Sun Rises over Jammu & Kashmir

Solar Punch receives standing ovation

In November 2011, IYCN J&K invited Solar Punch on an exclusive tour to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. There were 5 musical performances using equipment powered only by the sun.  But these performances were also meant to educate the public about renewable energy so the performances were supplemented with presentations on solar energy through demonstrations of the various eco-products the band had brought with them.

Students at Amar Sigh College

In Kashmir events were organized by the IYCN J&K team at Amar Singh College, Srinagar,Gulmarg, STC Humhama while performances in Jammu were organized at the University of Jammu in association with Department of Environmental Sciences and the Students Welfare group. This was also a unique opportunity for a cultural exchange between the Americans and the people of the state.  The folk performers of the group Natrang (from the mountains of Jammu) sang their version of climate change songs known as Bhaakh for the band.

The members of Solar Punch interacted with students, academics, local people and media.  The band was even able to perform for Border Security Force soldiers of STC, Humhama!  But the interaction with local rock bands and cultural groups were particularly well received as they were able to inspire local groups with their message of melding art with sustainability. Students were particularly inspired by the performances by Solar Punch, which provided a unique opportunity to interact with Americans over a topic not often addressed in the state.  The students of Amar Singh College and locals in Gulmarg were ecstatic when the song “Kashmir” of Led Zeplin was sung by band member, Joe Mitch.

Yes the sun had indeed risen in a new way over the state of J&K with the arrival of eco-rock band, Solar Punch.  This is the 4th time the band has been in the country since their debut with the Climate Solutions Road Tour in 2009.  Their message remains consistent:  the solutions are real, and they exist today and India has the power to show the world that it is capable of leading the charge on the search for climate solutions.

Solar Punch with artists from Natrang

Their arrival in the a state with as fragile an ecology as J&K  could not be more timely.  While the state has been in the media for decades for issues of injustice and geopolitical deadlock, we have failed to realize that the looming climate crisis will bind the region more closely together as people struggle to meet their needs due to the impacts of a changing climate.  While there are many problems that may be affecting the state, there are also signs of hope, and visions of a sustainable future that can create a society that is happy, healthy, and safe.

From Pillars to Platform: Demystifying the Durban Outcome

“If we accept this text, we are killing ourselves.” These were the words of an ambassador from a small island nation in the final hours of the longest UN climate negotiations in history. “We may be small, but we are not dead,” he continued. With these strong statements, the ambassador sought to rally other countries like his to push back against the weak agreement the conference had produced.

Continue reading more at the Fletcher Forum.

India’s Coal Crisis Hits Deep Freeze

What began as a social crisis borne of forced evictions, loss of livelihoods, and brutal police repression has quickly evolved into a financial one. In a series of excellent posts (part one here, part two here) my colleague Carl Pope has laid out the economic basis of the problem India now faces. The reality of which – that geologically speaking coal is abundant, but economically speaking cheap coal is not – has hit India hard threatening a vast pipeline of coal projects, and a banking sector that has underwritten them.

While the unfolding crisis has been chalk full of dramatic events, including a frantic meeting of large private power producers (Tata, Reliance) and Prime Minister Singh, it has largely been ignored by the broader public. Now the proverbial calm has descended before the financial storm as ministries have issued a deep freeze on the sector before the house of cards comes falling down – and billions of dollars in public money along with it.

High Stakes Drama

While policymakers in Delhi have been slow to react power producers are fully aware of the dire situation they face. After two of the world’s largest coal plants faced bankruptcy due to skyrocketing prices industry reacted with desperate demands, including requesting that the Indian government lobby Indonesia to reduce coal prices (think US begging the Saudis to lower the price of oil – which of course happens frequently). Their demands from the government to help reduce import prices have however seen little movement, and even less effect.

Turning their attention to a solution to domestic supply constraints Indias largest business houses demanded Prime Minister Singh exact promises from Coal India (CIL) – the worlds largest coal miner – to provide cheap coal to struggling projects. Bowing to their pressure the Prime Minister convened a high level panel that issued stark warnings of fines for CIL if it failed to provide producers with what they wanted. However, just like efforts to reduce the price of imported coal, the panel’s recommendations did little to stem the financial hemorrhaging.

Stewing in the background of this high stakes drama were recent moves by CIL to raise its prices – for the first time ever (remember internationally coal prices have tripled over just the past three years). CIL, which has been in ongoing discussions with its union over wage increases, rightly understood that prices must rise if workers are to be paid fair wages for the terrible working conditions they endure. Power producers were outraged and again pressured the government to quickly reverse a historic, yet modest, increase in coal prices while simultaneously forcing CIL to absorb a 40% increase in wages.

