Limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius may not be enough

Limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius may not be enough

Author(s): DTE Staff

Study says sea levels could still rise by 6 metres, threatening coastal cities across the world

Even if we manage to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius—the target of all climate negotiations—sea levels are likely to increase by six metres, threatening coastal areas across the world.

A study has shown that in the past three million years, whenever the global mean temperature increased by 1-2 degrees C, sea levels rose by at least six metres.

“Even if we meet that 2 degrees Celsius target, in the past with those types of temperatures, we may be committing ourselves to this level of sea level rise in the long term,” Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida and one of the study’s co-authors, says, as per a report published by The Guardian.

The study, which reviewed three decades of research on the effects of melting polar ice sheets on sea levels, was published in the journal Science on July 10.

“The state of the planet during these various periods has been painstakingly inferred based on a wide range of evidence, ranging from temperature records preserved in corals and sediments to climate and ice sheet models,” says a story published in The Washington Post.

The researchers, however, are not yet saying that the rise will definitely happen. “It’s important to emphasize that the researchers are not saying we’re committed to this much long term sea level rise yet — just that if current emissions and warming continue, we could get there,” says the Washington Post

EU biofuel targets fuelling inflation: study

Author(s): Ankur Paliwal

Land meant for food crops being used to grow biofuel crops; may push up food prices by 36 per cent by 2020

The European Union’s biofuel production targets are depriving people of food, land and water across the world. Increasing biofuel production is one of the measures taken to reduce fossil fuel emissions and save the environment. But it is resulting in food price inflation and serious cases of land grabs in poor countries, says the recent report, The Hunger Grains, by Oxfam, an international non-profit.

The European Union (EU), in 2009, mandated that 10 percent of transport fuel should come from renewable sources by 2020. Beyond Europe, a number of other countries, including India, have also adopted policies to promote biofuel production. The current mandate in India is 5 per cent which will increase to 20 percent by 2017.

Land grabs to grow biofuel crops

According to a report commissioned by European Commission in 2008, 42 per cent of the crops used for the EU’s biodiesel and 24 per cent of the crops used for the EU’s ethanol were grown outside the EU.  Evidence from the International Land Coalition, an Italy-based non-profit, suggests that land acquisitions to grow crops for biofuels, including soy, sugarcane, oil palm and jathropha, may account for over 60 per cent of all large-scale land deals globally in the past decade. Countries with poor protection of land are the places of land grabs, says the report.

[highlights]

For example, since 2006, the EU’s industries are acquiring land in Ghana to grow biofuels. Around 69 families lost their land when a 14,000 hectare land parcel was acquired for jathropha plantation. None of the families were consulted; neither did they receive any form of compensation.

In many developing countries, biofuel production is also putting pressure on water resources by competing with other uses of water including domestic use. For example, in Guatemala, which currently produces over 44 per cent of Central America’s sugarcane-based ethanol, families are not getting enough water to irrigate their food crops. The southern coast of the country, which is most suited for sugarcane production, has scarce water sources which is being exploited by sugarcane processing mills upstream, leaving farmers downstream with less water to grow their crops. Most of the ethanol produced in Guatemala is exported to the EU.

The production of biofuels is also pushing up food prices. With decreasing area to grow food crops, food prices are increasing in certain parts of the world.  For example, the expansion of sugarcane and jatropha production for biofuels in Mozambique displaced the cultivation of food for household use as well as the cultivation of bananas for sale in regional markets. Not only people have to buy food they would have otherwise grown, there is less for sale. Increased demand and reduced supply push up local prices, says the report. Increase in food price mostly hit poorer countries as they have to spend a higher proportion of their income on food. The poor spend as much as three quarters of their income on food.
If the land used to grow biofuels in 2008 in the EU could have been used to grow wheat and maize instead, it could have fed 127 million people for the entire year. According to Oxfam, the biofuel mandates can push up the food prices by as much as 36 per cent by 2020.

The commercial stimulus to fulfill the EU biofuel mandates by 2020 means that land needed to grow biofuel crops must be acquired quickly, says the report.
  
Environmental impact

In 2010, biofuels made up 4.7 per cent of all ground transport fuel used in the EU. It has resulted in direct environmental impacts. The land use change driven by the EU biofuel mandate suggests that up to 69,000 sq km of natural ecosystems could be converted into cropland by 2020, releasing between 27 and 56 million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide per year, which is equivalent to putting between 12 and 26 million extra cars on European roads.
Despite this, the European Commission is proceeding with the planning to set further targets for 2030. The report asks for scrapping EU biofuel mandates.

90 companies responsible for two-third of global carbon emissions

90 companies responsible for two-third of global carbon emissions

Author(s): Jyotsna Singh

Coal India Limited listed among the top 20. Should the onus of past carbon emissions be shifted to these companies?

