Small, simple, shared

It has been over a year since we have started blogging on issues of energy and environment. We hope our endeavour to disseminate information and encourage discussion has been noticed. Well, hope is what is left in the end! Unless we hear from you, we can only assume that the blog is being read. It is our belief that any debate is meaningful only if touches a wide audience and provokes questions and suggestions. There is no single truth, whether one exists in the philosophical dimension or the physical one! Let us learn and widen our horizons by sharing our ideas and thoughts more openly.

Share. Yes, as advocated by an expert in social media and web technologies, Chris Brogan, when he provides the strategy for business planning for 2010 in three Ss: small, simple and shared.

Whether one believes in unlimited resources or limited growth, there is growing consensus that the way to go today is local, or small. Whether this means going for smaller homes or cars, it makes economic sense as also easy manageability.

As to simple, Chris talks of ‘Talk simple. Make deals simple. Do nothing complex, because so very little needs to be complex. Remove steps everywhere. Make everything brief and simple.’

Edit your rooms. Simplify your wardrobe. Control your buying. Move into a small home. Travel in a small car. Smaller incomes can well sustain small homes and simple lives. Learn to think ‘enough’! Zen habits as he calls it.

As to sharing, more people are rediscovering the benefits of joint living. What was once within the family is now extended to beyond. Many communities are realizing how it makes sense to commonly share goods that are rarely used.

Not only are we making our lives more relaxed and meaningful, but also helping to save scarce resources like energy, food and water for the coming generations.

Do you agree that this could be a good resolution for the New Year? Are you or anyone you know doing things on these lines? Write in to us. Share.

Brazil signs bill on emissions reduction

With the Copenhagen accord reduced to a pledge and nothing legally binding about it, any commitment comes as a heartening news. It was Brazil that signed a bill this week to reduce the nation’s greenhouse emissions by 39 percent by 2020. Three important provisions were vetoed tho in a show of national interests over planetary concerns.

The bill, which was passed by the Brazil's Senate on November 24, contained strict regulations on industries to ensure the emission reductions stayed on target--including a requirement that fossil fuels be gradually abandoned as an energy source. This aspect of phasing out fossil fuels was vetoed out as also a wider allocation of government funds to ensure reduction target. The priority for small hydel projects was also voted out.

Critics talk of the bill as yet another instance of mere talk and no compliance. But this bill could also be the encouraging sign for other nations to undertake similar targets before the next climate meet at Mexico next year.

Biofuels policy announced

The Indian national policy on bio-fuels and its implementation has been approved by the Union Cabinet. The Policy endeavors to facilitate and bring about optimal development and utilization of indigenous biomass feedstocks for production of bio-fuels, says an official press release. The Policy can be visited at the Ministry’s Website www.mnre.gov.in.

Some of the features of the National Policy on Bio-fuels are:-
· Bio-diesel production will be taken up from non-edible oil seeds in waste /degraded / marginal lands.
· An indicative target of 20% blending of bio-fuels, both for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, by 2017 has been proposed.
· Minimum Support Price (MSP) for non-edible oil seeds would be announced with periodic revision to provide fair price to the growers.
· Minimum Purchase Price (MPP) for purchase of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel would be announced with periodic revision.
· Major thrust will be given to research, development and demonstration with focus on plantations, processing and production of bio-fuels, including Second Generation Bio-fuels.
· Financial incentives, including subsidies and grants, may be considered for second generation bio-fuels. If it becomes necessary, a National Bio-fuel Fund could be considered.

The Ministry of New & Renewable Energy has taken several initiatives on various aspects of biofuel development. An exercise has been initiated on collection, screening and identification of elite germplasms of jatropha and on processing and end use technologies. The scientific agencies and the private sector have identified 25 superior genotypes/accessions of jatropha for further multiplication for demonstration at various sites in potential States.

Another exercise has been taken up on realistic costing of biodiesel which will provide guidance on review and revision of the purchase price for biodiesel. A survey has been undertaken to assess the status of Jatropha plantations in nine States.