Then, in a move that was perhaps meant to cover these costs without the political backlash the private power producers would unleash on direct increases in the price of coal, the mining giant decided to move forward with upgrading and standardizing its coal classification system. The move would have raised the price of coal 25-40% as coal prices would be revised up to prevailing international levels – and help cover the cost of providing fair wages to its employees. This of course was met with fury by power producers forcing CIL to limit the price increase to certain grades of coal to quell their anger.

The Deep Freeze

Then came the bombshell – just a few days ago the coal minister sent a letter to the power ministry requesting an immediate freeze in the pipeline of coal projects. His reason – the worlds’ largest coal miner is unable to ensure adequate supply of coal and therefore the financial health of the coal project pipeline. Almost immediately after CIL announced its desire for a freeze, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) followed suit by suggesting banks freeze lines of credit for this “distressed sector”. The move followed months of warnings from financial analysts that systemic defaults loomed on coal plant loans and the widespread impact it would have on Indian banking sector due to high exposure. This was the moment the drama that had been under the public radar went mainstream.

Now that the coal ministry and the RBI have placed India’s coal crisis is in a deep freeze policymakers, civil society, and industry have a unique opportunity to reflect before they take a crucial step that will determine India’s future. In doing so a lesson from the US experience may prove uniquely useful. As Carl Pope puts it:

“Between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. almost locked itself into a generation of 180 costly and unneeded coal-fired power plants. Campaigns led by the environmental community, the enacting of state renewable energy standards, and more-abundant competitive sources like wind and natural gas, headed off that almost catastrophic coal rush. Now Asia faces a similar choice — overbuild coal plants and guarantee bloated prices that will depress its economic potential, or pivot away from reliance on new coal and start deploying the new, low-cost power leaders — efficiency, distributed generation, wind, and solar.”

Carl’s right if there is one lesson that must inform this critical point in Indian development it’s this: coal is not cheap and its costs threaten not only social and environmental destruction but the stability of the Indian banking system itself with as much as 56,000 Crore ($12.6 Billion) in public funds on the line. The choice is clear: bailout private power producers on the backs of average citizens or make a break with the financial basket case that is the coal industry. Now that the public is watching, industry is wounded, and the government is forced to act, there is an enormous opportunity to ensure the latter. After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

10 Lessons from the Keystone XL victory

During one of our dinners at the Durban conference in late 2011, I heard someone speak out loud and say that the climate movement desperately needs a victory. A victory that many of the strong yet embittered civil society groups could take inspiration from and continue building this movement around the world; with even more vigor. The recent rejection of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline is one such victory that we could draw innumerable lessons from.

The background

The Keystone XL  is a 3,500 KM long pipeline proposed by the Canadian company Trans Canada to transport tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas. The company proposed the pipeline in 2008 and what looked like a done deal turned out to be far from it. The pipeline is hazardous for multiple reasons; it endangers one of North America’s largest ground water sources called the Ogallala aquifer, it results in the burning of the dirtiest and most unsustainable form of fossil fuels the tar sands,  thereby accelerating climate change, it undermines the negative impact on local environment and indigenous communities  in Canada and it exemplifies a rotten nexus between big oil corporations and politicians in Govt. institutions.

The protest

James Hansen, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists raised an alarm bell against the pipeline in 2011 when he stated ominously that burning the tar sands oil would be “game over” for the climate. Environmentalist Bill McKibben and others took the cue and sent out a clarion call in June 2011 for civil disobedience against the pipeline and the tar sands. Indigenous communities have been protesting the dirty fuel for a long time and when people living along the proposed route of the pipeline heard of the dangers, they too joined the fight. A sit-in was planned in front of the White House in August 2011 and a new coalition called the Tar Sands Action came into being.

The momentum

After the formation of this coalition, efforts went into scaling up the White House sit-in with hundreds of people around the world being mobilized to join. What followed was an unprecedented event where 1,253 ordinary Americans got themselves handcuffed and arrested in one of the largest acts of civil disobedience for an environmental issue in America. The arrest of one individual after another for two full weeks in August created ripples across new and mainstream media around the country. People began educating themselves about the issue and took a stance on how they should react to Keystone. The momentum kept growing and culminated in a massive gathering of over 10,000 people who embraced the White House and demanded that President Obama reject the project. Four days later, Obama delayed the pipeline decision to 2013 on the grounds of reviewing an alternate route. Many claimed that the delay would effectively kill the pipeline.

