By Freidrich Wulf, Pro Natura, Switzerland
Cross posted from Eco, CAN International
Emotions have been going up and down on UNFCCC
COP 15’s most dynamic topic: Reducing Emissions form
Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD).
On Friday Facilitator Tony La Viña (Philippines) put together a chair’ text based on what he heard from Parties in the first part of the week. The text had the charm of being short – but that was all. NGOs were
delighted when Monday’s text showed up with a lot of improvements and only one main disadvantage: the most important points were in brackets. But instead of these being removed in the final session before passing the document on to ministers, it seemed that the agreement
almost reached was falling apart again on Tuesday morning.
So what is the discussion all about?
REDD is about keeping forest carbon out of the atmosphere. But forests aren’t only just carbon. They are also the world’s major treasuries for biodiversity. And it is easy to serve both issues best without any additional effort by conserving primary and natural forests. As the heavily negotiated text is now going up to ministers, several key issues of major importance for biodiversity will be left for them to resolve.
As – due to the extension of REDD to REDD+ – there is no priority for directing the limited financial resources to the conservation of primary forests rather than plantations or the “sustainable“ management of forests1, other safeguards for biodiversity are all the more important. This includes: (more…)
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declares that a fair deal can only be reached through further talks
In a speech immediately following President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated unequivocally that negotiations would need to continue until 2010, to strike any kind of agreement that would enhance global action on climate change.
“To settle for something that would be seen as diminished expectations and diminished implementation,” he said, “would be in our view a very wrong message to emerge from this conference. We should therefore reaffirm categorically that our negotiations will continue on the basis of the Bali mandate.”
Singh also emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of equity in any global climate deal, adding, “any new regime will have moral credibility and authority only if it acknowledges that every citizen of this globe has an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric space.”
Like all the leaders who spoke before him, Singh described plans for voluntary domestic action on climate change. However, unlike President Obama, who suggested that “America has made our choice; we have charted our commitments,” and that the rest of the world must follow, Prime Minister Singh said that India would be willing to consider additional actions as part of a fair global deal.
Given the enduring gulf between the expectations expressed by world leaders this morning, it would seem highly unlikely that a deal can be concluded in the coming hours.
However, it’s not yet clear whether any of the political texts drafted earlier today could provide a high-level agreement that would satisfy all parties; or if not, how an alternative would now be developed.
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described. (more…)
The moment of truth has arrived. Today will reveal whether the world will be able to ‘Seal the deal’ on climate change in Copenhagen. After two years of negotiations, now is the time we will see how serious our leaders are in addressing the greatest crisis facing humanity and our natural world: climate change.
193 nations will be at the table. 115 Heads of State will be there, carrying the hopes of their people for a fair, ambitious and binding (FAB) agreement.
Will today result in a deal that sets the world on course for survival? 102 countries- one half of the UN’s member states – are calling for global temperature rise not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celcius, or 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, to ensure their survival.
The stakes could not possibly be higher. Will the deal set the foundation for such a future? Or will it lead to ‘greenwash’? The UN warns that targets on the table are way below what is needed to stay below 2 degrees C of warming, let alone 1.5 degrees C.
Scientists warn that if trends continue we are facing an unimaginable 6 degrees C of warming by 2100. If heads of state under-achieve, they will seek to dress failure up as success. Will we be able to tell the difference?
Worse still, will Copenhagen end in collapse?
We do not know which of these three scenarios – foundation, greenwash or collapse – is in store for us by the end of the day. Let us hope that wisdom, compassion and courage prevail. Not only for our sake, but for the sake of all those who will come after us…
With the considerable discussions on COP15 arising out of the meetings at Bangkok, Bonn, Barcelona and elsewhere and so many bilateral dialogue between countries specially between India and China and a global community engaging in the debates and following it through the net, I am left wondering what exactly is it that we will be discussing at Copenhagen?
Especially what will India be saying and expecting? Will it be India’s stand of the developed world taking stringent emission cuts? Will it be KP beyond 2012? Will it be common but differentiated responsibility? Continuing with Annex I Annex II definitions?
