalayan glaciers across India, Nepal and China. It ignores known fact that small glaciers in the Bhutan (not so far away, as one may well see), have disappeared completely.

Glacier changes are recognized as high-confident climate indicators, and even considered as evidence for climate change by the IPCC. Reports from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) indicate that measurements taken over the last century ‘clearly reveal a general shrinkage of mountain glaciers on a global scale’ (WGMS report). Despite this, this report suggests that ‘to postulate that a glacier can warn of climate changes likely to take place in the future is a big question mark’. In that case, even the IPCC might be wrong in assuming that rapid glacier retreat (even in the Himalayas) is a confident indicator of climate change!

The report awaits ‘many centuries’ of data to conclude that glacier snout movements are a result of ‘periodic climate variation’ or to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are ‘retreating abnormally because of global warming’.

Climate Action: India Looks Inwards and East

By: Kaavya Nag
 
While multilateral agreements such as the ones through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are the ideal solutions for global action on climate change, a ‘Grand Unification Theory’ on climate action that all countries agree to, is a hard ask for now.

While it is becoming increasingly clear that 192 counties are finding it rather difficult to come to a common consensus (political or legal) on climate change, there can be no excuses for inaction ‘until such time. ..’.

While India is committed to engaging ‘fully and meaningfully’ in the multilateral process, this ‘emergent’ has been stretching its wings on internal action, bilateral deals and regional cooperation – all in the short span of one month.

 India has also played host to a high-level conference on technology development and transfer – in an attempt to provide some serious international impetus to technology transfer to developing countries. This was Part 2 of the Beijing high-level conference on technology and climate change held last year.

Andar Ki Baath: Action at home awaits the release of the much talked about solar mission  - 14^th November 2009  – it will provide massive impetus to installed solar capacity, nearly 20 massive gigawatts of it by 2020. To ramp up internal knowledge and information on climate change, India launched the National Network of Climate Change Assessment (INNCCA), along the lines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the pipeline is climate monitoring though ISRO and talk of implicit mitigation targets and a renewable energy law.

Bhai-Bhai: On bilateral deals India has signed an MoU with Norway, largely focusing on boosting Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) contracts in India. A US-India meet is coming up in November, with PM Singh expected to discuss climate change mitigation among a range of bilateral and multilateral issues.  

Nevertheless, one major MoU on which several details are out is the one between India and China. The two sides have agreed to a five-year India-China Partnership on Combating Climate Change. Among other things, the agreement establishes the need to strengthen and exchange views and cooperation on policy action for adaptation and mitigation, technology development, demonstration projects for emission reductions, and cooperation on capacity building.

Regional Cooperation: Just over is the ASEAN leaders meeting, with a joint statement on climate change emphasizing common concerns on the impact on the economy and the environment, and the need to work together and with other partners closely for a successful Copenhagen climate conference.

Zooming into the sub-continent, we have the recently concluded SAARC environment ministers’ summit, with climate change and forest conservation as key focus areas. Here, ministers underlined the crucial importance of close cooperation in the run-up to COP15, and specific cooperation on adaptation, disaster rapid response measures and regional cooperation and south-south support.

This hotbed of activity undoubtedly points to the fact that the pressure to act on climate change is mounting, and that heads of state are feeling the heat on climate change. If not, why would they be so keen to move on regional and bilateral agreements when the big multilateral agreement was showing little promise or progress? In short, the pressure has worked – maybe not to the full and desired level, but certainly enough for some action.

On another note, what does all this south-south and regional cooperation do to change global geopolitics?

EU Climate Finance Still At Zero Cents

By: Kaavya Nag
While civil society expectations from Copenhagen might officially be sky-high, even the executive secretary of the UNFCCC thinks a ‘fully fledged new international treaty” is not on the cards this December.

The signs are there to read and no adept Magus is needed to make us see that for now, the path may only show a slight deviation from Business As Usual (BAU). Another round of conferencing of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) in London, with UK ‘throwing everything in’ to meet the climate challenge, fell flat. The US is still not ready with an internal policy that can make domestic actions compatible with international expectations, and unless the President (or a global climate deal with the US on board) has Congressional support, the agreement will only result in positioning minus action.

With the US taking some time for internal policies to mesh with external expectations, the baton is in the European Union’s hands. EU Finance ministers met just a day ago to agree on a EU climate finance offer for Copenhagen. While murmurs indicate that no real outcome was expected here but rather at the EU Council meeting a day from now, this development in itself is reflective of a larger problem.

