“As we sit here in these negotiations, even as we vacillate and procrastinate, the death toll is rising. There is massive and widespread devastation. Hundreds of thousands of people have been rendered without homes. And the ordeal is far from over... heartbreaking tragedies like this are not unique to the Philippines, because the whole world, especially developing countries struggling to address poverty and achieve social and human development, confront these same realities. I appeal to all, please, no more delays, no more excuses. Please, let Doha be remembered as the place where we found the political will to turn things around. Please, let 2012 be remembered as the year the world found the courage, the will, to take responsibility for the future we want. I ask of all of us here: if not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?” – Naderev Saño, Chief Negotiator for the Philippines speaking on the devastation wreaked on his country by typhoon Bopha at the climate negotiations in Doha.
Climate change – the result of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – is not a new discussion. The call for a reduction in atmospheric carbon began as early as 1896, when Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, said that rising CO2 levels would lead to a global temperature increase of four degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century. Today, though climate change has become the buzzword for environment action and there is much more awareness, we are not any nearer to making our planet a safer place.
Sanctuary, in recognition of the crucial role wildernesses play in both the mitigation of and adaptation to global warming, has been at the forefront of stirring national discussion on the imperative of resolving the climate crisis.
In January 2013, we hosted SunPlugged – Sanctuary’s demonstration that there is, in fact, a better way to live and that solutions to environmental problems are both accessible and cost-effective. Held from January 18 to 20, 2013, at Bhavan’s College, Mumbai, SunPlugged was a three-day music, art and theatre festival that was powered entirely by renewable energy, an exhibition of the immense power of the sun and a new way forward for climate change-resilient cities.
In our special climate change cover story, you hear from climate and wildlife luminaries from around the world – Vance Martin of the WILD Foundation, Bill McKibben of 350.org and Lord Nicholas Stern, among others. For more information on climate change, SunPlugged, and how you can be a part of the solution, visit www.sanctuaryasia.com.
Climate change – a term formerly used to describe any change in a climate system is now the generic term for anthropogenic global warming – fluctuations in the world’s climate caused by increased greenhouse gases. While changes in the Earth’s climate are not new – the world has seen ice ages and warming periods before – it is the scale at which humans are altering our atmosphere that is alarming. And climate change has a very tangible effect on human life. Go back to what Naderev Saño said – his statement clearly outlines the massive humanitarian impact of global warming, not limited to typhoons in certain parts of the country, hurricanes across the U.S., or floods across the U.K. (see Climate Watch on page 21). Climate change affects us all in a variety of ways – from the poorest of the poor in human society to the wild denizens in our forests. Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, illustrates this beautifully. He says, “I believe the struggles against poverty and climate change are inextricably linked, while the solutions are the same. More equality and the equitable sharing of the planet’s finite resources are our only chance to save the planet for the future. We in civil society have to believe there is a new pathway. We have to have the confidence to tread this new path; indeed, to demand this new path. We must take the leap of faith that says the strategies may need to be fluid, but the objectives are abundantly clear. We need to organise ourselves and work together in new and more transparent ways. We have to break down the barriers that exist, and realise that our struggles and causes are not independent. They are not about the people or the planet; they are in fact one single common cause – justice. Justice is applicable to all of life: human, plant and animal.”
Lord Nicholas Stern is one of the most respected names in developmental economics the world over. In his words, “Any development path that ignores the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to lead to degradation or loss of biodiversity and the ecosystems services crucial for sustaining the livelihoods of villagers.”
Photo:Michele Mossop
Action on managing climate change is urgent, but the world is dithering. One of the major reasons for delay is a poor understanding of the magnitude of the scale of the risks, and of the dangers of delay. On current plans and intentions, the world is headed for emissions that are consistent with average temperatures around three, four, five degrees Celsius, or more, above those of the mid-19th century. These temperatures are far outside the range of experience of modern civilisations and would likely transform the relation between all species and the planet, including humans. There are strong possibilities of disruptions to climate and local habitats, including the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems crucial for stable communities, which would require hundreds of millions of people to move, with risks of severe and extended conflicts, particularly in the subcontinent. Many of the great advances in development over the last few decades in health and education would likely be reversed. The risks are immense.