A welcome move to have a policy in place, but the question that begs an answer is why this fixation on jatropha when there are so many native species which are more hardy and yield more?

Are we ready to take on the challenge posed by biofuels knowing the dangers of commercialization? Also, the carbon emissions aspect is still unclear. Do they reduce carbon emissions when the whole lifecycle is taken into account? Do they negatively affect the habitat of many species? Are they more energy consuming than producing?

A report published by a group of environmental organisations including Transport & Environment, Oxfam International and Friends of the Earth Europe raises fresh doubts that biofuels could cause more environmental harm than good.

The central issue is that of the impact of indirect land use change (ILUC), where agricultural land is turned over to biofuel feedstock and land elsewhere is converted to agriculture, on the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels.

According to the report, Biofuels: Handle with Care, many international policies and legislation do not take ILUC sufficiently into account, which could mean that biofuels are releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than thought.

Is it too soon to take the leap into large scale production?

They came, they haggled, they left

It has taken some time and some thinking to decide if Copenhagen was a failure or not. It was neither, perhaps. It was a damp squib where world politicians bartered and bargained for some more time to put off the burning issue.

No legally binding commitments from the developed world nor any from the new kids on the polluting block, no peaking period for any, the Accord twice mentions the objective of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, yet has no firm targets for emissions or for greenhouse gas concentrations! Worse, a reference in the accord to completing a treaty by the end of 2010 was deleted.

One thing for sure, it was the beginning of what could be an end to the Kyoto Protocoal and what it stood for – among other things, differentiated responsibilities. The US chose to remove the distinction between developed and developing and replace it with polluters and non-polluters.

The Accord says there’s a “collective commitment” by developed countries to provide fast-start financing to developing countries “approaching” $30 billion. There’s also a “goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” With already outrage in the US over the $100 bilion, remains to be seen how much of it will ever be signed. After all this was no deal, just a pledge!

Obama played the firm and resolute American as he took over the reigns of discussions from a UN-style process involving the nations of the world to one that held closed-door meetings with the powers that mattered. American media reports have decried the billions offered but backed Obama for making the change. The UN process has failed to deliver and the new world order will see more of the big and powerful deciding what’s best for the rest!

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries that had been holding out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century.

A new scientific report, the Copenhagen Prognosis, outlines the terrible challenge the world faces from climate change—as well as several paths to safety. Top climate scientists have offered a stinging indictment of the political process, noting that the unofficial commitments made are “not consistent with the expressed political will to protect humanity:”

It is time to forget the political drama and get on with work. Let us look at what kind of energy management is happening at our workplaces. Write in to us with details.

By the way, the picture shows our planet's fragile atmosphere as taken from the international space station.

Perfect fuel elusive!

Researchers at Stanford University have found that using high blends of ethanol fuel in vehicles will likely increase health problems related to ozone as well as increase the amount of certain cancer-causing chemicals in the air we breathe when compared to the use of gasoline.

E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) produces higher amounts of a group of chemicals known as aldehydes than gasoline when burned. In addition to likely being carcinogens, aldehydes are also a precursor to the formation of ozone.
In any event, while the burning of gasoline also produces ozone, the researchers found that the burning of E85 in a combustion engine produces significantly more aldehydes and ozone.

There will be variations from city to city depending on a lot of other factors such as the amount of natural vegetation, traffic levels, and local weather patterns. In the overall, ethanol is still ahead of gasoline regarding other factors. But as the writer notes, burning inevitably spews chemicals we do not want.

Reason enough to encourage electric vehicles? Or is it a matter of deciding appropriate technologies for different uses?

PWC talks of carbon debt

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC), recently released a study suggesting that “we have been eating into the finite carbon emissions budget more quickly than we should, leaving us with a carbon debt.”

The study goes on to note that according to its calculations and modeling, the world has been reducing its “carbon intensity,” the carbon emitted per unit of GDP, at just 0.8 percent per year between 2000 and 2008.

