Doubling US energy productivity

The area of building efficiency affords tremendous opportunities for both economic growth and reduced environmental impacts. Buildings are the single largest emitters of greenhouse gases. According to a UNEP study titled “Towards a Green Economy,” homes and businesses are responsible for 40 percent of the climate change causing carbon pollution. The potential savings from efficiency are huge, particularly when partnered with increased energy productivity. The Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy released a report that suggested a strategy to double U.S. energy productivity by 2030. The commission is comprised of a diverse coalition of energy leaders including representatives from energy utilities, academia, industry and environmental groups.

The commission found that getting twice as much output could reduce U.S. carbon dioxide pollution by one-third below 2005 levels. Achieving the commission’s goal of doubling energy productivity by 2030 would also:

• Add 1.3 million jobs
• Cut average household energy costs by more than $1,000 a year
• Save American businesses $169 billion a year
• Increase gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 2 percent
• Decrease energy imports by more than $100 billion a year
• Reduce CO2 emissions by one-third

The Commission report suggests that there are more than $1 trillion in energy-saving opportunities with the right private sector, federal, state and local support. The ambitious yet attainable solutions proposed by the commission will drive innovation and technological advancements, which will modernize manufacturing and make the U.S. economy more globally competitive.

CRC reports in

More than 90% of UK businesses taking part in the Government’s Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) energy efficiency scheme have submitted their first carbon reports to the Environment Agency.

The CRC scheme requires large energy users in the business and public sector to monitor, record and report on their carbon emissions.

According to the Agency, a total of 4295 reports out of an expected 4549 report were received by the deadline.

The Agency’s figures indicate that 95% of the expected number of footprint reports have been received and 94% of the annual reports.

The carbon emissions reported in the CRC total over 60 million tonnes – equivalent to more than 10% of the UK’s annual CO2 emissions.

The data will now be used by Environment Agency in the next stage of the scheme – determining a league table of participants ranked by their energy efficiency. The Agency says the ranking will be published this autumn.

The scheme has proved controversial since its inception and the current Government has promised to simplify the scheme.

From good to bad

A severe drought in the Amazon last year, coupled with a “once-in-a-century” drought in 2005, has led to the deaths of countless trees and temporarily turned the vast rainforest into a source of CO2 emissions, rather than a sink.

Reporting in the journal Science, scientists from the University of Leeds said that the 2010 drought killed so many trees in Amazonia that emissions last year are likely to exceed the 5.4 billion tons of CO2 annually released by fossil fuel burning in the United States.

The 2005 drought, which caused rainfall shortages over a 734,000-square-mile area, released an estimated 5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Last year’s drought, which led to rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile area, is expected to release even more CO2.

The Amazon usually absorbs 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually, but the Leeds researchers warned that global warming could reverse that role. “If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rain forest could reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change to a major source of greenhouse gases that could speed it up,” said Simon Lewis, an ecologist at Leeds.

Puffing along

Latest figures published by the US Energy Information Administration show CO2 emissions from energy consumption which constitutes the vast majority of Carbon Dioxide produced. The key points are:

• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000
• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running (but do not read much into that, beyond recession!)
• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
• India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth place
• The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is Chile - up 74%.

The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies - with 18 tonnes emitted per person, while China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes per person, India only 1.38. For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person.

A reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is not only the goal of environmentalists but also of pretty much every government in the world. Currently 192 countries have adopted the Kyoto protocol with the aim of collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of the 1990 levels by 2012. But looks like goals are something, and actual implementation something else!

Green innovation for ICT a must

While on computers, here's another recent report. According to the 18-month analysis by the Institute for Sustainable and Applied Infodynamics (ISAID) in Singapore and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, the ICT industry in the US is on course to grow its carbon emissions at twice the rate of its contributions to gross domestic product (GDP).

Hence, it must adopt energy efficiency technologies over the next decade to stay profitable in the face of limits on carbon emissions.

The researchers looked different devices in use, how much energy they use and how that consumption will be affected by growth in demand.