The alternative low-carbon, more resource-efficient path, and the transition towards it, is likely to be attractive, dynamic and full of innovation, discovery and opportunity, with key benefits over and above the reduced risks of climate change, particularly in biodiversity and ecosystems; this alternative path is far more attractive than high-carbon business-as-usual. It gives our children and grandchildren a chance not only to see something of the natural world that we have seen, but also to avoid the severe risks associated with damage to the ecosystems on which we all depend.
Forests influence weather systems and precipitation, and estimates indicate that they store more carbon than the atmosphere. Global deforestation adds somewhere in the region of five to six billion tonnes of CO2 each year to the atmosphere, perhaps more, and accounts for around 30 per cent of developing country emissions. India’s forests and trees cover over 20 per cent of its land mass, or around 80 million ha., and sequester as much as 10 per cent of India’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions; at the rate of five to ten U.S. dollars per tonne of CO2 (arguably, the appropriate price for CO2 should be much higher than this), the carbon stock locked in India’s forests is worth around U.S. dollars 120-240 billion. A range of processed and unprocessed products derived from forests contribute around 1.7 per cent of India’s GDP.
It is not just forest area, but the health of forests that is also crucial for India. Healthy forests protect biodiversity and support ecosystems that purify the air, assist with pollination, maintain the health of rivers that deposit fertile soils, reduce soil erosion and the severity of floods and droughts. They also provide employment, food, materials and economic and social benefits for local communities. India has around 170,000 ‘forest fringe’ villages, roughly 30 per cent of India’s 600,000 or so villages. Though there are no official census figures for the number of people dependent on forests, estimates range from 275 million to 350-400 million. Forest ‘fringe villages’ are also home to a large share of India’s poorest people, around 40 per cent of those living in poverty, and a significant share of India’s tribal population. Whilst none of these figures can be offered with great precision it is clear that the numbers involved are very large. Forest ‘fringe village’ communities depend upon forest resources for their livelihood, including: wood for fuel, cooking and income (through selling); assortments of fruits, flowers, roots, shoots and leaves for food and medicines; materials for agricultural implements, house construction and fencing; fodder and grazing (grass and leaves) for livestock; and the collection of a range of marketable non-timber forest products. Any development path that ignores the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to lead to degradation and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services crucial for sustaining the livelihoods of villagers. This could destabilise village communities and threaten their development and poverty reduction aims.
India’s forests are also important for the world. They support a large share of the world’s biodiversity, including 12 per cent of the world’s flora and 13 per cent of the known species of birds. Indian forests represent one of the 12 mega-biodiversity regions of the world and India’s Western Ghats and the Eastern Himalaya are amongst the 32 biodiversity hotspots on Earth.
The alternative low-carbon paths recognise that managing climate change and overcoming poverty are the key challenges of this century and that if we fail on one, we fail on the other. The alternative paths can combine emission reductions (mitigation), adaptation to the climate change that is unavoidable, development and poverty reduction, and the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. The sustainable way to fight poverty is the only one which can succeed over the medium term.
Such paths will be strongly community-based in both actions and outcomes. For example, India has made significant efforts to involve local communities in the sustainable management of forests through Joint Forest Management (JFM) initiatives. The idea of JFM is to enable poor people to maintain forest based livelihoods by utilising their indigenous knowledge to sustainably manage forests with assistance from the Government of India. Such initiatives can work only if communities collaborate and have the support of government institutions.
Manikpur and Padikona villages in Madhya Pradesh, and many others are examples of emerging communities that have bettered their livelihoods through sustainable forest conservation. In 1987, the forests around these villages were severely degraded with only rootstock remaining. Over several years, the forest was regenerated and protected and its density and health greatly improved. This enabled the villages to become self-sufficient in meeting their fuelwood, bamboo, agricultural and small timber requirements. They are also collecting non-timber forest products through community planned and managed nurseries and tree plantations.
Social benefits are also evident from community forest management programmes. In the Sabharkantha district in Gujarat, social benefits from forest management included greater participation of women (accounting for around 60 per cent of the labour force), scheduled castes and tribes. Landless labourers and farmers were seen to improve their stocks through protecting their forest lands. Economic benefits included greater wages from employment, fodder collection and income from non-timber forest product collection. Such programmes can help protect women who might have to forage for firewood further afield or on their own and the time saved can give girls greater opportunities for education.
The felling of forests in India is an issue of global significance today. Despite the identification of major policies to reverse this trend, those in power appear to be turning a blind eye to the imperative of protecting India’s last few natural ecosystems.