Being part of Indian Youth Climate Network, I got the opportunity to meet with some of the present and past negotiators like Mr. Shyam Saran, Mr. Surya Sethi, Dr. Nitin Desai, Ambassador Dasgupta and informally with our Minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh as well. We discussed and debate over lots of issues with honourable negotiators but I am still very very confused on how GoI will approach the global negotiators. Obviously, they are not opening the cards but even after following and tracking the actions, I am unable to guess anything. Right now I feel that our Prime Minister Dr. Singh might participate in the COP15 and through some secret source, I know Mr. Pranab Mukerjee will be visiting Copenhagen for a day.
BUT WHAT OUR AGENDA IS AT COPENHAGEN IS STILL A BIG QUESTION (more…)
On 6th October, I participated in a climate conference “Debating the climate debate- Beyond Copenhagen” organized by Peoples Development at Constitution Club, New Delhi. The distinguished panelists were Mr. Surya P. Sethi, former Principal Adviser (Energy) to the Planning Commission, Mr Anupam Mishra, well-known environmentalist with the Gandhi Peace Foundation, Prof. Sudipto Mundle, Emeritus professor with the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy and former Director, ADB, Mr. S K Swamy and Mr. Rakesh Bhatt, Dr Sudhirendar Sharma, environmentalist and columnist, moderated the discussion.
The discussion started with very nice explanation about climate change by Mr. Anupam Mishra. He discussed the three components of the global climate debate as Science, Politics and Philosophy. He suggested that if we pay more attention to the philosophy part too, we can reach some conclusions. I feel this is really the important part where youth can contribute.
This was followed by a talk by Mr. Sethi. It was really an eye opening discussion on India’s position and perspective on climate change. India is constantly talking about GDP growth but the human development index is declining. He emphasized the fact that when we are talking about inequity in global climate debate, we should also think about inequity within our nation. He gave very valuable statistics to explain this. He also pointed out the fact that to have adaptation capability we must develop. He said that water security, energy security and food security are interlinked. He also talked about the historic responsibility of developed world, funding requirements, carbon trading is not the solution and the day one can put cap on emission, these markets will vanish.
During an informal discussion with Mr. Sethi he said that he doesn’t see nuclear as an energy alternative for India for another 60 -70 years and after that nobody knows what will happen. He could probably sense the level of anxiety in me and was calmly explaining the politics of the climate debate. He knew about IYCN’s presence in Bangkok and said that we have a responsibility.
It is very clear now that the earth is almost at the tipping point of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, around 450 ppm of CO2-equivalent, exceeding which could result in irreversible climate change. IPCC/AR4 states that in order to avoid this calamity, global emissions should peak and started declining by 2015 and come down to 50% of current levels of about 49 Giga tonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2-equivalent by 2050. The need of hour is to have an independent look at the numbers involved (i.e. per capita emission), effects on the people, and strategies for the people with a local approach. We should not have a centralized approach which is inspired by the North rather should think of local solutions.
The first session has started with the presentation by Navroz Dubash,Centre for Policy Research on “Status of Negotiations leading up to Copenhagen” The big questions that were put during this discussion were
What is the division between rich and poor?
The battle over “common but differential responsibility”
Will the UNFCCC model survive?
Will the US politics be de facto global position?
Can we really draw a line between climate action and sustainable development?
How much commitment India is ready for an effective global regime?
The conditions right now are not similar as they were in year 1992 when Kyoto was signed. We would need to address these issues in a different manner. China being on of the largest emitter has changed the scenario. We need to find ways for low carbon growth with deviation form BAU. NAMA verification till now is only for funded action which is not the correct approach. Our actions to mitigate and the indicative targets for emission reduction can put pressure on the developed countries to take commitment for mitigation actions.