Although the items in question, like PCs, laptops, smart phones and games consoles, do not emit CO2 per se, the researchers looked at the electricity used to power them and factored in the potential effects of cleaner production in future.

The study calculates that emissions related to PCs and laptops, which currently account for around 48.5% of global ICT emissions, could quadruple by 2020, while those arising from data centres, games consoles and mobile phones could triple.

Scrape to the last bit

They are truly rare and getting rarer by the day. About 124,000 metric tons of rare earth elements (REEs) were produced in 2009, with worldwide demand during this period estimated to be 134,000 metric tons — the difference have been made up from existing stockpiles. By 2012, worldwide demand is expected to reach 180,000 metric tons while mining operations are not expected to keep up with demand in the near term.

Rare earth elements are critical to a variety of high-tech products and manufacturing processes, including catalytic converters, petroleum refining, color TV and flat panel displays, permanent magnets, batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, medical devices, and various defense systems like missiles, jet engines, and satellite components.

The Chinese produce 97% of REEs worldwide.

Rare earths are moderately abundant in the earth's crust, some even more abundant than copper, lead, gold, and platinum. While more abundant than many other minerals, REE are not concentrated enough to make them easily exploitable economically.

Either one has to look for alternatives which will take time, or stop using all those gadgets made from these elements (asking for the moon!) or simply pally up to China.

Or, recycle wherever possible, taking help from bacteria?

Researchers from the School of Biosciences at the University of Birmingham have found a way to use microbes, similar to the common soil bacterium Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, to recover palladium from useless industrial waste. Palladium itself is one of the most precious resource metals on Earth, boasting unique chemical properties. This metal can in fact be used as an active element in autocatalytic converters able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As we have noted before, these are time of Peak everything!

View your city's emissions

Scientists from the JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) have made it possible to visualise the distribution of GHG emissions all over the world at local level through an add-on layer to Google Earth. Data used in the visualisation come from JRC and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency's (PBL) Emission Database for Global Research (EDGAR), and its dataset released in May this year (EDGAR v4.0).

This application brings environmental information closer to the world's citizens, though it takes a bit of technical knowhow to understand the data presented. Guess this one is more for analysts!

By simply entering a city name, the amount of greenhouse gases released since 1970 can be visualized. In addition, the main sources of GHG emissions in the year 2005 can be identified: industries (fuel combustion, process and waste emissions in energy and manufacturing industries); transport (road, rail, shipping); residential fuel combustion and waste handling; and agriculture.

On a large scale, the visualisation shows how emissions are unevenly distributed over the globe, even within countries and the different evolution of emissions in the world over time.

For instance, it is highlighted that in large parts of the globe, global man-made emissions in areas of 10x10 kms is less than 1 kton of CO2 equivalents (in Siberia, for instance), while in some countries the combination of high density population and large industries results in area values of more than 250 kton per year (e.g. Netherlands, Japan or Singapore).

This set of visual data provides a unique history of 35 years (1970-2005) of emissions by area and sector, covering not only carbon dioxide (CO2) but also GHGs: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

The application was recently presented during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, at the EU Pavilion.
For more information, see: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Going beyond coal

The focus of the Integrated Energy Policy by the Indian Planning Commission is to sustain a growth rate of 8%. This requires an increase in installed capacity of electricity from 1,60,000 MW to 800,000 MW by 2031-32, an annual growth in coal demand between 4.7% to 7.27%.

Towards meeting the demand, the Government of India has approved 213 new coal plants in the next eight years. And to pave way for more coal mining, the coal ministry and Ministry of Environment have joined hands by putting ‘degraded’ forest lands (between 55 to 60 per cent of the total forest land in the country) as “Go” areas for coal exploitation.

Did the environment minister mean ‘open’ forests when he said ‘degraded’? If so, it will further reduce the country’s overall forest cover, which is already short of the desired 33 per cent mark.

Is this the right way ahead? Energy demand has to be met but have we seriously considered the potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce the demand on fossil based energy?