The study suggests that we need to change course, sharply: to a 3.5 percent annualized reduction in carbon intensity between 2008 and 2020, merely to get back on a safe path, and so that we can stabilize global CO2 parts-per-million at around 450, which the study claims is the minimum needed in order to “stand a fair chance” of limiting average global changes in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius. If the world is not on course by 2020, there will be real problems. If stasis continues, it “could require rates of decarbonization over the longer term that are incompatible with growth, and put the 450 ppm goal out of reach.”

The world GDP was generally growing through those years, so that even though carbon emitted per unit of GDP went down slightly, total carbon emissions rose, year-on-year, on the whole. In order to reach the goals the PWC study stipulates, the world would have needed to “decarbonize” at the rate of two percent per annum throughout the 2000-2008 period. We’re already seriously off-target.

In order to move forward, the world must, first, budget carbon allocations. First, that involves a roof on total gigatons of CO2: 1,300. Next, distribute that CO2 budget among various countries or groups of countries. The study suggests that China should get to emit 28 percent of that CO2, the United States 16 percent, India 9 percent, the EU 10 percent, with the rest divided up among the rest of the countries of the world.

The PWC models are predicated on a 450 ppm standard when the IPCC has warned that 450 ppm isn’t enough and will bring disaster to places like Maldives and Bangladesh.
Also, the PWC study deals with carbon intensity rather than carbon output, trying to carve out a path in which GDP growth can continue, essentially unabated, so long as the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere per unit of GDP goes down.

This would have been fine so long as growth yields if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are on an unacceptable trajectory, rather than the limits for CO2 emissions. But the study notes how the opposite is happening. And that the key nations aren’t meeting obligations!

Is carbon intensity yet another way of not accepting the reality of climate change and continuing with emissions? What do you say?

Does a carbon budget make sense?

A song of hope

When 450 ppm seems a tough job, raising the ante to 300 ppm and restricting temperature rise to 1 degree may seem ridiculous to many. To climate change hopefuls, it sent the signal of never say die when Bolivia made the same proposal at Cop-15.

The Indian Youth delegation decided to provide a rapid response action for this bold leadership in the highly depressing environment of the negotiations.
And came up with the following song -

Every day their stalling and
they’re saying the same old things again
hm-hm-hm
But one bright country stands apart,
they’re sayin’ things close to my heart.
They’ve got a plan with hope in hand,
They’re sayin’ c’mon let’s just start…
Bolivia, I wish I was Bolivian
Just one degree temperature rise,
300 ppm in the skies,
cent per-cent emissions down by two thousand forty
Does anyone know the price of waiting
fighting, hating, procrastinating,
hm-hm-hm
My future stands in front of me,
while people here make history,
I hope and pray that it will be,
what the world’s children wish to see…
Bolivia…
We’ve got to take the boldest steps
there’s work to do; clean up the mess.
hm-hm-hm
My future looks me in the eye,
says to me the time is nigh
It’s time to see the world agree,
time for responsibility!
Bolivia…

The Bolivian president Morales was so impressed that he has invited the Indian group to sing the song before his address!
May hope never die.

Curbing waste at Cop-15

There are arguments, accusations, trickery, what not being reported from Copenhagen. Hope is beating a fast retreat. The hosts are not being seen in a posiitve light, at least not by the developing world. But they have taken some effort to lead by example in some things. Like what Denmark has done to make the conference energy efficient and less carbon intensive.

The Bella Center where the meet is happening is a low-lying Legoland of structures dominated by a single towering windmill. After all, Denmark is an alternative energy leader, deriving 20 percent of its energy from windmills. All of the energy used at the conference derives from renewable sources of electricity. The Bella Center underwent an efficiency overhaul before the conference, reducing its energy consumption by 20 percent.