The victory

The Tar Sands Action drew first blood but it was not long before the pipeline reared its ugly head again. Within a month of Obama’s announcement, lobbyists and Republicans managed to piggyback the pipeline decision on another bill on payroll tax cuts. This move meant that Obama had to take a decision by the end of February 2012 on the pipeline. Meanwhile, the oil industry left no stone unturned in increasing their big media push and flawed propaganda by selling tar sands as “ethical oil” and the pipeline as the only hope for jobs in America. With the climate movement continuing to mobilize and gain momentum despite strong pro-oil lobbying, Obama finally decided to reject the pipeline stating that a review that was earlier commissioned could not be completed at such short notice and that Trans Canada was welcome to file a new application and start from scratch.

This rejection is indeed a great victory for climate activists, against what one might have thought were unsurmountable odds.  The big oil in North America is powerful and dirty! Their deep pockets control politicians and their decisions; and these shackles have to be broken if we are to make any progress in addressing climate change.

Lessons

The Keystone struggle is an important story of a victorious movement in contemporary times; a story from which many lessons can be learnt. I have highlighted a few that any group or movement around the world irrespective of the issue they fight or the target they choose could learn.

1. Grassroots is the right route

What gave the fight legitimacy was the involvement of grassroots and frontline communities of ordinary U.S. citizens who were facing or could face the disastrous consequences of tar sands oil made their voices heard. Indigenous communities and ranchers from Nebraska took up the fight not just at their homes but at the political centers of the country. They educated themselves about the issue and presented their views in a strong and impassioned manner.

2. Elections are a big deal

What proved to be one of the important game changers was the fact that hundreds and thousands of voters called up the campaign offices of Obama and threatened to pull out support if he let the pipeline come into being. Support either in the form of donations or as campaign workers. This simple tactic piled on the pressure for Obama; where supporting the project would have meant losing significant portion of his voter base. At each of his stops in his campaign trail, Obama faced supporters who urged him to reject the pipeline. Sometimes campaigning is more about politics and less about policy! Even the best arguments for a particular policy will face opposition when big money and politics are involved.

3. Everybody has a role to play

When the campaign gained momentum, the resulting coalition worked beautifully with organizations ; complementing each other’s work and building a very powerful narrative. Here is an excerpt from an article by my colleague Jamie Henn, the communications director at 350.org, “While Tar Sands Action formed a progressive, action oriented edge for the campaign, groups like NRDC perfected policy arguments and lobbied on the Hill, online campaigns like CREDO sent tens of thousands of emails and phone calls to the White House, BOLD Nebraska led a strategy to block the pipeline on the ground in their state, Friends of the Earth focused on a conflict of interest scandal over the pipeline at the State Department, the Indigenous Environmental Network united native communities across North America, the Transit Workers Union and other labor groups came out against the project, the Energy Action Coalition organized young people, and many, many others stepped in with their unique contributions. We likened the approach to a “swarm,” a team effort that was light on formal processes and meetings and dedicated above all to speed, efficiency, and an ambitious plan of attack.”

Everybody had a clear role and the coalition worked like a well-oiled machine in mobilizing thousands and ratcheting up the pressure. Differences can often rise between individuals and groups but the keystone struggle is a powerful case in point of a cause taking precedence over petty power dynamics. Any movement around the world requires such a coalition if we are to stand up against an opposition which is often highly coordinated and backed by dollars.

4. Leaders can initiate the spark

Any successful movement needs strong and outspoken leaders who can articulate the campaign and create strong coalitions. Once such coalitions are formed, the campaign goes into auto pilot while the leader’s role remains to keep the group motivated and focused on the end goal.

5. Make the issue smaller and bigger at the same time

The pipeline posed a significant threat to the Ogallala aquifer and to people’s health. These arguments were important but not sufficient. The bigger narrative came in when people rallied around Hansen’s statement that the pipeline could be “game over” for the climate. The decision on Keystone was made into a litmus test for Obama and his office and the final choice would be emblematic of his attitude towards the climate and his people’s future.

The issue was also not limited to the pipeline but also focused on the larger issue of burning the tar sands. The campaign ensured the pipeline would also be a vehicle to educate the public on the dangers of tar sands and its consequences for our future.

Those who began fighting this pipeline did not hope for much at the beginning. But perseverance even in the face of adversity is vital if we are to win the hearts of our supporters. The keystone fight did not win only on theoretical and academic arguments but it won the hearts of those who volunteered to rally, march and get arrested. They had a struggle they could relate to and a cause truly worth fighting for.