How can renewable energy manage to cope when coal-based power is sold way below its actual cost? If you monetize costs of environmental damage from coal based generation, it works out to Rs 6.97 per kWh, according to World Institute Sustainable Energy.

Given climate imperatives, can we mindlessly afford to beat the same track?

India has very poor quality extractable coal reserves left for 30-40 years, according to CMPDI (central mine planning and design institute) whereas if depending largely on coal, power generation would have to ramp up about 6 times from the present 70,000 MW to nearly 400,000 MW.

Two thirds of India’s CO2 emissions come from coal used in power generation. India is the lowest per capita emitter, but given that 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels come from India, serious thought has to be given to how we meet our energy demand. Is it through removing forests and burning more scarce coal?

Or is there a balance we have somehow missed so far?

Protectionism, or 'saving' the planet?

Even as the chances of the US climate bill being passed by the Senate remain bleak, there is some amount of belligerent talk from those quarters. Carbon tariffs on countries that don’t abide by a cap on emissions is one such.

Mooted by the Obama government (even though the president himself has opposed it), it backs the idea that if the US is to clean up its act, it will have to make sure that others do not go scot-free and lure jobs and emissions!

Among its votaries is Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman, who has minced no words to justify carbon tariffs. ‘China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain […] It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it […]’

Another Nobel Laureate has a different view. The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, is the latest to warn against carbon tariffs. AP reports: “This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this,” said Pachauri. “The United States has always stood for a free market system. … Legislation to move away from that principle is clearly counterproductive.”

Contrast this with Krugman’s stand: ‘They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable. It’s time to save the planet...’

True, China’s economic growth has led to a huge increase in emissions—from factory smokestacks, from coal-fired power plants, from millions of new cars. But disallowing its growth is perhaps not the solution, if you look at the argument which says: the richer a nation becomes, the better it is equipped to tackle emissions. But can the planet wait till then, especially as that would mean even more carbon up there??

Perhaps it is in this connection that the call by Indian prime minister has to be viewed. Let the rich nations pay for the growth of the developing ones.

Manmohan Singh has called on annex 1 countries to provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and categorically said that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it.

Saving the planet, as Krugman puts it, is everyone’s job. But there can be no denying the onus on the rich nations who have had their fill. Are they doing anything about it, despite having the means? Emissions have risen by 17 percent since 1990. How many Americans are willing to ‘compromise on their lifestyles’?

Permafrost - the ticking bomb

If you have been closely following the climate change debate, especially the predictions, you are aware that there has been frequent adjustment in the numbers thrown up for warming and its consequences. As also the reductions in emissions required to keep life cruising along.

Every new study indicates that the climate change danger has been underestimated by earlier studies. This is largely due to the complexity of the climate model that has so many dynamic parameters. But there is the other aspect which is that of incomplete understanding of positive and negative feedback systems that add or remove from the warming effect.

The impact of the biosphere’s response to global warming has not been fully considered. Like the way warming seawater releases carbon dioxide. Or soil bacteria that heat up will respire more, generating more CO2. As temperatures rise, tropical forests will die, releasing the carbon they contain. Feedbacks account for about 18% of global warming.

The 4th impact assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a table which links different cuts to likely temperatures. To prevent global warming from eventually exceeding 2°, it suggests, by 2050 the world needs to cut its emissions to roughly 15% of the volume in 2000. The IPCC admits that “emission reductions … might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks”.

The findings of a recent peer-reviewed study published in the July 13 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience provides evidence that current climate models are still underestimating the amount of warming that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause.

In other words, the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting.

The study examined the extent to which increased carbon dioxide levels could explain a 5 to 9 degree Celsius increase the Earth experienced 55.5 million years ago. The authors concluded that current estimates of how much carbon dioxide increases the average Earth temperature only explains 3.5 degrees of warming.

This in turn means forecasts of future warming could be severely underestimating the problem in store as ghgs accumulate.

