All set for coal tax

The Indian government will start levying the Clean Energy Cess, or coal tax, on all the coal mined in the country or imported from July 1, 2010. A tax of Rs. 50 would be levied on every tonne of coal mined in the country as well as that imported from abroad. The Indian government announced the coal tax in order to generate funding for the research, development and deployment of cleaner and renewable energy technologies.

As of April 1 2009, India’s coal reserves stood at 267 billion tonnes. There has been a steady increase in the coal production over the years. The government has a target of mining 461 million tonnes in 2007-08 as against the actual production of 430 million tonnes in 2006-07.

Coal is the primary source of power generation in India with more than 70 percent of the total electricity generated coming from coal-fired power plants. However, with India already committed to reducing its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, coal is not the way. The government must invest heavily in the renewable energy technologies. Therefore, the need of a National Clean Energy Fund.

Kick the carbon

Phew! Fifa will send 2.75 milion tons of carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere! That is the equivalent of emissions from over 1 million cars driving on the roads in a year.

And that’s six times the size of the last World Cup that was held in Germany four years ago.

According to a Norwegian government study, when FIFA chose South Africa as the host for the World Cup, the country was faced with the enormous task of having to build entirely new stadiums, whilst Germany used many existing venues, meaning massive amounts of carbon-intensive concrete. When it comes to construction, the cement industry is one of the main producers of carbon dioxide, with a ton of carbon being released for every ton of cement made.

On top of that, an increase in energy production (which is heavily coaled based in Africa) has seen more carbon emissions pumped into the atmosphere, especially when compared to Germany with its renewable energy installations. Compared to other European nations, South Africa also has poorer energy efficiency especially in buildings such as hotels. With a massive increase in accommodation use over the four week period, it is estimated that poor energy efficiency will be three and a half times worse per person for the South African World Cup than in Germany.

Well, we can't stop mega events like Fifa for climate considerations, as the fans will say. the least that can be done is to look at carbon offsets. South Africa has constructed the Gautrain, a high-speed rail network that will transport fans around the country. There are also projects to reduce fossil fuel consumption such as a US$10 million scheme to install solar panels and efficient lights on the streets, stoplights and billboards of the six host cities. Further efforts to reduce the footprint has seen the government initiate substantial offset programs, including urban tree planting.

But wait, Fifa also has its green points in its jerseys! NIKE recycled nearly 13 million plastic bottles, totaling nearly 254,000 kg of polyester waste, from landfill sites in JAPAN & TAIWAN, enough to cover more than 29 football pitches, into Polyester and finally into jerseys (see pic). Nine National teams (Brasil, The Netherlands, Portugal, USA, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Serbia, and Slovenia) in the FIFA World Cup Football in South Africa are using these recycled jerseys. If the bottles used to make the jerseys were laid end-to-end they would cover more than 3,000 kms, which is more than the entire coastline of South Africa.

Money is not a problem anymore

In what could be a leading initiative, State Bank of India plans to help farmers buy fuel-saving equipment that could generate as many as 25 million carbon credits, potentially one of the country’s biggest offset projects to date, according to a Bloomberg report. State Bank has agreed to lend Rs 17 crore to 20,000 farmers for plants that convert cow dung and kitchen waste into clean cooking gas, reducing their need to burn fossil fuels.

The scheme will be expanded to 500,000 farmers over the next three years.

Soot is believed to be the biggest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide, according to the Worldwatch Institute. About 60% of households in India burn wood, manure and crop waste for cooking and heating.

The farmers will receive income from selling UN-certified emission reduction credits generated by the project to pay back their loans. The project may earn as many as 2.5 million credits annually for 10 years.

UN CER credits traded at around 13 euros on the European Climate Exchange.

The State Bank project is under validation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the last step before approval. More banks can join to finance many other clean energy programmes and demand side management programmes. Finance issues can be sorted out this way!

In the US, a social enterprise Energy in Common facilitates individuals to provide small loans to the poor who plan to go green. The EIC calculates the carbon offset from the loan and sells the same to the lenders. They plan to extend green energy access to 15 million people in 5 years!

It is the right time for innovations in financing.

Can we save the forests?

Thomas Lovejoy, biodiversity chair of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, and biodiversity advisor to the World Bank, says the Amazon is "very close to a tipping point." By 2075 the forest could shrink to 65% of its original size.

The tipping point for the Amazon is 20% deforestation, and we are currently at 17-18% deforestation. Main factors in the decline include climate change, deforestation and fire. Just what the IPCC 4th assessment report said.

If fears of climate change are not enough for nations to save their forests, then perhaps making it a business prospect may help. A mechanism to protect forests by steering millions of dollars from the developed world to poor countries, known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), was endorsed by governments in Copenhagen.

Protecting forests is a cheaper and quicker way to curb emissions than by switching from coal or natural gas to low-carbon energy sources like nuclear, wind or solar power. All you need to do is pay up some money to some third world country for conserving some forest and your mark sheet places you on top for reducing emissions!

But well, though controversial, offsets can help protect forests. Scientists estimate that nearly 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation, as trees are slashed and burned to make way for agriculture. Standing forests also act as carbon sinks by absorbing CO2.

Neither afforestation (planting trees) nor avoided deforestation (stopping trees from getting cut down) were part of the Kyoto climate agreement, largely because of opposition that felt forest protection could not be reliably monitored and verified and that offsets would allow polluters to avoid mending their ways.

“Additionality” (how do you know the forests would not have been saved anyway?) is another factor.

But things have changed with the support of Nobel Peace prize winner Wangari Matthai, the founder of the Green Belt Movement, which planted trees across Africa, as also the WWF. How does one regulate forestry projects to insure that they are real, verifiable and long-lasting? For one, by involving poor communities to protect and monitor forests.

Like most ideas, this one too two sides to it. But perhaps one needs to weigh out the advantages against the negatives. There are many big companies looking to forest offsets to establish their green credentials. The whole idea has spawned an entire industry of project developers, carbon traders, verifiers and regulators in the US, both to create and manage offsets. Green jobs?? Right.