6. Use of social and mainstream media

The use of conventional media was powerful but the movement did not live or die by media coverage alone. Social media fueled the cause and reached out to a wide network of citizens around the globe. Communication through social media creates the core group of volunteers who can later branch out and mobilize hundreds more in their regions. The website of the Tar Sands Action coalition is a perfect example of the effective usage of social media. Through a simple design, the site shared genuine and powerful stories of people that resonated with thousands of other folks. The usage of video, images, quotes and other creative resources made the campaign emotionally powerful.

When the issue gets big enough through creative actions like that of the civil disobedience spurred on by social media networking in front of the White House, mainstream media cannot avoid the movement and joins the play. The #NOKXL twitter hash tag almost became an internet meme.

7. There is no straight path to victory

The campaign needs to evolve itself according to the circumstances. There is no silver bullet and no single narrative stand point that will ensure victory. The Keystone movement worked with various arguments ranging from the issue of the climate to another game changer in the form of jobs. The jobs argument came in late during the campaign but was quite effective in winning over certain national and local groups that had hitherto supported the pipeline.

8. Money is not everything but it’s important nonetheless

The various resources required to run a campaign need money and groups have to invest in raising funds through individuals or organizations who share similar values. The momentum that the Keystone fight gathered had moved a lot of individuals and big groups to donate to the campaign and help it mobilize thousands of people signing up. The simple act of sharing and celebrating the stories and little successes of people around the country helped the movement grow in heart and reach out to more donors.

9. Power map works

Preparing a power map will give us a good sense of all the players involved in the project and what influences they hold in the decision making. When Obama announced that the final decision would be made by him, it narrowed the target to the President and made the pipeline a litmus test for him. Power mapping enables the campaign to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition and target them accordingly.

10. The fight never truly ends and celebrate every success

If we rid the world of fossil fuel, ensure that Governments work for the people and leave a clean and healthy environment for our next generations, I suppose we could then say that our fight is over. But that day is not here and our fight continues. The Keystone struggle is a good example of paving the way for future campaigns and building the movement. It laid bare the dirty nexus between big oil and national Governments, exposed the corruption of large corporations and most importantly gave people more hope to continue fighting. It is also important to share and celebrate our successes with the world and shoulder each other when the times are rough.

These lessons are vital for campaigners around the world who are taking up big fights against powerful polluters. The Keystone XL pipeline is victory worth celebrating. The fight continues and I can already see the global movement getting bigger, stronger and more impactful with each passing day. Kudos to all you climate activists for taking up the cause of a better tomorrow!

Why the rhetoric of war is terrible for the climate

As I write this, American troops are setting up a strong base in Israel to begin an exercise of flexing their mighty military muscle alongside their ever ready Middle East ally, Israel. The war games called the “Austere Challenge 12” is aimed to train troops in interacting with antimissile and antiaircraft defenses. Thousands of US and Israeli Army servicemen, dozens of ships and deck-based aircraft are due to take part. Russia has now joined the party with its forces now stationed in Syria. Before this, from December 24^th ’11 – Jan 4^th ‘12, Iran had its own military exercise where it tested some of its anti ship cruise missiles. These displays of military might was preceded by tougher sanctions on Iran by the United States that aims to freeze a part of its oil exports and impose sweeping sanctions on its central bank to push its economy onto a downward spiral. The sanctions are a continuation of the global pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear program since a few countries fear its potential development of nuclear weapons.

The impending danger

Somehow these developments bring a sense of deja-vu from early 2003, before the United States launched its attack on Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussain harboring weapons of mass destruction. Neither were the weapons found nor was any semblance of stability and democracy restored in the land. In fact just the opposite is taking place with the region on the brink of a civil war.  The United States and the United Nations have a long history of imposing sanctions on Iran, affecting its import and export of technology, financial tools, natural resources etc. Since 2006, the UN has endorsed 4 sanctions aimed shutting its nuclear program. These sanctions have resulted in an Iranian economy that has suffered over the years and created severe unrest in the people. The imposed sanctions are already taking a severe toll on ordinary Iranians with inflation levels reaching new highs, import costs rising dramatically and basic commodities like milk becoming un-affordable to the public.

Going by these actions of the United States and its allies, Iran is clearly being cornered and provoked to retaliate. As Iran’s Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahim recently warned, “If they [Americans] impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even a drop of oil cannot flow from the strait of Hormuz”.  Many western powers have called his statement bluff but the Iranian Government, though set to send its economy into a tizzy by such a move it willing to take such a risk in response to the oil embargoes.

The Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is a strait that connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Iran is a major exporter of crude oil and the strait carries over 17 million barrels of oil a day i.e. over 17% of the global oil consumption per day. If Iran closes the strait temporarily, increased production from OPEC nations and Global strategic oil reserves will  be called in to bridge the supply gap but not before oil speculation results in a skyrocketing of prices from its current $ 110 a barrel to the nightmarish figures of over $150 (which sparked the global recession in 2008). A top Chinese diplomat,  Chen Xiaodong warned that a war over Iran’s nuclear issue would bring disaster to the world economy and urged nations to exercise restraint and prevent any form of hostility.

Iran’s nuclear capacity and the hypocrisy of the west

Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense for the United States in his recent appearance on another irresponsible CBS show had this to say, “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know they are trying to develop a nuclear capability and that’s what concerns us”. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed just yesterday that Iran is indeed enhancing its nuclear capability and enriching its Uranium up to 20%. In other words, it means that Iran now has the capacity to build a nuclear warhead with much ease. Iran had already made this announcement public a few months ago and one cannot but be amused and surprised at the timing of this report and its renewed posturing in the mainstream media. It clearly complements Panetta’s statement and fortifies the United States fear of Iran’s nuclear capacity thereby providing a strong reason to come down hard on the country.

The posturing in the media of Iran as an irresponsible nation that can use its nuclear weapons is completely misplaced when instead the irresponsibility and irrational behavior is coming from the United States and other western powers. Potential presidential candidates like Rick Sanctorum are already speaking of an all out attack on Iran’s nuclear facility. If political leaders and the general public have not yet learned from Iraq, then we are doomed to repeat our mistakes and pay for them dearly.

United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are the five nations under the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT) that hold nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan and North Korea possess weapons but are outside the NPT and Iran is under a list of suspected nations to hold nuclear weapon building capacities. Shouldn’t India, Pakistan and North Korea be a greater threat to the world? U.S, U.K, Russia, France and China have historically caused more damage to the peace in the world than most other countries. Somehow the legitimacy of war is upheld when a select group of nations partake in it while its condemned when a few weaker countries are involved.

It’s all about energy

One will have to wait and see how this episode will pan out and I would hope that irrational moves like an all out war are not accepted by any nation. But behind this current crisis lies a bigger challenge of energy and its implications to our modern world and its future. Industrial civilization over the last two centuries has been built on cheap fossil fuel energy in the form of coal and oil.  Our economies are inextricably linked to these fossil fuels and any dramatic change in their availability can bring entire economies of nations and the world crumbling down. This was amply demonstrated during the 2008 recession when oil prices reached an unprecedented $147 a barrel and sparked the sudden drop! Such examples can be seen throughout our history and with pronounced significance in the last 40 years, ever since America’s oil production peaked in the early 1970′s.

The irrepressible paradox of our times is the fact that our obsession with increasing growth is now unable to reconcile to decreasing levels of fossil fuels around the world. The International Energy Agency in its world energy outlook 2010 has stated that world production of oil has plateaued at around 86-88 million barrels a day in 2006. Conventional sources of oil from onshore and offshore rigs are beginning to level out with some of the biggest fields like the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia peaking. To quench our thirst for oil, we have since begun digging deeper and harder with ever increasing costs to tap unconventional fuels like the tar sands, deep water gulfs, arctic ice caps etc which are environmentally disastrous. Such risky efforts to secure fossil fuel resources have become a priority for many OECD and fast developing countries. This race to the last remaining resource of oil on the planet has inevitably lead wealthy nations to invade, occupy or politically and economically influence major oil producing countries like those in the Middle East. From Saudi Arabia to Iraq to the latest war on Libya, political and energy analysts have connected the dots and shown the direct relation between oil and these wars. The history of recent dictatorial regimes in these regions can also be traced back to western influences and the role of energy. Such regimes have also been strongly stereotyped and vilified as hubs for Islamic fundamentalism thereby providing the justification that western powers needed to attack. Mainstream media can take a fair share of the blame for this.

The impending crisis with Iran is no different with it being one of the largest producers of oil in the world. Countries are continuing to talk about tapping newly found oil reserves in the Caspian Sea and South China Sea but political forces are already hitting sparks with China and the U.S at logger heads in South China sea and Russia joining the party for the Caspian Sea oil. It is high time we realize that even this new found oil will only last a couple of years before we begin to allow a systemic collapse of our economies with our own hands. This modern geopolitics driven by oil has caused irreparable damage to millions of ordinary citizens around the world and we cannot afford to continue with our obsession with fossil fuel driven growth. Our planet has limits and therefore our economic and political plans for the future should find an equitable way between nations to live within these limits.