Some of the changes due to warming could aggravate the problem. For example, increasing CO2 concentrations:
melt tundra, which then releases methane and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere; warm the air, which then can hold more water vapor, another heat-trapping gas; and
melt white ice, which exposes the ocean and land, which, because they are darker in color, absorb more heat from the sun and reflect less of it back into space.

Large amounts of methane, which has roughly 20 times the warming potential of CO2, could make an enormous difference. And, compared to the carbon in the atmosphere, there is about twice as much carbon in the permafrost as we thought, roughly 1.5 trillion tons.

Any thawing of permafrost due to global warming may lead to significant emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon deposits frozen thousands of years ago can easily break down when permafrost thaws releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to another recent study by University of Florida.

Carbon in permafrost is found largely in northern regions including Canada, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia and USA.

Is that a good enough reason for all nations to take this climate change seriously and do something, and do it fast? Can we afford to keep feeling around, eyes blinded, till we decide that there is an elephant in the room?

Asia most vulnerable

At an Asian Development Bank (ADB) conference last week in Manila, climate change researchers said Asia could become the world's biggest driver of climate change by 2030. The continent's share of energy use has tripled over the past 30 years alone, according to ADB.

The ADB also said Asia was the most vulnerable region to climate change. Water shortages, extreme weather and low-lying coastal cities could all be severely impacted by only moderate climate change.

Some of Asia’s biggest cities like Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai, are vulnerable to sea level rises and unpredictable weather patterns.

Additionally, the ADB said water shortages could knock down crop yields by as much as 30% by 2050.

Can we step up efforts to stimulate low-carbon growth on the scale required? As governments focus on economic growth, is there adequate recognition of the fact that mindless use of fossil fuels could backfire?

A carbon timer

Starting this week, a 70-foot sign with a 13-character red digital display in New York’s busy lane alongside Madison Square garden and Penn Station, is tracking the trillions of tons of greenhouse gases roiling the atmosphere. The work of scientists from around the country, it takes into account all greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and reports them in carbon dioxide equivalents. It skips the effects of natural cycles.

The technical challenge of creating a real-time counter using economic indicators and other data, which are validated and adjusted as updated gas measurements become available, is no small task.Jeffrey Sachs inaugurated the counter alongwith an expert from MIT. The switch was flipped, and the 13-digit number appeared. The last three digits were a red blur.

Consider that conventional wisdom on climate change says that for average rise in temperatures not to go beyond two degrees Celsius, we need to keep rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 400 parts per million (ppm). The count was 390 ppm as on May 2009!

We have very less time to make amends! Every new study seems to reduce the time available.

Just contrast the change in stance of UN's top climate change official Yvo de Boer from June 1 to June 11! From a "There is no doubt in my mind that the Copenhagen climate conference in December is going to lead to a result" he switched to, it would be "physically impossible" to have a detailed deal to tackle climate change by the December climate change conference in the Danish capital Copenhagen.

"Delivery on four political essentials" on which the success in Copenhagen would depend, was turning out to be "impossible", he said. The four essentials, are: clarity on how much industrialised countries would reduce their emissions up to 2020; clarity on what developing countries would do to limit the growth of their emissions; stable finance from industrialised nations for the developing world to mitigate climate change and adapt; and a "governance regime".

Developing nations like India are harping on historical responsibility while industrialized nations are offering token reductions, of between 17-26 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, which just aren’t enough. The 27-nation European Union has offered a cut of 20 percent by 2020 relative to its emissions in 1990. The U.S. has proposed a 17 percent reduction compared to its 2005 emissions, which would amount to about 4 percent by comparison to 1990.

Meanwhile, in attempts to protect national growth concerns, various countries have together added some 200 pages to the 21-page proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol!

Can the common man walking the road and watching the numbers racing on the carbon counter make a difference?

China takes a lead

It is not yet official but according to a high-ranking official, the Chinese government is planning to impose a carbon tax to tackle emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur oxide and wastewater. Aimed at slowing global warming, it is directed at coal and petrochemical products.