To ensure the conference would be carbon-neutral or better, the Danish government estimated the amount of carbon likely to be expended, including the emissions incurred by the travel of visiting delegates and members of the press: 40,548 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

It offset those emissions by spending 700,000 euros to replace coal-burning kilns used to manufacture bricks in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Twenty new Danish-funded kilns will operate with higher efficiency and lower emissions. They will use half as much coal to produce just as many bricks, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100,000 tons per year.

Regarding transport, besides 100 heads of state who are provided a sedan, a minivan, and a security detail, everybody else comes by bus, train, Metro, or bicycle. Private cars are not allowed near the center, including taxis.

Besides meat that has seen ravenous consumption at Cop-15, there is paper. Thousands of reams of paper have been consumed to produce and reproduce the documents of the conference. According to a report, delegates can rarely cross a hallway without being handed a brochure, a booklet, a packet, etc ‘expressing an outrage, a hope, or an agenda’.

Recycling is obligatory at Bella Centre. The Media Center is collecting reporters’ dead batteries. Because there are many recycling bins, few trash containers, compliance is high, though not all participants have been as careful as they could be about sorting.

Plenty scope to improvise and aim higher, but this is a beginning even if only symbolic.

Certainly would help if all conferences go the same way. Small steps that lead to giant strides if many join in?

Little help from little beings

Research is exploring how organisms could be used to generate energy without photosynthesis. Converting carbon dioxide into organic molecules, liquid fuels could be made more efficiently is the belief. Maybe even pair the organisms with solar cells! Some microorganisms can use electricity to form organic molecules, such as methane. Tweak them a bit more and you could get liquid fuels?

Another approach involves microorganisms such as extremophiles. These don't use light as an energy source, nor draw energy from organic molecules, such as sugars, because those aren't available to them. Instead they draw energy from other sources, such as metal sulfides. They use inorganic molecules, such as carbon dioxide.

In a coming together of energy research and genetics, the genome structures of these has allowed scientists to identify entire metabolic pathways for converting carbon dioxide into various organic molecules. A bit more modification and these organisms produce fuels?

Or simply solar energy and inorganic catalysts to make fuel from water and carbon dioxide? Yes, artificial photosynthesis. But what is the EROEI is the troubling question? Not very high as of now.

Desperate times, desperate measures? Looks like Nature is the best teacher.

Coal gassification goes deep

In Canada’s Alberta, a project is on to convert coal to gas at depths beyond 1000 metres – the deepest ever to generate power from coal--without digging it up.
Working at that depth could lessen the threat of groundwater contamination from the smoldering decomposing coal. If the technology can get at deeper layers of coal, it could allow access to more of the fossil fuel, whether that’s good or bad!

When the project starts up in 2015, Swan Hills hopes to generate 300 megawatts of power from its coal gas while selling over 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The CO2 could be used by oil producers and ultimately stored in oil wells. This could result in the storage of 10 to 20 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2020.

The pilot produced excellent gas using a pair of adjacent wells spaced 50 to 60 meters apart, installed in the coal seam with the same directional-drilling techniques behind the accelerating production of natural gas from contentious shale deposits.

Oxygen is driven down the feed well and the coal seam is ignited, driving the temperature to 800 to 900 ºC and the pressure to almost 2,000 PSI. Under those pressures, the oxygen, coal, and saline water (present in the coal and also injected via the feed well) react to form a gas that is roughly one-third methane and two-thirds hydrogen, along with some carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The gas is drawn to the surface via the adjacent production well, where the carbon monoxide is converted to hydrogen and CO2, and all of the CO2 is removed.

How the company managed to achieve gas flow between its wells, given the low permeability of coal squashed under 1,400 meters of rock, is not known. The standard mechanical method by which shale gas production is stimulated is the fracture of rock with high-pressure water.

Does such deep drilling into the earth cause tremors or tectonic shifts?? Do we know enough? Recently Sweden has dropped one of its geothermal projects after deep drilling caused fractures in neighbouring structures.