The followed presentation was on “How much carbon space do we have” by T.Jayaraman, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
“Without emission increase, development is not possible”. If the temperature rises upto 2oC, there is a 50% chance of survival. This is the necessary threshold beyond which climate change will reach danger levels. Now the big question is would you sit in the room if there is 50% probability of the roof falling down? A study by TISS and DSF using GAMS model suggest that even if the Annex-1 ICs deliver the deep emissions cuts required, 40% below 1990 level by 2020, and if large Developing Countries such as China, India and a few others continue with current emission growth rates, the IPCC stabilization target of 450 ppm cannot be met. Even back-of-envelope calculations would show that DC emissions as a whole, of which most come from a few large Developing Countries, need to come down. Developing Countries emissions as a whole are already around 22 Gt CO2-eq while global emissions should be a maximum of 25 Gt CO2-eqby 2050 (half of present levels) for GHG concentrations to stabilize at 450 ppm. Dr. Manmohan Singh has made a statement that our emission will not ever be more then that of developed world but if we grow with the present rate, our emission can cross the level. The DSF/TISS study shows that China, India and a set of large Developing countries need to steadily and substantially reduce the growth rates of their emissions in the next two or so decades, alongside deep cuts by the Annex-1 countries, if the 450 ppm stabilization target is to be achieved.Even in the most optimistic scenario, emission from emerging economics can not peak later then 2030. Early occupancy of carbon space has restricted room for growth of developing countries.
In the second session, there were two presentations; one by D.Raghunandan, Delhi Science Forum on “India’s negotiating position for Copenhagen: towards an alternative” and the second by Sharachchandra Lele, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & Environment on “Sustainable Equitable Development”.
During the first presentation, we discussed how EU is diluting their commitments, what actions should be taken and what the proposed position for India is? Equity is at the heart of the climate debate. Promised funds and technology transfers as compensation for historical emissions and to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation have also not materialized. Targets for reducing emissions keep getting lowered, more offsets provisions are being introduced which effectively lower actual emissions reduction, and there is deliberate lack of clarity about baseline years (1990 in the Kyoto Protocol but now being revised randomly by various countries, even 2005 by the US!) and intermediate targets for 2020 or 2030, as in the statement from the recent G8 Summit. IPCC makes clear that if the recommended intermediate targets are not met, not only will the long-term targets for 2050 go out of reach, the 2°C or 450ppmv limits will also be exceeded. The Waxman-Markey Bill passed earlier by the US Congress for example only promises to reduce emissions by 17% from current levels by 2020, even though US emissions have already increased by 17% since 1995 instead of reducing by 5% as per the Kyoto target.
In the next presentation on Sustainable Equitable Development, the focus areas were
Basic need with quality of life
Social and environmental justices
Environment sustainability
Democratic governance as a process
We concluded with the statement that “economic growth is an irrelevant indicator”. In a scenario where everything is surrounded with carbon footprint, it’s the time for us to calculate the ecological footprint also. Climate change and nature conservation are sides of same coin only.
Each of the above presentations was followed by discussion. The following conclusions were made at the end of seminar
Substantial, targeted and binding commitments leading to meaningful reductions in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are vital for averting irreversible climate change. The failure to implement such reductions would have grave consequences for humanity. The emission reduction should be 25% less then as projected by 2030. It should be non binding but reportable to UNFCCC (MRV).
The major burden of the impact of climate change will be borne by the poor and other vulnerable groups, especially in developing countries. Responsibility to climate-change vulnerable groups within India and outside is therefore a central concern.
Equity both between nations and within nations lies at the heart of the climate debate. Climate change mitigation efforts must be directed towards actualizing equitable entitlements to the global atmospheric commons, overcoming the prior historical occupation of these commons by a few developed nations that has seriously restricted the “carbon space” for other developing nations.
Developed nations of the global North bear the maximum responsibility for historical GHG emissions, amounting currently to over 77% of the GHG stock in the atmosphere. In most scenarios, emissions from developed nations will continue to constitute a majority of the atmospheric GHG stock even after desired mitigation actions are taken by all nations.Developed nations must therefore bear liability for both damage caused and for actions required for redress in terms of mitigation and adaptation.