Photo:Nilam Bhandarkar
If the world is to act on the scale necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, the emissions arithmetic implies all countries must take stronger action. Keeping temperature rise to below two degrees Celsius requires total annual world emissions to fall to around 32-33 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030, from the 50 billion tonnes today, but current projections indicate that developing country emissions alone are likely to be around 37-38 billion tonnes in 2030, with a world total which remains over 50 billion. Such a path is consistent with a four degrees Celsius temperature rise, rather than a two degree rise. This implies stronger action will be required from all developing countries, even in the unlikely situation that developed countries reduced their emissions to zero by 2030 (they are more likely to be well over 10 billion tonnes). This is a deeply inequitable story, since the rich countries grew rich on high-carbon growth and the poor countries are hit earliest and hardest by climate change. The rich countries have a great responsibility to set a strong example themselves, including providing support for developing countries’ transitions to low-carbon growth and development paths. Delaying action in developing countries because of this inequity will only lead to further delay in stronger action globally and perpetuate and lock-in a high carbon path that is the most destructive and inequitable outcome of all. The low-carbon alternative presents real opportunities to approach development in a different way, one which is both more sustainable and equitable.
The economic arguments and environmental arguments are intertwined; they are not separate. An attempt at high-carbon growth is bad economics, catastrophic to the environment and living standards, and will fundamentally undermine the fight against poverty.
Lord Nicholas Stern is a professor, economist and President of the British Academy.
J&K’s Sheshnag glacier, captured here in all its glory, was relatively unstudied till recent times. With recent studies highlighting that glaciers are melting at unprecendented rates, we can expect a period of repeated, extreme flooding followed by drought conditions, creating new challenges for hundreds of millions of people.
Photo:K.J. Avinash
William Ernest “Bill” McKibben is an American environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impact of global warming. His work is creating widespread impact. He states simply: “The science is clear – we already have five times as much coal, oil and gas in our reserves as even the most conservative government or scientist thinks is safe to burn.”
Photo Courtesy:www.350.org
1) Above all, governments need to start leaving carbon in the ground. The science is clear – we already have five times as much coal, oil and gas in our reserves as even the most conservative government or scientist thinks is safe to burn. Therefore, it’s nonsensical to look for more; we’ve got to leave most of those reserves safely in the soil.
2) Quickly changing, in the rich world, the ways we use energy. The overdeveloped world uses far more energy than it needs to, and it generates it in dangerous ways. We need to go on a war-time footing to push energy efficiency, and the rapid conversion to renewables. Germany, which on some days generates half its power from solar panels inside its borders, shows that this is possible; all that is lacking is political will.
3) In the poor world, we desperately need people and nations to pioneer a new path toward distributed renewable energy and away from centralised fossil energy. India can still make the choice, for instance, whether it wants village-scale solar, or big, dirty, centralised coal-fired power. The future of the world will hinge, in part, on the solution it chooses.
Bill McKibben is an environmentalist, educator, journalist and Founder of 350.org.
As the Executive Director of Greenpeace India, Samit Aich is at the forefront of the battle to protect central India’s forests from shortsighted coal mining. In his words, “we have a moral responsibility to future generations to de-carbonise our own economy with all possible speed.”
Photo Courtesy:Greenpeace
India will be one of the countries worst hit by climate change, despite the fact that we did almost nothing to create the problem in the first place. But climate change is governed by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics apply equally to the CEO of Shell, a farmer facing drought, or an adivasi family whose forest has been cleared for a coal mine. The only difference is that farmers and adivasis do not have big bank accounts to fall back on when a climate disaster strikes. India’s billion plus population is already feeling the impacts of variable rainfall, resulting in both droughts and floods, falling crop yields, melting glaciers and scorching summers.
But climate change also creates opportunities. India has a chance to invest in the future and by doing so, position herself to play a leadership role in the international community. The last couple of years have seen a growing realisation that coal comes at a huge cost and it cannot guarantee India’s energy security, necessitating the rapid growth of the renewable energy (RE) sector and a number of grassroots initiatives to conserve energy and lower emissions. While these attempts do not match the scale of the challenge facing us, they are signs of positive change. Failure to embrace this change will see us cede the race for the future to others, including China.