Climate change – a challenge and a much needed diversion

Our incessant burning of fossil fuels has created an immense challenge for humanity. Climate change has already begun unraveling with extreme weather and disasters raging across the planet. 2011 set new records in environmental disasters and rising temperatures. Scientists continue to strengthen the science around climate change and are constantly warming us to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. Given this scenario, is war an option?

Definitely not! An oft ignored issue by environmentalists and activists is the fact that emissions from wars are one of the highest. R&D, export and import of weapons and the ultimate use and destruction of infrastructure can cumulatively lead to a lot of emissions. Wars, as we have seen in the past decade, put an often unbearable burden on the fiscal reserves of countries that participate. Further pressure on our already weak economies will make it highly difficult to allocate funds to essential public services, let along climate change. The recent announcement of Obama to cut defense expenses seemed too good to be true and rightly so, as the United States continues to expand its military presence around the world in anticipation of more battles and wars! Such wanton use of public money when more pressing issues like climate change are upon us is nothing less than harakiri.

The Green Climate Fund which was established to support least developed and Island nations to tackle climate change does not have adequate money when science is demanding an inflow of 2-3% of global GDP to address the issue. No nation can afford a war when climate change poses a threat to many more lives in the long term than wars!

Conclusions

A war with Iran should not and cannot be an option. Negotiations need to be escalated and a multilateral decision has to be taken on this issue. Too often the powers that be have violated international laws and brought misery upon millions of civilians in order to serve their own vested interests. If Iran is allowed to be a repeat of the story of Iraq, we would be doing humanity a great disservice.

2011 brought with it the Arab Spring and the occupy movements that have created a much needed debate in the people of the world on the serious issues of our times. 2012 will need to see a ramp up of these movements where ordinary citizens will hold their countries accountable and demonstrate the real power of democracy!

Sustainable Energy for All in 2012

Picture: Abbie Trayler-Smith / Panos Pictures / DFID

At the outset of this new year, under the banner of the United Nation’s sustainable energy for all campaign, the voices clamoring for a revolutionary shift from centralized fossil power to decentralized clean energy are growing louder. What’s more, they are increasingly coming from traditionally conservative corners that are recognizing that the only way to deliver energy access is to rely on decentralized clean energy. 2012 is the year that this innovative new approach that will deliver hundreds of millions from poverty, firmly entrench clean energy, and help democratize the world begins.

The foundations for this departure from orthodoxy have been laid by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has essentially admitted in a series of energy access papers that the majority of those without electricity today will never be wired to the grid. The Government of India goes even further estimating that two-thirds of its unelectrified households need distributed power after it spent a decade increasing centralized energy supplies (by 60%) only to see a correspondingly paltry increase in energy access (10%). To these realizations can be added a growing number of countries seeking to throw off the shackles of dirty kerosene expenses (see Kenya’s call to be ‘Kerosene free’) and it’s clear the situation is ripe for change.

At the same time decades of experience from a broad set of actors are bringing successful models to fruition placing the lofty goal of universal energy access firmly in the realm of the possible. This grassroots effort is colliding with a fundamentally shifting economics for clean energy vis-a-vis fossil fuels that is ensuring decentralized clean energy is the best option for off grid areas.

Here’s how the UN SEFA campaign can take advantage of these aligning stars to shift the focus from pilot projects to scale, from traditional aid based models to a dependence on enterprise. Doing so will catalyze revolutionary changes that will reverberate throughout societies around the world:

1) Create an Energy Access Enterprise Investment Fund to finance cell phone tower conversions away from diesel to clean energy. There are 639,000 existing off grid cell phone towers powered by expensive diesel generators.  Converting these towers to clean energy already makes economic sense but liquidity constraints make financing these conversions difficult in today’s market. The campaign should work to identify sources of funding that can finance the conversion of these towers by allowing them to be the first call on the capital. More importantly, the campaign should leverage its position to ensure that a portion of the installations are built with excess capacity that local entrepreneurs can use to power surrounding communities; a concept referred to as Community Power, which is one of the most exciting innovations in rural electrification.

2) Make electricity an associated product with cell-phones, or as a product charged through cell-phones. Cell phone companies are scrambling all over each other to provide free charging to their off grid customers because they only way they can increase their revenue is if customer’s phones stay charged. When their push is combined with emerging pay as you go business models that create radical affordability we can serve 600 million people — over half the population lacking access to electricity. This is already happening in a number of exciting ways but needs to be scaled. The campaign should help bring together big mobile phone off-grid operators and investors to catalyze financing that will make this happen in a big way.