An environment tax and an energy tax are also on the anvil. The energy tax would mainly target the coal industry because the petroleum industry already pays consumption tax. When the energy tax is put into practice, companies will pay at least 40 yuan ($5.85) per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.

Not so bad after all, for the biggest polluter in the world today! Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the largest contributor to carbon emissions. China plans to build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week

Going by its announcements, China is doing a good job of the tight-rope walk between development plans and growing emissions. A February analysis by HSBC Global Research in Hong Kong projects that nearly 40 percent of China’s proposed $586 billion stimulus plan is going toward public investment in renewable energy, low-carbon vehicles, high-speed rail, an advanced electric grid, efficiency improvements, and other water-treatment and pollution controls.

This makes China, according to a recent analysis, “the largest alternative energy producer in the world in terms of installed generating capacity.”

This massive stimulus plan will spend over 3 percent of China’s 2008 gross domestic product annually in 2009 and 2010 on green investments. China has adjusted its stimulus spending slightly since the HSBC analysis and trimmed spending on water treatment and environmental cleanup, but maintained huge investments in upgrading its power infrastructure, and more than doubled investment in technical upgrading and research and development.

Clear indications of how serious China is in ‘using this economic crisis to position itself to be the world leader in efficiency, green transportation, and clean and renewable energy’. China is a leading manufacturer of photovoltaic (solar) cells, second only to Japan, and is set to be the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines by the end of 2009.

Lessons there for all aspiring powers?

Energy economy

In one of his recent addresses after becoming president, Obama declared that, ‘No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy!’ That is what we believe too. How are we addressing the challenge? Are we taking up enough measures?

A look at Obama’s ‘bold action’ to create a new American energy economy could be worth it. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is expected to put 460,000 Americans to work, with clean energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years. Double renewable energy in three years. Isn’t that worth following?

New fuel standards to reduce dependency on foreign oil which mean a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency is expected to save 2 million barrels of oil daily!

He went on to call for a global coalition to ‘protect our climate and our collective security. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world.’ And that's how Obama plans to ‘ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.’

Clearly, there is hint of ratifying Kyoto protocol if India and China go along. Will they? Should they? What do you think?

What recovery plan does India have?

Dire Straits

Going with the present trend, greenhouse gas levels around the mid-century will produce devastating long-term droughts and a sea-level rise that will persist for 1,000 years. This is regardless of how well the world curbs future emissions of carbon dioxide. Just in case you decided that we might as well continue with business as usual, from here on things are set to get worse.

Climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere much longer than other greenhouse gases.

At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the way we are putting out emissions place projections at 550 ppm by 2035, and then rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.

If carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world like southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000. This does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, which would add more to the sea level rise.

For the sub-tropics, a drop in precipitation by 10 percent could result even with carbon levels at 450 ppm. Big droughts will follow.

In the last five years, emissions have continued to grow despite warnings. Notably the west continues in its path while new entrant China has just beaten the US.

So what do we do? Blame each other? Ask the 'original perpetrators' to pay up? Does the planet care where the emissions come from?

Pinning energy

A wheel inside a wheel, or energy from energy! That kind of sums up plans by UK’s National Grid and a startup 2OC to tap energy from the gas grid in additional ways. By installing mini turbines inside the gas pipeline grid later this year, the set-up will be tested in east London and should produce 20MW by 2010.

If successful, future installations across the country could produce up to 1GW. That’s the same amount of power produced by a coal or nuclear power station. The turbo expanders will generate electricity by expanding when gas pressure is reduced. Going along, the turbo expander will be used with a combined heat and power (CHP) engine to boost its efficiency to over 70 percent.

As we have spoken of in the blog, there is a rush to tap energy from any kind of movement, like the swivelling doors at a mall or that of rushing feet on a pavement! Capturing energy even as we spend it!

Nothing complex about the concept. Drawing energy from flowing gas is just another dimension of say, tidal energy. Right? That's the beauty of concepts, they can be applied anywhere.