If we want to limit the worst impacts of climate change, and position India favourably in the technological and economic battle for leadership in the 21st century, we need to:
Invest in the energy systems of the future: India has sufficient solar and wind energy potential to meet its electricity demands several times over, as attested by numerous studies including Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution India. While the RE sector is growing fast, it still faces institutional hurdles, for example, the lack of a compliance mechanism for renewable purchase obligation on state utilities. Setting a mandatory and integrated RE target of 20 per cent by 2020 will be a win-win both for the RE industry and for an economy facing electricity shortages. The current target of 15 per cent RE by 2020 is not ambitious and does not correspond to the RE technology developments on ground. The scope for decentralised renewable energy is even greater, with several hundred million yet to get secure electricity from the grid. Rather than seeking to extend the grid, investing in off-grid or mini- grid RE-based solutions can deliver power to this population faster and at an economically competitive rate.
Energy efficiency is the cheapest source of energy: India’s energy savings potential through increased efficiency is massive. The Perform Achieve Trade (PAT) scheme for heavy industry and efficiency ratings for appliances are a start, but efficiency measures currently in place are just scraping the surface of what is possible. Upgrading the efficiency of ceiling fans alone will save us 2072 GWh by 2020.
Preparing for the end of coal and other fossil fuels: Coal is destroying our forests, displacing communities, poisoning our children and causing climate change. And we have at most a few decades worth of coal reserves left. Instead of flogging a dying horse, we need to start shifting away from coal. This means a moratorium on new mines, strict implementation of the Forest Rights Act in coal mining areas, declaration of “no go” zones for mines in important forest areas and a withdrawal of subsidies currently enjoyed by coal and other fossil fuels.
Hold the industrialised countries accountable: India must play a leadership role in international climate negotiations, and ensure that a legally binding, ambitious and fair treaty is in place by 2015. We have been happy to criticise the U.S., Canada and other “do-nothing” nations, but have been secretly relieved that their weak commitments give us an excuse to do nothing ourselves. And we continue to “hide behind the poor”, using our low per capita CO2 emissions to justify inaction. This stalemate has gone on too long, and billions are now suffering because of it. The moral and economic imperatives for Indian action are clear. We must be vociferous in demanding steep cuts in CO2 emissions from the developed world, but at the same time we have a moral responsibility to future generations to de-carbonise our own economy with all possible speed, starting now. Doing so by following the principles of decentralisation, sustainability and equity will also improve the living conditions of millions of poor, and protect both ecosystems and traditional livelihoods.
Samit Aich is the Executive Director of Greenpeace India.
An expert in international nature conservation, photography and journalism, Vance Martin aptly sums up the issue of climate change saying “Our climate is on steroids.”
Photo Courtesy:The Wild Foundation
“Our climate is on steroids” is the catchy metaphor used by Dr. Gerald Meehl of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado. One of those rare scientists with a flair for communication, Dr. Meehl makes a good comparison when he likens greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to steroids in the body of a champion athlete. Steroids alone do not create the champion competitor – rather, they create an enhanced environment in which other factors such as training, diet, and attitude are better able to combine to cause the effect. Similarly, while greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do lead to a rise in temperature, they also, more importantly, create an enhanced situation in which other existing phenomena such as weather patterns like La Niňa/El Niňo, jet stream fluctuations, etc., can interact in varied and more extreme ways to create what is called climate change.
While this metaphor is apt, it only describes the condition we face, not the cause of it. In response, you might say that the cause of climate change is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is the physical cause, yes, but of course there is something deeper that we need to address, i.e., the human activities that fuel the release of these greenhouse gases, which in turn hasten climate change. Actions such as political awareness, legislation and policy are important, but they still only address the symptoms. If we want to cure the condition, we need to address
its cause.
To get to the root of this situation (and subsequently create a more effective solution), let’s shift our metaphor to one of illness and cure. The human race is addicted to growth, greed, and consumerism with a narrow outlook that regards nature simply as a supplier of materials and services expressly designed to satisfy personal wealth and pleasure. Many of us treat nature as though it exists for our benefit, period.
Of course, everyone needs a measure of prosperity and a decent quality of life, but the system of assuring this cannot be one-sided, from supplier to consumer to landfill. Nature operates in cycles that physically replenish, restore, and evolve it: the perfect model for sustainable living. Humans need to recognise and value the source of the materials and services they use. Not recognising and responding practically to this reality results in continued, narcissistic, self-inflicted harm… the definition of addiction and a form of insanity.