3) Provide public funds to support electrification for the bottom-half of the off-grid world. The other half of the off grid world – the half that doesn’t have a cell phone and is really the poorest of the poor – will require concessional capital that must come from international public institutions like the World Bank or exciting new initiatives like Norway’s Energy Plus initiative. The problem is institutions like the World Bank are still pouring billions into failed grid extensions that are doing little to solve the problem of energy access. These portfolios should be redeployed to support decentralized clean energy and combined with concerted advocacy aimed at world governments to gradually shift existing fossil subsidies towards a United States Small Business Association model that provides 90% loan guarantees to rural electrification efforts based on decentralized clean energy. The campaign can reward the World Bank and innovative governments who make bold pledges with international recognition at the Rio +20 conference in June.

4) Create Consumer Demand and Awareness.  Sociological models show that disruptive technological adoption tends to proceed from a small subset of consumers to the more conservative majority once a certain momentum has been built. The gap between the early adopters of a new technology, and the early majority, can be the most important, and significant, barrier to widespread adoption. Public institutions can play a vital role in overcoming this barrier by financing the early stage marketing and awareness campaigns that NGO’s, social entrepreneurs, and small businesses alone can’t afford. Institutions like the World Bank can and should provide grants for fleets of Solar Demonstration Centers like the one SELCO-India operates in rural India to demonstrate the multiple services clean energy can provide poor consumers including, mobile phone charging, lighting, and purified water. Such a fleet, coupled with broader policy support for enabling environments - like creating stable supply chains, support for products and services that increase income generation and productivity, training institutes to impart generalized broad-based technical skills, and the provision of appropriate financing – would undoubtedly generate much needed momentum for renewable energy adoption and energy access worldwide.

These are just a few of the many opportunities the 2012 Sustainable Energy For All campaign must seize in order to catalyze off grid markets. Doing so could, as my colleague Carl Pope points out, lead to outsized impacts including half of humanity being powered by decentralized solar. But entrenched interests, failure of vision, and the crushing weight of the status quo threaten business as usual. In 2012 this campaign must rally behind the realization that business as usual means failure as usual, a situation that the world’s poor simply can’t afford.

Rethinking Equity and Other Things Indian

On December 13, The Hindu’s editorial announced that “India Lost the Plot at Durban.” The editorial said that the Indian delegation was “isolated” and “intransigent” and quite simply “unprepared for the groundswell of support” for a comprehensive legally binding agreement. Jayanthi Natarajan, the Minister of Environment and head of delegation, fired back, in a rebuttal to the original editorial, that her team was successful in preserving the “development space” for India and other developing countries for another ten years, and through its “principled” position, was able to bring back equity into the talks.
When does a principle like equity become intransigence? Was India really speaking on behalf of the developing countries? Did these developing countries look up to India to help preserve their “development space” as Natarajan seems to think or wants us to believe? Or, did they jump on to the European Union led single treaty bandwagon lock, stock and barrel?

India’s position is a tough one. Indian agriculture still depends on the vagaries of the monsoon, abundance of cheap coal has locked the energy mix into a fossil fuel heavy one unless major policy changes are made, and growth is thought of mainly in terms of carbon based industrialization. How does such a country wrestle with international obligations, show leadership, and keep its priorities straight? This post fundamentally reflects my own attempt at understanding India’s position on climate negotiations and the tactics it employs.

Equitable Access to Sustainable Development- what exactly is this loaded term?
Equitable access refers to global atmospheric space. The logic is that all human beings have equal ‘entitlement’ to this space and that past usage must be taken into account to determine how the remaining space is allocated. This term seems to be India’s effort to reincarnate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in a more operational form. India fought a tough battle to have this inserted into the COP agenda. There will be a workshop on equitable access next year. It’s worth pondering about this concept in a little detail.