No negotiators, bureaucrats or even ministers seem to have the power to decide on the key sticky issues (which remain finance, targets and mitigation actions). The EU finance ministers meeting was hoping to get the EU to accept a figure of 100 billion euros starting from 2012 to help meet developing country needs. However, a number of countries including Poland wanted fast-start financing (for up to 2012) to be on a voluntary basis, and to contribute less to the EU share over time – a position that was unacceptable to the majority of EU member states. The decision on finance has now been left to heads of state at the EU Council meeting later this week.

This meeting will effectively be the last big meeting for a major block of industrialized countries to agree on a climate finance proposal. After this, the case rests with all Heads of State who will make a trip to Copenhagen in December.

Push your key ministers and Head of State to attend the Copenhagen climate negotiations. Also push them to find ambition and drive before they reach, and remember to put it on the table!

Waiting for Inspiration

By: Kaavya Nag

The Copenhagen-minus-two round of climate negotiations came to a close last week, on 9^th October. Complicated as multilateral negotiations are, this one was particularly successful in spreading some serious despondency. This was particularly so because many big hopes had been reserved for the Bangkok talks.

As far as the negotiation process, it was hoped that a massive negotiating text would be seriously edited in the eleven days (and nights) of negotiations. As far as ambition and political will go, it was hoped that the highest level lobbying by Ban ki-Moon at the UN Secretary General’s climate summit would push political leaders to scale up their ambition, put finance on the table, and some targets to reduce industrialized country emissions for a post 2012 agreement. But also that these political statements would be converted into negotiating text.

Within a few days of the negotiations commencing, it was clear that negotiators did not have a mandate from political up-aboves to move on any of the big stumbling blocks. There was still a massive silence on the scale of finance that industrialized countries would put on the table, on the nature of the financial architecture, on their emission reduction targets up to 2012. Therefore, they did not have the mandate to cut down any text. Progress on substance was minimal, all text is still bracketed (and that means it is still to be edited) – an estimated 2500 brackets (possibly more) are said to be in the current text.

To make the waters murkier, new proposals and text continue to be put forward, when realistically speaking there is little time even to whittle down what text is already in hand. However, the nature of this process is that it is Party-driven. So Parties are allowed to make it as messy as they want to, or as neat as they prefer. New ideas on the nature of a post 2012 agreement are also on the table. Some Parties have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol be done away with (the only legally binding agreement to ensure that industrialized countries meet their commitments), and that the architecture and legal framework of Kyoto be taken into a new Copenhagen outcome. Opposing this is most developing country Parties that categorically do not want the Kyoto to die, and do not want a watered down deal in Copenhagen that does away with international legal commitments and brings down the level of ambition.

What Copenhagen holds, only December knows. Will we get a Greenwash, Failed or an Above-Expectations ambitious deal? Will there be a political declaration or a legal framework? Will the United States come on board? Will the scale of finance be announced? Will developed country Parties agree to deep cuts in emissions by 2050, without heavy dependence on offsets? Will key developing country Parties agree to ‘significant deviation from business as usual’ by 2050? Will technology transfer and capacity building be made accessible and affordable?

Should individual Parties stall domestic action until a multilateral deal gets done? If history is any precedent, countries must not wait to action their domestic plans. International finance may take many years to come, by which time enough damage will have been done to deplete state coffers significantly.

Healthy internal debate on India climate stand missing

By: Kaavya Nag

The Indian high command has been gunning for a change in image and a slight shift of position on climate change. In what is internationally being acknowledged as a welcome move, minster of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh has been globe trotting and publicising India's actions and future plans on climate change.

In China he said India could benefit from Chinese collaboration on climate. Back home in India he agreed we had a long way to go. Soon after in the United States, at the UN climate summit he vociferously emphasised India was keen to be a deal-maker, and show leadership on climate issues.

Apart from speaking of  domestic plans, he publicly stated the possibility of a national bill on climate mitigation, implicit or soft targets, and the possible formation of a National Climate Change Mitigation Authority, that would direct and guide mitigation efforts and aspirational targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. There has also been recent reference to making the process of reporting on mitigation cuts more transparent and accountable. These are welcome moves that show that India can be a leader in the climate debate.

However, Opposition silence on this key issue is worrying. Agreed that the UPA has a strong majority in Parliament - enough to silence any serious dissent. But amidst all this frenetic political activity, a robust dialogue on this hot issue is seriously lacking. The opposition has neither welcomed the move, nor slammed it. They only 'unofficially' or 'softly' think that politicians are undermining the 'hard-fought' stand on climate change, and that there is little political discussion or consensus before taking a decision on such vital matters.

Surely the BJP (after handling their internal crisis) and the Communists can voice their concerns at the least? Or is the future of 500 million people by 2050 not worth the effort of debating? Jairam Ramesh says internal political dialogue and consensus is an essential - it is most important that future governments carry forward the stands and positions taken now. Flip flop in 2020 is not an option clearly, so why the silence?