We can be certain that physical deterioration, social disruption, decreased lifespan… a series of crazily varied, increasingly challenging, but not unpredictable events, will follow. Erratic behaviour, mood swings, and personal issues will increase, and the insanity will become noticeable. In the one-way relationship model between nature and human society, the effect of the human addiction to wealth, greed, and consumerism is the production of greenhouse gases – the inevitable by-product of the type of energy we use and the environmental destruction required to satisfy our desires. Unpredictable weather patterns, droughts, insect infestations, and other such things become commonplace. Wild times become the norm.
Photo Courtesy:The Wild Foundation
Fearing climate change might well get the juices flowing and some initial solutions started. But fear alone is a short-term jolt, and if sustained over the long-term, always leads to resentment, irrationality and/or despair.
I choose to rather view climate change as a type of intervention not dissimilar to that of an addict’s family intervening to cure him/her. We could be in the midst of a “Gaian intervention” in which the collective intelligence (and compassion) of nature we call Mother Earth – who provides the materials and services that make life possible for her entire, large and diverse family – uses the huge, almost overpowering force of climate change to get the attention, and hopefully cure the addiction of, a human species whose behaviour has violated the family trust and security.
Once the attention is focussed on the core cause – the addictive behaviour – the next part of the solution gets even wilder. Protecting and interconnecting wilderness areas is a direct, ethical, scientifically sound and inexpensive part of any overall strategy to address climate change. Here are a few of the many reasons:
l Mitigation – i.e., Leaving wild nature alone and thereby stopping (or slowing down) climate change before it accelerates. Fully, 25 per cent of the carbon released into the atmosphere comes from destroying wild nature, such as burning forests and converting land for agriculture or construction. This amount will only increase once scientists quantify the release of even more potent greenhouse gases, like methane and nitrous oxide that are released when peatlands, tundra, and wetlands are destroyed. This is one of the most effective, low-tech, and inexpensive things we
could do.
l Adaptation – i.e., helping nature and human society react successfully to climate change that is already occurring. The changes upon us are already forcing (or allowing) species to move towards cooler or warmer areas, up, down and across a land or seascape. By protecting and interconnecting wild areas, we create corridors and reserves to allow for these movements, preserve biodiversity, and more.
l Resiliency – i.e., enhancing nature’s ability to respond to stress. When anything is under stress it calls on its reserves to meet the challenge, similar to saving cash in the bank for those unpredictable, but inevitable emergencies in life. Wildernesses are Earth’s cash in the bank, so when something like climate change increases the stress, Earth can draw on the services provided by wildernesses to withstand, respond and innovate.
The key role of wild nature in an effective climate change strategy was the motivator for The Message from Merida (http://bit.ly/Zv8aSJ) that emerged from WILD9, the 9th World Wilderness Congress (WWC) in Mexico in 2009 (www.wild9.org). After being used around the world as part of the NGO input to the Kyoto Protocol process, it is now being further expanded as part of the growing international movement of Nature Needs Half (www.natureneedshalf.org) that will form one part of the 10th WWC (Spain, October 2013, www.wild10.org). WILD10 is working to ‘Make the World a Wilder Place’. Join the movement!
Unsustainable agricultural practices like strip cropping and shifting agriculture are no longer viable in a warming world. Strategies like joint forest management too must learn to respect biodiversity, while embracing organic farming on abutting landholdings.
Photo:Sandipan Chatterjee
The “Gaian intervention” is our opportunity to take the first crucial step in curing our addiction – recognising it and “owning” it. Then we can get on with the healing. In the process, we will learn that going wild is not going crazy… it’s the right and best thing to do.
Vance G. Martin is President of The WILD Foundation www.wild.org.
As an expert on India’s dams, rivers and water conservation, Himanshu Thakkar’s words are well-worth heeding when he says, “Until it is creditably established that the potential benefits from existing large dams have been exhausted and that all sub-MW scale hydro projects and local solar power options have been exhausted, there is no justification for even one more new large dam.”