Accountability for carbon emissions is long-standing dispute between the developed and developing countries at every UN climate conference—the  poorer nations invariably demand higher carbon emission cuts from the rich nations in view of their higher contribution to the atmospheric carbon. An analysis by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado offers an alternate approach to resolving this dispute.

In his paper, to be published in journal Climate Change, Heede has analysed records of private and state-owned carbon major companies from 1854 to 2010. The paper concludes that 90 companies in the world are historically responsible for 63 per cent or about two-third of cumulative worldwide emissions of industrial CO2 and methane. The top 20 emitters include Coal India Limited. The state-owned Indian company is placed at spot 11, contributing 1.07 per cent of the total global emissions. Chevron of the United States of America, placed at spot one, shared 3.52 per cent of the total emissions historically (see infograph).

The author suggests that in the absence of a consensus about responsibility in terms of nation-states, an alternate approach can put to the onus on these corporations. Some of these corporations are located in the countries which are not part of Annex I nations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Annex I consists primarily developed nations which have benefited from the exploitation of natural resources in the past two or more centuries, leaving massive carbon footprint. The countries whose corporations are a part of the top 90 emitters include Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil, among others. 

Fuel economy standards: a non-starter

Fuel economy standards: a non-starter

Author(s): Anumita Roychowdhury

Proposed fuel economy standards for cars are so lax that some carmakers can get away by not doing anything for the first few years. This can jeopardise energy security and climate mitigation plans

Just when the country was hoping for a final decision on fuel economy standards for passenger cars it has been delayed again. After four years of wrangling the concerned ministries of power and transport are still indecisive as the car industry continues to put pressure for weak standards. The buck has been passed on to the Prime Ministers’ Office for the final go.

The official deliberation on the standards has remained under wraps for a long time. Only in the face of public pressure the two ministries–Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways–opened the proposal for public consultation. But the consultation paper ‘Passenger Car Fuel Economy Labeling and Standards’ that was released by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency for public comments late last year drew serious criticism for being too little, too late. There are reports of a revised document with slightly improved targets. But it is still under wraps.

Delay in announcing and implementing the fuel economy standards for 2015 and 2020 can seriously jeopardise energy security and climate mitigation plans especially given the unprecedented growth in car sales. Crude oil prices are peaking again and this can hurt India tremendously as it imports nearly 80 per cent of its crude oil needs. According to the International Energy Agency cars will be one of the primary drivers of energy demand in the transport sector in the coming decades.

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) under the Ministry of Power is setting the standards and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is responsible for implementing them.  The new standards are being set as corporate average fuel consumption (CAFC) standards. These will be set in terms of fleet average carbon-dioxide emissions target that will be sales weighted for all the new cars sold in a year. CO2 emissions depend directly on the amount of fuel burnt. The targets will be set for 2015 and 2020.

What’s wrong?

The original proposal if not changed will turn the clock back. In 2010, the Indian car industry had already achieved average fleet fuel consumption levels of 6 litre per 100 km. But the application of the proposed standards to available data for car sales and fuel economy show that the proposed standards are asking the car industry to come down to only 5.73 litre per 100 km in 2015, and to 5.14 litre per 100 km in 2020. This means less than 1 per cent reduction per year until 2015 and 2.2 per cent reduction thereafter until 2020.

The industry has already achieved a better rate of improvement than those proposed by the standards. The assessments made by New Delhi based non-profit, Centre for Science and Environment, show that between 2007 and 2010, the car industry has already improved its average fuel economy from 6.53 litre per 100 km to 6 litre per 100 km in 2010 – an improvement of 2.8 per cent a year. Then why are the proposed standards asking the car industry to meet a target of only 0.8 per cent improvement between 2010 and 2015 and 2.2 per cent between 2015 and 2020. The government has clearly capitulated under pressure from the car industry to create a lax margin for bigger and more inefficient cars.

Some carmakers will get away by not doing anything at all for the first few years. Estimates from available data show that some of the car majors in India like Tata Motors and Hyundai are well within the proposed standard line and will not have to do anything for five years. Over 10 years, they will have to achieve approximately only 1 per cent improvement.  Maruti Udyog Ltd will have to improve by about 2 per cent over 10 years.

The standards will barely allow any fuel savings. The draft proposal has stated that if nothing is done about regulating fuel economy, car fuel consumption will increase from 9 million metric tonne in 2010 to 25 million metric tonne in 2020. Yet India’s own standards are so weak that fuel savings will be negligible–only 3 million metric tonne by 2020: just 12 per cent savings. But if the car industry is made to achieve a minimum of 2 per cent improvement a year, the car fuel consumption can be halved by 2020.

Without substantial improvement India will slide behind all major car producing countries by 2020–even behind US and China. India, by an act of policy, is aiming to finish as the worst in the world despite starting with one of the best baselines than most other vehicle producing countries in 2010.