Going one step further would be to generate energy from virtual movements on cyberspace. (Reminds one of the scifi tales spun from taking chaos theory across time domains!) Wouldn’t Google love that? The innovator company stands accused of drawing as much power for two searches on its search engine as used to boil water in a kettle!

The power consumption of a Google search-query is so high because the company’s process sends data to numerous competing servers, sometimes thousands of miles away, in order to bring back the result as fast as possible. Is there a way to provide results at a slightly slower speed at certain times of day when search volume is lowest?

A later piece in techcrunch.com puts the whole thing in perspective by comparing emissions from a single book or a hamburger. This is the kind of pitfall when emissions alone are considered without placing it in context. What is a search on google equivalent to, in terms of a ride to the library for a book? Should emissions per se be sacrosanct? What do you think?

Meanwhile send in your suggestions for generating energy in simple ways, and we will feature them here in our blog.

The jewel under our feet

As yet another year comes to a close, it is time for a look back to examine the ways we went wrong and right, and carry the lessons forward. The buzzword like never before is, green and clean tech. Opinions and research keep vying with each other to come up with the perfect solution for an energy hungry populace, a solution that will be amenable to the planet.

Whether you believe in human-induced climate change or not, there is no escape from the fact that we are mining the planet beyond sustainability. From oil to water to minerals, human demand is outstripping availability.

It is not that the planet cannot cater to our needs. It can. It is our relentless desires that it cannot meet - for new toys and gadgets even as we mindlessly discard old ones; for food, even as we increase our waste; for water, as we don’t bother to manage and conserve.

Can we rise above national and international politics to see the big picture? That, even as we quibble, our time on the planet as a race may be fast coming to a close. Unless, we stop in our tracks and scan our lives.

Can we stop pointing fingers at each other and arrive at some fair means of ensuring comfortable lives for everyone? Do we care enough for the next generations to ‘forego’ some of our cravings?

Can we think about implementing a carbon tax, for instance? Can our political parties rise to the occasion, at the cost of votes?

Carbon tax is being considered by the US, UK and some European nations to wean away its citizens from the carbon path. Hansen (of the global warming fame!) has suggested a novel way of carbon tax that takes away from its burden. In an approach that distributes the tax collected in this way, through a dividend back to the people as personal tax cuts, etc it gives people a reason to cut down consumption of carbon intensive goods and foods!

This may be a better way than the cap and trade mechanism, which does not actually encourage carbon cuts as much as offering ways to trade. Of course, carbon tax, like any other tax will also see evaders!

Why not, for instance, impose a luxury cess on luxury goods that are high on power consumption? Surely the lower and middle class votes will not be lost! Why not actually offer some tax rebate on power consumption reduction?

News reports of higher tax on a second vehicle have been late in coming.

So much can be done. And not all of them are about climate change, as they are about learning to live within our means.

For those who aren't convinced, there is an interesting video posted on Dot Earth, which shows what an earthrise looks like from the moon. If nothing else convinces us, perhaps a look at the lonely blue jewel standing out against the cold, dark space, should send a twinge of guilt and a thrill down the spine. That is our planet there, the only home we have.

How about a different kind of new year resolution this time?

California shows the way, again

The California Air Resources Board has unanimously approved a sweeping plan for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels — an average cut of four tons of annual emissions per person — by 2020.

With rules for nearly every sector of California’s economy, the scheme will encourage investment in energy efficiency and renewables while creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs in California.

It includes strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving energy efficiency programs; implementation of California’s clean cars standards; increases in the amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the state; and, implementation of a low-carbon fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the state cleaner. More fuel-efficient cars and plug-in hybrids on showroom floors; better public transportation; housing nearer to schools and businesses; and utility rebates to make homes more energy-efficient are what the average Californian can expect.

San Jose is working hard on its Green Vision, part of which is recycling 100% of its used water by 2022. Well underway is expansion of the South Bay Water Recycling, a program that ensures water is cleaned and reused for industrial purposes to help take the load off the water table so drinking water is always available.