Save energy, make money

Accepts historical role but not responsibility! That is what the US climate envoy Todd Stern has to say about the official US stand on emissions. Nothing to feel ‘guilty’ about, says Stern! What else can one accept from political negotiations on a non-political, real crisis. And so, if the US as the biggest polluter till recently, has no regrets, why should any of the aspiring economies have, to continue doing the same?

On yet another contentious issue – that of financing poor nations to make the change – the US is again reluctant to donate. It believes health issues back home demand more money!

Though the EU just announced it would pledge $3.6 billion a year until 2012 to a short-term fund for poor countries, a draft agreement sent around Friday to the 192-nation conference set no firm figures on financing or on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The provisional text calls for emissions reductions by a wide range -- 50 percent to 95 percent by 2050 -- and asks rich countries to cut emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, both against 1990 levels.

Todd Stern called the text "constructive" but said the section on helping developing nations lower their growth of CO2 was "unbalanced."

How can the rest of the world bring one nation to heel? Is there no way they can unite and force the issue on the US? Sounds amazing.

Not to say that America and Americans are all bad guys. Outside the ‘official’ circle, states and organizations and individuals are doing lots on the clean energy front.

Like the Leader program from companies. This is voluntary, of course. But there are strong incentives to make it work. Businesses that sign on get free technical support from government energy efficiency experts, better odds of saving money, and long-range strategic advantage.

The LEADER program is a new component of the existing and successful Save Energy Now initiative through which companies partner with DOE to conduct energy audits and assessments designed to identify the opportunities for energy and cost savings in the companies' operations.

Over 2,000 plants received energy assessments through Save Energy Now from 2006 to 2009. To date, those assessments have identified opportunities for $1.3 billion in identified cost savings, 119 trillion Btu of natural gas savings, and 11.2 million metric tons of CO2 savings.

That is something businesses the world over can surely pick a leaf from, government stands notwithstanding. Together, we may still be able to save the 40 odd island nations like Tuvalu from going down under water. What say? Perhaps it is time we ignored our governments and official stands and did what we believe is the right thing?

A crisis in the offing

Crowds like this one around a well will be more common very soon!

In India, the groundwater table in some regions is dropping dramatically. A team of researchers from the Hydrological Sciences Branch of NASA recently measured just how severe the situation is for the states of Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana (including Delhi). The results were published in August 2009, in the online edition of the science magazine Nature.

According to these results, the water table in these regions is dropping by 17.7 + 4.5 cubic kilometres annually. During the August 2002-October 2008 study period, the groundwater loss was 109 cubic kilometres.

This corresponds to twice the volume of India's largest surface water reservoir.

By the year 2020, says a recent World Bank report, most major Indian cities will run dry. A combination of climate change, over-exploitation of groundwater and mismanagement of water are some of the reasons. Pollution which renders a large portion non-potable is also a contributor.

Pricing as we have said is one way of making water more precious and discouraging waste. But given the many below poverty line, any pricing will have to be a differential kind. Economic water scarcity (limited access to fresh water because of lower affordability) is as serious a problem as physical water scarcity.

With over 60 per cent of water used for agriculture, it calls for intervention in this sector to avoid waste and optimize the resource.

How does one solve the issue of inequity? How can we get our governments to get serious and act on this very serious issue of depleting water? Think twice before you let the water in your taps run!

Energy or water?

Energy return of energy invested is a concept well known in the industry. An equally important concept is that of Energy return on water invested (EROWI).

Water is needed for irrigation of plants and in large power plants for cooling. Nuclear plants are especially vulnerable to water scarcity. Many drain water into rivers at higher temperatures than considered safe. But nuclear power plants built next to the ocean use salt water for cooling. The resulting steam is cooled down and turned into fresh water. But of course, energy is spent for that.

Thermal plants are no exception; coal plants for instance. A "closed loop" cooling system would save water but at the expense of energy. The U.S. for example generates about 13.1 MWh per person per year. The total water consumption/person/yr there is a colossal 121,000 gallons!