India has already begun with a much better fuel economy baseline than most other vehicle producing countries. But with the proposed targets, India will finish behind all of them in 2020. India will show up very poorly in the ongoing international climate negotiations if its fuel economy target worsens than that of the US and China despite starting at a level better than them today. This will make a mockery of the National Climate Action Plan of the Prime Minister’s Council.

Comparison of emission (CO2gm/km) target in key vehicle producing regions
Countries	2010	2020
European Union	145	95
United States	187	121
China	179	117
Japan	130	105
India	141	122 (original proposal)

It will be humiliating if public policy allows such slow improvement in CO2 emissions and fuel savings from the luxury consumption of cars. This is not acceptable either under the principles of climate justice or that of energy security.

There is no reason why India cannot narrow the gaps with the target that Europe has set for 2020. The average weight of the European car fleet today is 1,300 kg and has average CO2 emissions of about 145 gm/km. In fact India is more advantaged as the average weight of Indian cars is still 1,050 kg with an average CO2 emission of 141 gm/km now– better than Europe. If Europe can therefore propose a target of 95 gm/km in 2020, India should at least be below 105 gm/km in 2020.  This can be easily achieved with 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent improvement a year. 

During 2008 and 2010, not only the car sales have increased, but also the average weight of the new car fleet has increased by 5 per cent and the average engine size by about 6 per cent.  Due to these trends the fuel economy in terms of km/litre during the same period has stagnated and even declined by 1 per cent.  This is unacceptable when the country is rapidly motorising and reeling under energy crisis.

In fact, 2009 McKinsey report on India has estimated that if India improves fuel economy by even 15 per cent by 2015 then the country will save 29 million tonnes of CO2 in 2030. This translates into 10.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent which at 100 dollars per barrel works out to be 7.8 billion dollars of savings in 2030 alone. If this fuel savings is linearly increased from 2010-2030, the total fuel savings can be approximately 100 million tonnes of oil equivalent, and the cumulative dollar savings around 78 billion dollars. Thus, any further delay can cost hugely to the nation.

Industry scowls

Even this weak proposal is being opposed by the car industry. It has listed all kinds of excuses including bad roads and lack of uniform fuel quality across the country to plead for diluted targets. It has also not agreed to independent monitoring and penalty for violation.

Most of these excuses do not stand. In fact, the attempt in the proposal to have a second line and a weaker standard if uniform fuel quality is not available across the country has drawn scathing criticism from the global energy watchdog, International Energy Agency (IEA). It has reacted to the proposal saying, “In terms of fuel quality, it is not aware that the use of Euro III fuel would in any way compromise the ability to improve fuel economy, it should be fully compatible with virtually all major technologies.  If the Indian auto industry believes otherwise they should provide a detailed assessment of which technologies are affected and why.”

The provision of two targets–a tighter target with Euro V fuel quality nationwide and a more lax target without it–is a very bad practice and scientifically untenable. There should be only one stringent standard for 2020. Indian market already has popular high selling car models (i10, i20, Alto, Verna and many more in different weight classes) that have achieved better fuel consumption levels than both the proposed targets for 2020. Even the best of hybrids can operate on Euro III fuels. It is another matter that the country must have Euro V compliant fuel quality by 2020 to meet the public health challenge.

The IEA has further stated that it appears that for companies with average vehicle weight around 1,000kg (which is the industry average) the proposed 2015-16 standard of around 5.7 litre/100km or roughly 135 gmCO2/km  is very close to today’s level, so will not push much change.  The target for the heavier vehicles is tighter.

Enforcement worries

It is worrying that while India is adopting corporate average fuel consumption (CAFC) standards, there is no official system in place for independent tracking of sales of all vehicle models. This makes it difficult to estimate annual calculation of the sales weighted corporate average fuel consumption standards to ensure compliance. The entire compliance strategy will depend on self reporting by the industry. There is a conflict of interest.

The proposal must have a section on monitoring and reporting of the data for implementation of CAFC. This should specify the format for the manufacturers to report the data. Specify the executive system for independent recording of information on vehicle registration in all the states. The Central government should create and maintain a central registry on the requisite data that is publicly available.  The central registry of data in Europe is in public domain. Detailed rules for reporting and scrutiny should be specified. CAFC implementation should not depend only on self reporting by the car industry.

BEE will have to organise independent testing for verification of the industry claim. The BEE is already empowered to carry out suo moto tests for all other labeling programme to verify compliance. Any deviation for the cars will compromise the integrity of this provision. The regulatory document should clearly define the magnitude of the penalty for the car companies for non-compliance. This should be an effective deterrent. 

Due to lack of transparency and awareness this crucial piece of regulation, needed to tackle energy crisis, has fallen victim to industry politics. This initiative can be ruined if inter-ministerial indecisiveness is not addressed immediately. 