Developing countries have not contributed to the creation of the global warming problem. But they, particularly the larger ones including China, India, Brazil and South Africa, have to be part of the solution, keeping in mind maximum sustainable global emissions even while respecting per capita emission equity.Calculations show that even if developed nations undertake the deep emissions cuts recommended by IPCC (reducing emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2050), the desired levels of global emissions and atmospheric GHG concentrations cannot be attained without large developing countries in contributing to mitigation actions in the medium and long term.
The low-carbon pathways of development that developing countries need to evolve and pursue will need considerable effort that requires the participation of both the State and society as a whole. Environmentally sustainable and socially just development under these conditions would call for transformative societal goals, new scientific and technological inputs and new strategies for their deployment that emerge from a broad societal consensus.
Annex-1 countries must undertake deep cuts in GHG emissions with binding reduction targets not only for 2050 (95% less than 1990 levels) but also for intermediate signpost years such as 2020 (40% less than 1990 levels) and 2030. Without such intermediate targets the longer-term goals either cannot be achieved or will come with huge cost burdens and/or short to medium term impacts
Abiding by the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, major developing countries with large growing economies and relatively high emissions such as China, India and others, need to reduce emissions growth rates so as to achieve significant reductions (of the order of 25% at least) in the projected emissions by 2030 conditional upon the Annex-1 countries agreeing to deep binding cuts as above and compensatory funding and technological assistance as outlined further below. After 2030, the developing countries need to adhere to a trajectory of convergence towards globally sustainable per capita emissions goals.
Technology transfers should be free of IPR restrictions.
India should take a leadership role on coming global negotiation. India presently is going with dilution position of EU. India by taking voluntary emission reduction targets can put greater pressure on the developed world to take actions for mitigation.
The above writing is what I could understand from the discussions, the opinion may vary for each of the participant. My knowledge on this subject is very limited so its possible that I was unable to get the correct point which the speaker might wanted to make. My sincere apology for that.
India can emerge a leader in the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, but this will be difficult without external financial and intellectual resources. The urgency is thus greater in concluding climate negotiations than trade talks, says M. RAMESH.
A year ago, the Commerce Minister, Mr Kamal Nath, left Geneva saying he did not want to “risk the livelihood of millions of farmers” by concluding a lopsided agreement, even at the cost of putting the Doha Round negotiations in suspended animation. When the Environment Minister, Mr Jairam Ramesh, packs his bags at the end of the Copenhagen climate meet this December, his frame of mind may be no different. Clouds of uncertainty seem to be gathering over the Dani sh capital. It is not that the positions, unlike in the trade talks, are so irreconcilable. Indeed, given the universality of science and its consequent imperatives of action, there is not much to disagree on — at least, on the principles. Ironically, despite the common plank, an agreement is most likely to elude the negotiators at the climate talks.
The cornerstone of the developing countries’ stand, as clearly espoused by India in its submission to the UNFCCC, is that the world would not get anywhere in terms of climate mitigation unless the developed nations bankroll anti-polluting measures. The developed countries, recognising they are fundamentally responsible for the current environmental mess, do not disagree.
A good illustration of this is what Todd Stern, the US’ Special Envoy for Climate Change, said in a speech: “The United States recognises our unique responsibility, both as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases and as a country with important human, financial and technological capabilities and resources.”
India added nearly 3 gw of grid-connected renewable energy in 2008, 2 gw of which came from the wind sector. The government is under intense pressure to increase electricity production and has put strong incentives in place to spur investment into renewable energy from both domestic and foreign investors. The Indian government has set targets for each clean energy sector in its 11th Five Year Plan, to be met by 2012.
Wind will need to grow by 2.5 gw in each of the next three years to meet the goal of 17.5 gw by 2012. Small hydro grew by 300 mw in 2008 and has an additional 1.1 gw to be commissioned to meet the 3.4 gw target. There were no grid-connected solar projects commissioned in 2008, but a pipeline of 222 mw of solar projects was announced in 2008. Biomass grew only 400 mw in 2008 and needs to double to reach the 3.5 gw target for 2012.