Photo:Alwar Johad
There is a famous jingle, favourite among the advocates of big hydro projects: Hydro is green, hydro is clean, hydro is cheap and hydro is renewable! The Union and state governments and the power sector establishments in India have been blindly pushing large hydro projects even in our changing climate context as if they are good in themselves. See the graph on the facing page that shows the rapid increase in installed capacity of large hydro projects in India. However, there has been no credible performance appraisal of these projects in India and a thorough assessment of whether they are worth the massive environmental destruction they wreak.
A South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) analysis of the performance of big hydropower projects in India shows that a mind boggling 89 per cent of operating projects do not generate power at the promised rates at which they were sanctioned. In fact, half of the under-performing projects were measured at below 50 per cent of the promised generation. Moreover, in the last two decades, the actual generation per MW of installed capacity has reduced by over 20 per cent (see graph on the facing page). There are many reasons for this: Overdevelopment, unviable capacities, unrealistically optimistic hydrological projections, poor project appraisals, lack of proper maintenance, silting of reservoirs and precious little being done to reduce the impacts are just a few.
One of the most important unique selling propositions of hydropower projects is that they can provide peaking energy. However, there is no assessment of how much power generated by the existing hydropower projects is providing peaking power. Unless we know that, we cannot even start to see as to what can be done to improve that performance.
There is sufficient evidence to show, even from the official agencies like the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), that a lot of hydropower projects are indeed acting as base load stations when they could have been used for peaking power (The power demand in our grid is not uniform across the day and across the seasons. Generally, for 6-10 hours in the morning and evening, the demand for electricity is high and goes down during the rest of the day. The storage of a large quantity of electricity is not an economic proposition yet and thermal and nuclear power stations cannot be put on or off with the surging or declining power demand. However, hydropower projects can be put on or off within very short notice. This quality of hydropower projects can help in providing peaking power). More importantly, until we undertake this exercise and ensure that we get the optimum benefits from existing projects, where is the justification for more hydropower projects?
There is something else. Large reservoirs are a source of greenhouse gas emissions. The advocacy of hydropower projects does not take into account the fact that their reservoirs are often significant sources of methane, a greenhouse gas whose potency is about 21 times that of carbon dioxide. A rough estimate by SANDRP showed that they could be the reason for up to a fifth of India’s total contribution towards climate change. Such emissions, as yet are not part of the decision-making process, cost benefit analysis, environment impact assessment or the calculations of a country’s total contribution to climate change.
Of course, decision makers, including those in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Planning Commission and our Water Resources establishments do not take into account climate change when investing in large dams. Nor do they calculate the damage caused by dams on natural ecosystems, which science confirms is critical to our ability to cope with a changing climate.
Typically, dam engineers are comfortable studying historical water data after which they decide on a flow rate that will make for an optimal dam project. But history no longer offers a reliable guide in times of global warming. As the hydrological cycle can respond dramatically to even small climate shifts, planning dams in a business-as-usual manner will prove ecologically and financially disastrous, without fulfilling the purpose of such large, multi-decade, water-infrastructure works. Projects such as India’s Interlinking of Rivers proposals, or China’s South-North Water Transfer Project are beyond the scope of long-term planning without a stable climate to rely on. Even existing projects and their designs and operations need to be reassessed because climate change seriously impacts inflow characteristics and such factors as the probable maximum floods to which dams may be subjected. And, of course, large projects, particularly in the Himalaya, entail greater risks and are more disaster prone than ever before in the context of climate change.
The map shows the hydropower dams already in existence and those under construction in the Alaknanda River Basin, as well as their installed capacity for power generation.
Photo Courtesy:South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People
Typically, proponents of the large hydro agenda have been using the fact that some 300-400 million people in India do not have access to power. Their postulation is that large hydro can help bridge the gap. But the track record of large hydro belies this hope, as power benefits have not been delivered either to the project affected people or those living in the close proximity of the projects.
Nevertheless, existing hydro projects could provide a huge opportunity in terms of squeezing better and more optimum benefits from them. This the Planning Commission also accepts. Surprisingly, 95 per cent of India’s 5,100 large dams do not even have a hydropower component. Should this potential not be tapped before setting up new hydro projects? This is what the U.S. has chosen to do, rather than constructing expensive, ecologically harmful new large dams. In a changing climate scenario, a nation’s water resources must be flexible enough to cope with changing rainfall patterns and water demands.
India has no option but to undertake a serious review of its large hydro agenda, which was laid down long before planners were even minimally aware of the true impact of climate change on such hydro projects.