In the final analysis, what should we concentrate on – saving energy at expense of water, or save water at expense of energy? Which can we live without?!

Time for inspiring speeches

That picture is how much of carbon is emitted by a single American in a week!

Most websites on energy and environment these days have only one topic – Copenhagen. No wonder with thousands of journalists and bloggers having descended on the city! Protests, secret drafts, and speeches! Great inspiring speeches! The latest ‘brilliant speech’ comes from Nobelist Obama!

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades… our common security hangs in the balance.

And yet all that US offers is a 17 percent cut of its 2005 emissions by 2020, which translates to a mere 3 percent cut of its 1990 levels (which is what Kyoto Protocol had sought). There is something doubly insensitive about a country that has been historically the biggest contributor to the present carbon pile up in the atmosphere, refusing to mend, and instead insisting that any action it takes will be only if some others do the same. Of course, China and India refusing to accept legally binding targets but insisting on domestic voluntary targets does hint of doubts in achieving the same! Why else should one be wary of scrutiny?

Meanwhile, there was some silver lining from UK. The European Union has proposed cutting its carbon emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if other developed countries reduce their carbon emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. But Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that the European Union should proceed with its 30 percent reductions targets regardless of what other developed countries are prepared to do right now.

When Barack Obama visits Copenhagen this week for the United Nations Framework Convention, awaiting him is a ton of CO2!

The actual 27-foot cube of CO2, an installation by Alfio Bonanno and Christophe Cornubert, is representation of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted each month by the average person in an industrialized country, or in the case of the United States, every two weeks.

Supported by Millennium ART, the curator of UN conferences over the past several years, the project also has plans to install additional cubes in iconic locations all over the globe during the conference.

Wow! Awesome! But finally, that may be all that will come out of the talks. Inspiring speech, awesome artwork, shrill voices as nations wrangle for their piece of the atmosphere.

All that trash

Forget the 80 million barrels of oil the world consumes every day, what about all the waste we generate? Just lean back and think about all the trash in your city. How much lies in half-decomposed state in landfills? How much litters roadsides?

Want to see a miniature version of the world and its waste? See the picture above. This is a real place outside Cairo called Garbage city and populated by a community of workers called Zabbaleen, who personally collect, sort, reuse, resell or otherwise repurpose Cairo’s waste.

This ‘metropolis’ is actually a very efficient waste management system: food scraps are fed to livestock, what can be repaired is, and everything else is recycled, sold for scrap, or burned for fuel. The Zabbaleen live at poverty levels but live a long-held tradition of scavenging as skill.

As the site says, is this how the earth will look if a giant hand caught hold of it and gave it a good shake? Maybe we have more things on the planet than humans? Scary!

Tug of war

Can we only be followers? Never leaders? That is the kind of despair many Indians are sure to feel reading the newspapers. The latest being the government’s official stand on emissions presented before Parliament, coming after China’s announcement.
India will cut its carbon intensity (tons of CO2 per unit GDP) by 20-25 percent from the 2005 levels by 2020. China has offered 40-45 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

Sounds bigger but again, experts calculate it comes to the same as in a business as usual scenario. If China can sustain a rate of decarbonization of 3.7% per year or more that would be a very impressive achievement. However, if China is going to continue to grow its economy at 9% per year, more needs to be done, analysts feel.

Coming to the nature of the two declarations, no legal binding, but a voluntary act that will not allow international scrutiny unless linked to foreign finds. Quoting Planning Commission documents the environment minister Jairam Ramesh talks of how India has cut its carbon intensity by 17.6 percent between 1990 and 2005. That will raise many eyebrows given that there were no energy auditors in the country then. How did the government arrive at this number?

That is another matter. But does its offer mean anything at the global level? Will fuel efficiency standards that stop at labeling of vehicles serve any purpose? Or the ‘modification’ of the EC Act to allow BEE to issue certificates help? How relevant are certificates in the Indian context? Are rewards the solution or will it take applying the stick too?