How tribal leadership in Chhattisgarh is helping people access rights

How tribal leadership in Chhattisgarh is helping people access rights

Author(s): Surendra Panwar

The civil society’s intervention in the tribal regions began in early 1980s on two issues-sustainable livelihood, particularly in forest areas, and, local governance

If you pass the tiny villages dotting the highway in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh and meet its unassuming natives free from the trappings of city life, you might say to yourself, “Oh! They are not poor, they are just beautiful.” This first glimpse belies all your notions about the region which has witnessed countless bloody encounters between paramilitary forces and the Naxals, or for that matter, people defying all attempts of the government to bring them into the mainstream.

But it is only when you enter the interior road leading to a village, the real story begins to unfold. The grandeur of beautiful forests gradually fades into oblivion, as you see paramilitary forces carrying out search operations under Operation Green Hunt, a name given by the media to describe the government offensive against Naxalites. The pleasantries exchanged in the state capital, Raipur, suddenly turn into dogged and gritty conversations about rights, entitlements and exploitation.

During the past 10 years, the fight of tribals for rights in Chhattisgarh has virtually turned into a potboiler, chronicling the strategised attempts by NGOs and social activists to create tribal leadership to spread awareness, help flawless implementation of schemes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Public Distribution System (PDS) and fight issues related to the Forest Rights Act (FRA).

The scale of corruption in MGNREGA and PDS was so high that it was not possible for these organisations to look into individual cases which related to fake job cards under MGNREGA, black marketing of PDS goods and ration cards given to undeserving people. The mining lobby was freely acquiring tribal land at throwaway prices flouting all norms. At the centre of all issues is an unholy nexus between sarpanches, local politicians and block officials.

Interventions for sustainability

The civil society’s intervention in the tribal regions began in early 1980s on two issues-sustainable livelihood, particularly in forest areas, and, local governance. For sustainable livelihood, they focused on resources like land and how these could be multiplied in terms of increased productivity, and integrated with other resources. There was also the question of better accessibility to these entitlements and benefits from the government.

But these interventions gained momentum after states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh became a reality. Now, the issue was not limited to livelihood alone, but the question was to go beyond it, where there is dignity and quality of life. So, apart from their immediate or basic needs, they also focused on building capacities in terms of leadership and participation in local governance, mainly in panchayats and later at the district and state level. They identified core areas and issues which could strengthen their right to live with dignity. They also created a support structure where they could get technical and non-technical information to support their cause.

Jayant Kumar, head of programmes, CASA, an organisation working among tribals, says, “They brought them together and made them understand the issues and challenges. They provided them information and opportunities to know, learn, internalise and act as leaders.

“The issue was not limited to livelihood. The effort was to go beyond, where there is dignity and quality of life. So NGOs focused on building capacities in terms of leadership”

CURRENT AFFAIRS July/15/2015

      CURRENT AFFAIRS July/15/2015

1.  INDIA SIGNED MOU WITH GEOGIA:

i.   India and Georgia have signed MoU for co-operation in the field of election Management.

ii.  The MoU signed by Chief Election Commissioner of India Nasim Zaidi and Chairperson of Central Election Commission of Geogia Tamar Zhavania.

2.  ASIA 21 YOUNG LEADERS CLASS OF 2015:

i. Asia 21 young leaders class of 2015 released in New York, USA.

ii.  Four Indians were figured in the list.

a.       Mishi Choudhary- Executive director of SFLC

b.      Manish Dahiya – Executive Director and Global Head of Energy Complex at Noble Group Limited

c.       Sanjay Vijayakumar – CEO of MobME wireless solutions

d.      Aarti Wig – Co-founder of Indian Arm of Yunus Social Business (YSB)

3.  MANMOHAN RAI BECOMES VICE CHIEF OF INDIAN ARMY:

i.  Lt General ManMohan Singh Rai appointed as Vice-Chief of Indian Army.

ii.  Lt General Manmohan Singh will succeed Lt General Philip Campose.

4.  OTP BASED APPLICATION TO E-FILE IMCOME TAX LAUNCHED:

i.  Income Tax Department has launched OTP based e-filling verification system for tax payers.

ii.  This facility will end the practice of sending paperacknowledgement, called ITRV.

OTP- One Time Password.

5. INTER STATE SENIOR ATHLETICS CHAMPIONSHIP 2015:

i.  55^th National Inter State Senior Athletics Championshipconcluded I Tamil Nadu.

ii.  Games were organized by the Tamil Nadu Athletics Association.

iii. Kerala topped the table with 177.5 points followed by Haryana.

6.  TWO IPL FRANCHISE SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS:

i.  Two IPL franchise are suspended for 2 years by Justice Lodha Panel.

ii.  The two IPL franchise suspended for two years are Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals.

iii.  Justice RM Lodha headed the panel on IPL Betting scandal 2013.