Projects below 25 MW installed capacity in India enjoy the renewable tag and get lucrative incentives, the latest one being tradable CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits and Renewable Energy Certificates. These projects are assumed to be environmentally benign and do not even require Environment or Social Impact Assessments (EIA), Management Plans or Environmental clearances, leave alone monitoring and compliance. But such assumptions are completely wrong. Small hydro projects can have serious social and environmental impacts and our laws need to recognise this. However, tiny projects, of capacities up to 1 MW, when propelled and managed by communities, can be the exceptions. But even here general approval process and quality check is always advisable.
Even for projects that require an EIA, it is well known how shoddy the impact assessments are. An honest EIA is an oxymoron in India. Compliance of the management plans or clearance conditions is a farce since there is no one to monitor, nor are there any consequences for violations. Each river has a large number of projects, but a credible Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) is yet to be seen. Typically, CIA is done by agencies like WAPCOS Limited (see: http://wapcos.gov.in/Home/Index.aspx), which has a poor track record and suffers serious issues of conflict of interest. All this implies we do not even know the full costs of big hydro, nor do we know who pays these costs. For those in the know, developers and decision makers benefit, while the long-suffering people of India pay the cost, either as victims of displacement and usurpation of resources, or as tax payers who are ripped off by cartels set up to milk public funds.
All this must be viewed in the context of the new, some would say obscene, thrust of massive bumper-to-bumper large hydro projects on Himalayan rivers. Ironically, this earthquake and erosion-prone mountainous region rich in biodiversity is likely to emerge as one of the highest dam densities in the world. This game of blind man’s bluff becomes all the more deadly when melting glaciers, landslides and deforestation combine to magnify the already disastrous impact of a changing climate.
Summing up, like sharp salesmen, proponents of large hydro projects and reservoirs position their pet projects as climate solutions. Such misguided advocacy, promoted by those who have much to gain from such contracts, damages our national interest. Until it is creditably established that the potential benefits from existing large dams have been exhausted and that all sub-MW scale hydro projects and local solar power options have been exhausted, there is no justification for even one more new large dam project. There is also misguided advocacy, initiated by the World Bank, for increasing storage capacity mainly through large dams, but this misses the point that there is a huge scope for underground and local small scale surface water storage capacity that is yet to be harnessed.
None of India’s big ticket hydro schemes are serious about addressing climate realities as they relate to large dams. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), the National Water Mission or the National Mission on Himalayan Ecosystems, and the 12th Five Year Plan are basically engaged in business-as-usual on this front, allowing blind advocacy to rule the day. It is in such hands that the fate of India’s ecosystems, natural resources and the livelihoods of millions of people lie.
Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com) works with the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in).
Jennifer Scarlott, a New York based activist and nature-lover, states that: “In 2013, it is time to accept, once and for all, that there is no difference between the atom divided for energy, and the atom divided for war.” The arguments against nuclear power far outweigh those in their favour, and should be treated with caution.
Photo Courtesy:www.newknowledge.org
Homo sapiens is in a bind. Homo sapiens post-industrialis is sometimes a little concerned about the mess he has made of the planet, but would like to clean it up without changing the consumptive practices that created the mess in the first place. Homo sapiens developus wants and needs to improve his standard of living, but is hard-pressed to figure out how to do so without adding to the carbon burden threatening to destroy the planet’s climate.
Enter Jeffrey Sachs, erstwhile knight of the free market and director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. According to Sachs, the scale of the climate crisis is so severe, and the capacity of renewable energy sources to replace carbon-emitting sources so low, that the only alternative is to turn to nuclear energy. “We won’t meet the carbon targets if nuclear is taken off the table,” Sachs said at the May 2012 annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in the Philippines. It is important to note that Sachs’ vision of holding the line on climate change means holding the global level of carbon emissions at 450 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere.
Achievement of the 450 ppm target, however, would not be a solution but a failure, since it would result in mean global temperature increases of more than 2 degrees Celsius, a disastrous scenario for planet Earth, due to the likelihood of fast feedback effects.
Western leaders continue to spin their wheels looking for panaceas to the climate crisis, and nuclear power is always there, with its seeming promise of limitless growth at no environmental cost. But as U.K. environmentalist and writer Jonathon Porritt said in response to Sachs’ demand for more nuclear power, “Nuclear power cannot possibly deliver – primarily for economic reasons. Nuclear reactors are massively expensive. They take a long time to build. And even when they’re up and running, they’re nothing like as reliable as the industry would have us believe.”