One way to prevent water shortages is to reduce use, and the city is providing big monetary incentives for businesses willing to cut back on water consumption. By 2020, serious water shortages in the South Bay are expected unless things change. The goal for water included in San Jose's Green Vision sets a target for 100% water recycling and reuse by 2022.

News reports talk of plunging water table levels in Bangalore. What else can one expect with the number of industries and high-rise apartments that have mushroomed in the last decade. With no action taken yet on the draft bill on mining groundwater, it’s merry-making time for racketeers who dig borewells and sell water to the residents.

Our question is: what prevents our governments from taking proactive action like the state of California? Why not link incentives to cut-backs in consumption, both of water and power? And make it real big. Why not? Why can't a Karnataka take the lead?

Isn't that a better, and cleaner way of managing demand than announcing new coal-based thermal plants? Agreed, we cannot dump coal for now but why isn't there a push for energy conservation where it is possible?

Never say die!

Recent data show how the 39 nations which ratified the Kyoto Protocol are doing in reducing carbon emissions. The result is mixed. Sixteen nations are on track to meet their obligations, while 20 are not. Before jumping to conclusions, what the data show is that reductions are due to economic and political reasons and NOT due to any action taken by any governments.

On the bad-news side is Canada whose emissions between 1990 and 2006 rose by 21 percent and that of the US by 14 percent.

Meanwhile, the debate on climate change is not over as far as some people are concerned. New York will see a continued debate in January on ‘Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money’.

While it is no more about the nature of climate change, it is all about technology and costs! Arguments range from those that claim alternative energy production is only for the wealthy, and that the poor (including a ‘depressed’ US!) can ill-afford this, to questions on whether it is about technology at all, or more about social or political?!

There are those who agree that the globe is warming but insist that there is no cause for alarm. More important is to address the poverty and food issues. One such was the late Michael Crichton, author of well known novels like Andromeda Strain, Congo, Jurassic Park, Prey, State of Fear, etc. (Crichton passed away last week.)

Crichton believed that alarmists have laid siege to the world since long… All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

There is a lot of misinformation out there for sure. One only needs to read contradicting reports from authentic sources.

What do you think? Should we address the immediate challenges facing humankind and forget the long-term one? Or can we do both? Do we forget climate change and focus on sustainable living instead?

Blow for US coal plants

In a move that signals the start of the clean energy in the US, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

What this means is that 30 permits for new coal-fired power plants in the seven state directly regulated by the EPA's permitting process, plus projects on all Indian Reservations will immediately die because of this ruling.

The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

But for those still addicted to coal for various reasons, to the rescue has come the mantra of ‘clean coal’. But this is just commercial propaganda, going by an article in The Guardian. It says: Sure you can clean it up a bit – though the toxins you've taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.

The most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), while advocating the technology as a way out of the imbroglio, concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn't come on stream until 2030 at the earliest. The technology is still not perfected and also is expensive.

Coal will remain the dominant energy source in India in coming decades. Priority naturally is to extend electricity access to the 400 million without this power. This was cited by the World Bank when it sanctioned the $450 million loan for the Tata Mundra mega power project early this year. The Bank Group is working to balance these energy needs with concerns about climate change.

The IFC noted that it would support only highly efficient coal-fired projects with a relatively lower carbon footprint than existing coal plants.

When it comes to coal consumption, no one can beat China. World coal consumption reached a record 3,090 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2006, an increase of 4.5 percent over 2005. China led world coal use with 39 percent of the total. The United States followed with 18 percent. The European Union and India accounted for 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

According to data, five new coal-fired generators with a combined capacity of 600 megawatts came online in the United States in 2006, while India added 930 megawatts of capacity. In startling contrast, China brought online about as much coal power capacity each week as the United States and India together did over the entire year, adding an unprecedented 90 gigawatts in 2006.

So what is the solution to balance energy and climate?