In 2008, India generated 813 TWh of electricity, 5.2% of which came from new renewables, compared to 66% from coal, 14% from large hydro, and 3% from nuclear.
However, the country faces an electricity shortfall of 16% at peak demand and the grid infrastructure is woefully overloaded. The power sector is faced with increasing demand from growing industry and the rapidly developing middle class, as well as trying to connect several hundred million Indians who don’t have access to electricity.
India’s rural electrification scheme was launched in 2005 and has seen some initial success with the installation of nearly four million small biogas plants, over 70,000 solar street lights and 4,35,000 solar home lighting systems installed to date. Solar lanterns made the biggest leap forward in 2008 with 1,12,000 sold or distributed to rural areas during the year to bring the total to nearly 7,00,000.
Wind power continues to dominate renewable energy, both in installed capacity and manufacturing. However, installations are fragmented with 40% of 9.8 gw installed capacity from projects that are less that 5 mw. Many of these small projects are owned by corporates who are seeking tax benefits and an additional power source for their operations. The government announced an optional Generation Based Incentive (GBI) for wind power in 2008 to take the place of tax benefits, which aims to give a boost to larger projects developed by independent power producers.
The Semiconductor Policy announced in 2007 led to $347 million of investment in the solar sector in 2008, nearly all of it directed towards manufacturing facilities. Additionally, the central government has instituted a national feed-in tariff for solar power projects of $240/MWh for PV and $200/MWh for solar thermal. The policy is intended as a pilot and covers only 50 mw total nationally, but several states have introduced supplemental feed-in tariffs for solar as well.
A provisional bio-fuels policy was announced in September 2008, which targeted 20% blending of bio-diesel and ethanol by 2017, but was taken back to the drawing board two months later. The policy focused on jatropha and other domestically grown non-edible feedstocks for bio-diesel and stipulated that they be grown on wasteland, to reduce impact on food crops. It also prohibited the import of plant oils for bio-diesel production. With the policy environment uncertain, investment into bio-fuels plummeted from $251 million in 2007 to $49 million in 2008.
Finally, the introduction of renewable portfolio standards in many states began to see traction in the industry. Thirteen Indian states have an RPS policy of between 2% and 10%, dictating the percentage of power purchased by distribution companies from renewable sources. The state of Maharashtra fined distribution companies who did not meet the 5% RPS in 2008, the first penalty of its kind in India. Maharashtra will be the site of a pilot renewable energy certificate trading scheme in the second half of 2009.
New investment activity grew 12% to $3.7 billion in 2008. By far the largest share was asset finance at $3.2 billion in 2008, up 25%. Venture capital and private equity remains a tiny piece of total clean energy investment in India, but saw a significant increase of 270% to $493 million in 2008. Moser Baer raised $93 million to fund expansion of its crystalline silicon and thin-film solar manufacturing capacity.
In 2007, Indian companies began to explore foreign exchanges as a source of funds, raising $756 million on the Singapore Stock Exchange and London’s AIM, compared to $646 million on domestic exchanges. With the financial turmoil in 2008, both those funding avenues dried up with no money raised internationally in 2008 and only $74 million raised on Indian exchanges. Shriram EPC, an Indian wind turbine manufacturer and engineering firm, raised approximately Rs 1,500 million ($38 million) in an IPO.
From a sector perspective, the largest portion of new investment went to the wind sector, growing 17% to $2.6 billion. Thanks to a supportive policy environment, solar investment increased to $347 million in 2008, most of which went to setting up module and cell manufacturing facilities. Small hydro investment grew nearly fourfold to $543 million in 2008, while bio-fuels investment stalled and fell by 80% to only $49 million in 2008.
Mergers & acquisitions activities totaled $585 million in 2008, approximately the same level as the previous year. Most acquisition activity was biomass, small hydro and wind projects. (Courtesy: Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009)
“Be the change you want to see in the world” – Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
What?