Sanctuary readers can explore the economics of nuclear power for themselves. The information is at your fingertips. Were the world to turn exclusively to nuclear power to meet its growing energy needs, a new plant would need to open every two weeks. And of course, even though nuclear plants are not carbon-emitters, enormous amounts of carbon must be burned to build and operate them.
The effect of mining on India’s forested landscapes is dire, and for the most part, irreversible. Not only this, the loss of livelihoods negates any claimed benefits from the mining of coal from such fragile ecosystems.
Photo:Avinash Khule
The economic argument against nuclear power is open and shut. What the developed world must come to grips with is that a solution to the climate crisis and continued economic growth, are incompatible. Number one. Number two, what nearly every country in the world that continues to flirt with the seeming promise of the atom must face, is that the threat posed by nuclear power to the planet’s living systems should be considered as dangerous as that posed by climate change. The post-tsunami meltdowns at the Fukushima plant in Japan are ongoing. Radioactivity does not observe national borders. And in 2013, it is time to accept, once and for all, that there is no difference between the atom divided for energy, and the atom divided for war. As the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated, if nuclear power were used extensively to fight climate change, “the security threat would be colossal.”
Jennifer Scarlott is based in New York, U.S.A. and is Director, International Conservation Initiatives, Sanctuary Asia.
Ashish Fernandes has been highlighting the devastating impact of coal mining in our forest areas for years now. A senior campaigner for Greenpeace, he believes that India must take a strong stand to protect its forests, grasslands, wetlands and oceans if we are to have any chance of winning the battle against climate change.
Photo:Ashish Fernandes
Climate change is here. The “monster” we have been warned about for the last two decades and more is no longer at our doorstep, but wreaking destruction amidst us, and the question now shifts to how best to control it, or stunt its growth. And while there are a few, tiny signs that things might be changing for the better, the pace of change is nowhere near what the science tells us is required to keep temperature increases below 20C. We still remain massively addicted to fossil fuels and a wasteful, consumptive way of life. Our leaders are either shortsighted and ignorant, or worse, beholden to the fossil fuel industry. As a result, international negotiations remain farcical; a competition to see who can commit to doing less while delivering the best sound bites.
Much has been made of the fact that India remains a poor country, and we did not create the problem of climate change, so it is unfair to impose restrictions on our ‘development’. The proponents of India’s continued reliance on coal, which accounts for a large percentage of India’s GHG emissions, ignore the fact that the poorest Indians are already suffering from climate impacts, and that the scientific consensus is that the worst is yet to come. This even as freak weather events, unpredictable rains, crippling heat waves and cold spells and rising sea levels threaten to damage the land we have grown up in irreversibly.
Led by a Prime Minister woefully out of touch with reality, assisted by his cohorts in the Planning Commission, Power, Finance and Coal Ministries, India is seeking to massively increase the amount of coal it mines, aiming to almost triple the quantity in the next 20 years, most of it to feed power plants that will then deliver electricity to the grid. As detailed in Sanctuary (Vol. XXXII No. 4, August 2012) this mining expansion will have huge impacts on forests, wildlife and tribal communities in Central India, while also adding significantly to the carbon burden in the atmosphere. Many forest areas at risk from coal mining are habitat for tigers, elephant, leopards and other species.
Taking smart, cost-effective measures to reduce our greenhouse emissions will have significant benefits in terms of livelihood security, employment opportunities and biodiversity protection.
The alternatives to coal already exist or are in sight. Renewable energy (RE) now delivers power to rural and far-flung communities for the first time in their lives. For 60 years, we have been sold the lie that big dams and coal-fired power plants are needed to bring power to India’s poor masses. Well, these “off-grid” locations have been waiting for 60 years, and now many of them are being lit up for the first time ever, by biomass, solar, micro-hydel or wind installations. The RE sector in India is growing at unforeseen rates, while coal remains mired in controversy.
Why then, do we continue to dig our own graves, and mine for coal beneath some of the last remaining forests in Central India?
Over 900,000 have joined the campaign to save India’s forests from coal mining. Join them at www.junglistan.org
Ashish Fernandes is Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace.
Follow him on twitter@ashishfernandes.