India seems to like this term for the following three reasons (albeit very flawed):
a. India’s per capita emissions is low. It stands at around 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person. Using this statistic, India says it simply cannot be asked to sign up for legally binding commitments because the emissions level is so low. What the negotiators conveniently forget to mention is that no country would argue that people below the poverty line, however liberally defined, would need to operate under a carbon constraint. For people not meeting that basic threshold of livelihood, improving their condition is clearly the most overriding priority. As a result, India is simply creating a straw-man argument to posture on this basis. And, 1.5 tons of carbon is the average amount. There are islands of high carbon intensity in the country and a blanket 1.5 average doesn’t do justice to the variation in between.

b. Climate change negotiations has been the territory of the environment ministry. The situation resembles that of a carpenter with a hammer- programmed to find a nail to hammer it down. Environmental negotiators are trained to think in terms of point source pollutants. Hence, the gut reaction is to identify the sources of the pollutant and design ways to cap it. Plus, it leaves us with a very convenient solution- lets figure out how much we can pollute and divide up the ‘space’. The problem is that greenhouse gases are not so easy to cap as they pervade throughout our economies. Addressing climate change will require a systematic reconfiguration to how our way of living has been wired. Essentially, negotiators are trying to bring down an elephant with a table knife. It simply won’t do. This problem is not specific or unique to Indian negotiators alone (more on this below).

c. Development as the first priority- how could anyone dispute that development is the overriding priority of developing countries, especially if they’re developing countries themselves? By creating a false dichotomy between greenhouse gas reductions and development, India is kicking the can down the road. Where is the notion of equity for its own people who are extremely vulnerable to climate change? Development does not have to mean increased emissions and development will be a lot harder in a world struggling with climate change. Furthermore, the obsession with per capita atmospheric space points to a distorted belief of what people really need. People need energy services for their end uses, not the energies by themselves, let alone their accompanying emissions. Hence, a focus on the needs of the people rather than carbon needs to be the way forward.

Was India the voice of the developing countries?

India has a long tradition of claiming the mantle of leadership. It did so during the days of the Cold War as a key proponent of the Non Aligned Movement and has been a strong holdout on trade negotiations under the Doha Round on behalf of developing countries. Climate change seems to be a natural extension. While major emitters like India and China did announce emissions intensity targets, they were very opposed to turning these pledges into legally binding targets. This was done in the spirit of preserving the principle of equity and more precisely the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. For a long time, the developing countries, with their positions articulated primarily through the Group of 77 and China, seemed to fall in line with the notion of preserving the developed-not developed distinction that has been enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention. However, the insistence on the preservation of this distinction had been the very reason why the major historical emitters like the USA and EU were holding out. In the final plenary of the Durban, G77 was silent- meaning there was no consensus in the group for someone to speak on behalf of the group.

The developing countries found their voice in Durban. The Least Developed Countries and the Africa Group joined the European Union-led call for a comprehensive legal agreement that included everyone. It truly was a moment of awakening; a moment when the developing countries finally called the bluff. By siding with the EU, the developing countries expressed their collective frustration at how the climate negotiations had been held hostage for so long. So, it seems a little absurd for Natarajan to insist that the developing countries provided ‘groundswell’ support. Similarly, the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) group also collapsed. Brazil, widely known to be one of the most flexible developing countries, was happy to sign up for a legally binding outcome. South Africa, usually not as enthusiastic as Brazil, also signed on, as it risked not achieving anything concrete under its very own presidency of the COP if it didn’t throw its weight behind the Durban Platform as well. That left only India and China. The Emperor was indeed naked and it was right for the Hindu to call it so.

This leads me to ask: was Natarajan justifying the recalcitrant Indian position (and claiming support of developing countries) to domestic constituencies? Rather, was Natarajan, symptomatic of the beleaguered state of the current UPA government, trying to squash rumors of India having conceded too much?

Cutting deals or entitlements?

Edward Luce, in his bestselling In spite of the Gods, describes Indian negotiators as akin to high school debaters eager to score points on rhetoric in international negotiations. As much as I thought that this observation had undertones of condescension, I’m starting to wonder if Luce made a very pertinent point. When does posturing really end; and, do negotiators end up believing the posture they adopt more than the fundamental interest that underlines those postures? Are the negotiators able to translate these postures into meaningful gains? Pratap Bhanu Mehta thinks the sense of ‘entitlements’ heavily influences how India engages with other countries. It is no surprise that one principle that India is so strongly pushing for is the equitable access to atmospheric space.

Natarajan’s response to the Hindu’s criticism regarding the lack of a “positive mandate” was that India was successful in halting the “negative mandate” of the developed world. There is a feeling of victimization; a feeling of rich countries out to get us. Perhaps this is resonant of the post Independence era socialist thinking; perhaps it reflects a country grappling to reconcile the challenges of being a developing country with its sense of civilizational greatness. In any case, there needs to be some serious thinking on how to engage in more effectively in multilateral negotiations, particularly at a time when the interests of India do not seem to be congruent with the interests of the larger developing world. The time has come for India to put forward a positive agenda, in the climate negotiations and otherwise, and play the role of a bridge that can connect the developing and developed worlds.