Leaders of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, a group collectively dubbed the "BASIC" countries along with Sudan as the head of the G77, a larger bloc of developing nations participating in the climate talks, agreed on a new draft negotiating position that argues that the Copenhagen framework should largely consist of an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol framework for a second commitment period running from 2012-2020.

Furthermore, the BASIC nations' "non-negotiable" planks include a pledge to stand opposed to any global deal in Copenhagen that does not explicitly reject the use of carbon border tariffs or other measures to restrict trade in the context. This is exactly what the US senators are favouring!

They are insisting that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."

The U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

New or old, a treaty for sure looks doomed.

Clean smoke

While on India, the government has revealed a program to provide efficient cooking stoves to rural areas in an effort to reduce air pollution. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy announced the National Biomass Cook-stoves Initiative, a series of pilot projects that seeks to improve stove efficiency for individual households.
An estimated 826 million Indians depend on simple cook stoves that burn solid fuel, mainly fuel wood or coal. The toxic soot can increase the risks of developing pneumonia, cataracts, and tuberculosis.

A study on the benefits from greenhouse gas reductions in India, released last month in the British medical journal The Lancet, estimates that 15 million improved stoves distributed every year for the next decade would supply 87 percent of households across India. Such a program would avoid premature deaths from respiratory infections, heart disease, and bronchitis by more than 17 percent, affecting some 55.5 million people, the study had recommended.

More-efficient biomass stoves can reduce India's climate impact as well. When soot settles on light-colored snow or ice, less sunlight is reflected into space. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 assessment that soot, also referred to as black carbon, is one of the most potent greenhouse pollutants. Eliminating black carbon could quickly limit global warming due to the short period of time the particles remain in the atmosphere.

An estimated 0.5-1 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases, notably methane, black carbon, and carbon monoxide, would be avoided, according to the study, led by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the University of California at Berkeley, and University College London.

The India plan is good but needs to be seen what kind of target for the program is established. If this is simply a good looking plan to take to Copenhagen or will be implemented in earnest, time will tell. Till then, millions will be smoking polluted air and burning wood inefficiently.

Do you see the star?

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency in India has finally decided to make energy labelling for electrical appliances, starting January 2010. Initailly it will be only refrigerators, air conditioners, tubelights and transformers that will come under the purview of the rule. Pumps, televisions, fans, etc will come later.

Under the proposal, ratings will be given on the basis of total energy consumed by the item.

The question then is: how many consumers will bother? Will cost or efficiency rule? Any doubts?

True, the BEE has been advertising efficiency on the media and a survey by National Productivity Council says BEE helped save 1500 MW through its schemes/campaigns. But the average Indian still remains blissfully unaware of energy consumption and the need for conservation.

Is it enough to have such labelling or take a step more and do what California did in banning high energy guzzling television sets from 2012?

Wailing wind

According to a recent report published by Global Wind Energy Council and Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers’ Association, India has immense potential for wind energy. Wind can cater to 24 percent of electricity demand by 2030 by when the installed capacity could reach 241.3 GW from the present 10.2 GW. This is the advanced scenario where policy measures and political will play a positive role.

The report blames a lack of coherent renewable energy policy for the country not realizing wind resource. It calls for a renewable portfolio standard linked to market-based schemes such as energy certificates, and for a national feed-in tariff to ensure uniform incentives. Acceleration of approval procedures for RE projects, updated wind resource map, etc are also recommended. Meanwhile the CERC has issued the final regulations for tariff determination for renewable sources.

In the UK, a strategic assessment study has pointed to how offshore wind can generate 25 GW in the UK. Following the report, the government has adopted a plan for capacity addition along the waters of England and Wales, leading to opening 11 more sites. Around 15 billion pounds is to be invested to connect offshore grid to the national grid.

Is the Indian government doing enough to spur investments in renewable energy? What do you think?