by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group
India has a special role as it is the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases though it emits only 5% while four big developed nations' share is more than 50%. India cannot reduce it any time soon as it remains halfway through the transition from an agrarian society to urban. More than half the people live in villages where energy-driven gadgets are limited. Over 300 million people live without electricity.
However, despite its limitations, the Indian government has, much before Prime Minister Narendra Modi's arrival in Paris, submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The document is interesting in its forthrightness—it says coal will continue to dominate power generation in future—but, at the same time, it pledges giant strides towards regulating emission. India has promised to step up its solar capacity to around 100 GW (100,000 Mega Watt) and double its wind capacity to 60 GW by 2022. Side by side, it has promised to increase the nuclear capacity to 63 GW by 2030. Its professed goal is to generate 175 GW of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, bio-mass) by 2022. If India can honour its pledge, 40 per cent of its power generation will be sourced from renewables by 2030. Contrary to popular belief that the cost of solar energy is prohibitive, and its storage tricky, evolving technology is actually changing its parameters. From Rs 19 a unit of solar energy in India ten years ago, it has come down to less than five rupees today. And Tesla, a storage company in Silicon Valley, California, with which Modi had elaborate discussion during his recent visit to the US west coast, is revolutionising energy storage by extending battery life.
The Indian INDC promises to reduce the country's emission intensity (emission per unit of GDP) by 33-35 per cent in 2030 measured at 2005 level. The emission will still remain higher. But there is no doubt that the government has put brake on its growth. Besides, conscious about the need for more thermal power, India has proposed a 'carbon sink' which implies that as it releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (as in coal-based thermal plants) it will grow proportionate forest area to cleanse the pollution.
The focus of the Paris talks is on defining targets, but there is not an iota of contrition in evidence in the nations whose centuries-long road to riches is marked untold savagery to the planet. Polar ice caps are melting away, coral reefs are bleached, hundreds of marine species have disappeared because of rising ocean temperature, and so on. Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar made an impassioned plea to the West in New York to "walk the talk" and make the Paris summit a success. The summit seeks a global assurance that the Earth's temperature will not rise more than 2 degree Celsius by 2100 from what it was when it was first recorded in 1880. But most climatologists fear that the planet's temperature at the turn of this century will go up at least 2.7 degrees C, which is way beyond the sustainable limit. It makes Javadekar's warning all the more poignant.
India's cost of implementing its IMDC commitments will be a staggering $2.5 trillion at 2014-15 prices; it is a little over the country's GDP today. In fact the government has begun putting money into the slot, its budget allocation for facing climate change situations for 2013-14 being Rs 76,000 crore ($13 billion). But the bill is too tall and it is a long way to go. There has been little clear thinking globally on how could the cost be met. After the last Kyoto Protocol (signed in 1997), carbon trading became fashionable. But it did not work as carbon footprint is difficult to compute. If you buy a hybrid car in India which is made in China, the car may be clean to drive in Mumbai but it is China that had to bear the burden of its carbon debris.
The finance part of the story was downplayed at Kyoto. But the top 20 or 25 rich nations are to pay $100 billion to save the planet and they have contributed just $178 million so far. French President Francois Hollande who said that “if the developed nations do not finance, the climate summit may fail.” Modi has also been insisting on transfer of technology. He knows that talent, Technology and money can combine to work wonders. But innovation in climatology can’t bring instant profits. It requires states’ largesse. The question is; Who will foot the bill.
The ongoing Conference of Parties (COP) in Paris in search of an agreement on climate change is different from a meeting for trade agreement. It is rather like inmates of a building planning a strategy when a fire is about to engulf their house. If unchecked, the continuing warming of the oceans will lead, among other things, to near effacement within this century of coastal cities like Mumbai, Kochi, Chennai and Vizag due to relentless rising of the sea level. It will take the cycle of drought and storm to such intensity that it can render next to impossible the task of sustaining agriculture in its existing form. Besides, the damage to environment caused by greenhouse gases due to human activity is increasing at a differential rate. If sea water rose by a few inches in the previous century, it will rise by several feet before the present one closes. Therefore, over the years, and with increasing acceleration, it will cause human migration across the country on an unprecedented scale, with all its agony and bitterness.
India has a special role as it is the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases though it emits only 5% while four big developed nations' share is more than 50%. India cannot reduce it any time soon as it remains halfway through the transition from an agrarian society to urban. More than half the people live in villages where energy-driven gadgets are limited. Over 300 million people live without electricity.
However, despite its limitations, the Indian government has, much before Prime Minister Narendra Modi's arrival in Paris, submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The document is interesting in its forthrightness—it says coal will continue to dominate power generation in future—but, at the same time, it pledges giant strides towards regulating emission. India has promised to step up its solar capacity to around 100 GW (100,000 Mega Watt) and double its wind capacity to 60 GW by 2022. Side by side, it has promised to increase the nuclear capacity to 63 GW by 2030. Its professed goal is to generate 175 GW of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, bio-mass) by 2022. If India can honour its pledge, 40 per cent of its power generation will be sourced from renewables by 2030. Contrary to popular belief that the cost of solar energy is prohibitive, and its storage tricky, evolving technology is actually changing its parameters. From Rs 19 a unit of solar energy in India ten years ago, it has come down to less than five rupees today. And Tesla, a storage company in Silicon Valley, California, with which Modi had elaborate discussion during his recent visit to the US west coast, is revolutionising energy storage by extending battery life.
The Indian INDC promises to reduce the country's emission intensity (emission per unit of GDP) by 33-35 per cent in 2030 measured at 2005 level. The emission will still remain higher. But there is no doubt that the government has put brake on its growth. Besides, conscious about the need for more thermal power, India has proposed a 'carbon sink' which implies that as it releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (as in coal-based thermal plants) it will grow proportionate forest area to cleanse the pollution.
The focus of the Paris talks is on defining targets, but there is not
an
iota of contrition in evidence in the nations whose centuries-long road
to riches is marked untold savagery to the planet.
The focus of the Paris talks is on defining targets, but there is not an iota of contrition in evidence in the nations whose centuries-long road to riches is marked untold savagery to the planet. Polar ice caps are melting away, coral reefs are bleached, hundreds of marine species have disappeared because of rising ocean temperature, and so on. Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar made an impassioned plea to the West in New York to "walk the talk" and make the Paris summit a success. The summit seeks a global assurance that the Earth's temperature will not rise more than 2 degree Celsius by 2100 from what it was when it was first recorded in 1880. But most climatologists fear that the planet's temperature at the turn of this century will go up at least 2.7 degrees C, which is way beyond the sustainable limit. It makes Javadekar's warning all the more poignant.
India's cost of implementing its IMDC commitments will be a staggering $2.5 trillion at 2014-15 prices; it is a little over the country's GDP today. In fact the government has begun putting money into the slot, its budget allocation for facing climate change situations for 2013-14 being Rs 76,000 crore ($13 billion). But the bill is too tall and it is a long way to go. There has been little clear thinking globally on how could the cost be met. After the last Kyoto Protocol (signed in 1997), carbon trading became fashionable. But it did not work as carbon footprint is difficult to compute. If you buy a hybrid car in India which is made in China, the car may be clean to drive in Mumbai but it is China that had to bear the burden of its carbon debris.
The finance part of the story was downplayed at Kyoto. But the top 20 or 25 rich nations are to pay $100 billion to save the planet and they have contributed just $178 million so far. French President Francois Hollande who said that “if the developed nations do not finance, the climate summit may fail.” Modi has also been insisting on transfer of technology. He knows that talent, Technology and money can combine to work wonders. But innovation in climatology can’t bring instant profits. It requires states’ largesse. The question is; Who will foot the bill.