Badlav 2009: Be the Change! is a week-long climate camp to be held in the nation’s capital, Delhi. We aim to have hundreds of young people come from across the country to:
Be trained on skills of organizing, running projects, lobbying, direct action, presentations, and facilitation.
Participate in eye opening discussions of equity, theories of change, water, energy, agriculture etc.
To enjoy concerts, cultural performances, film festivals, Green Jobs fair and many other opportunities to have fun and learn!
When?
July 18th to July 24th
Who?
Being organised by Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) for you and hundreds of youth from across India.
I would like to start with the note that my knowledge on energy issues is very limited but there are certain things that I would like to discuss with the members of this group.
Firstly on WWF’s Earth Hour, I have visited the NTPS in Badarpur, Delhi where Mr. Aggarwal told us that these power stations work on a 24 hour basis. They continuously produce electricity which is then distributed to various centres. These generators can’t be switched off so in case there is lesser demand of electricity, it creates problem for the power station because in that case the generator will automatically switch off and to restart the generator is even more harmful for the environment. It is also not cost effective, moreover it takes 2-3 days to restart the whole mechanism. On 28th March, Earth Hour day, we had switch off our electricity for one hour which was not good for the environment. I met Mr. Meena from Power Grid India, he explained me that the lesser demand for electricity creates major problem in the system. As it takes too much time for the generators to restart, to meet the demand, one has to switch on hydro-power station, which is again not economical as we can sell the carbon credit if we don’t use the hydro generation.
Another issue that is disturbing me is even if a factory or organisation decides to follow earth hour and switch off the production for one hour, it would obviously do more work/ production in some other day. Nobody would tolerate any loss. So was this effort of WWF really useful?
My second question is on REVA cars. We all know none of the mechanisms is 100% efficient. In case of REVA, there is energy loss at every step, on production in power station; then transmission loss; then electricity is converted in storage form in battery, again a loss; energy form battery needs to be converted into mechanical energy, another loss. Is REVA good enough to be called a “green car”? Or it is just an alternative as we have a limited source of petroleum?
I would be grateful to you if you can send your opinion on this.
As you may be aware Hon’ble President of India Smt. Pratibha Devi Patil had launched the MoEF’s CO2 Pick Right and Kaun Banega Bharat ka Paryavaran Ambassador campaigns. While the Pick Right campaign is aimed at spreading awareness about climate change, its causes and effects, and individuals choosing the best option for sustainability, The Paryavaran Ambassador campaign will help choose a person to be the spokesperson on environment issues, who can encourage people to make right lifestyle choice.
CEE has taken this initiative to outreach to the people to choose a person who can be the face of the environment, who can create greater awareness and encourage people to make the right choice for growth with sustainability.
May I request you all to take a minute and vote for your Paryavaran Ambassador. You can visit www.ceeindia.org and choose your Paryavaran Ambassador. There is no list, you can choose whomsoever you think is the right person. It could be any filmstar, sportsperson, politician, leader etc. Please help us to choose the right person.
In this report, PERI Co-Director Robert Pollin and Assistant Research Professor Jeannette Wicks-Lim provide a snapshot of the kinds of jobs are needed to build a green economy in the United States. They focus on six key strategies for attacking global warming and highlight some of the major “green jobs” associated with each of these approaches.
The six green strategies are: building retrofitting, mass transit, energy-efficient automobiles, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels. Pollin and Wicks-Lim show that the vast majority of jobs associated with these strategies are in the same areas of employment in which people already work in to-day, in every region and state of the country. For example, constructing wind farms creates jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists and truck drivers; increasing the energy efficiency of buildings through retrofitting relies on roofers, insulators and building inspectors. What makes these entirely familiar jobs “green” is that the people working in them are contributing their everyday labors toward building a green economy.
What is clear from this report is that millions of U.S. workers, across a wide range of familiar occupations, states, and income and skill levels, will benefit from the project of defeating global warming and transforming the United States into a green economy.
Water as a resource is under relentless pressure. Due to population growth, economic development, rapid urbanization, large-scale industrialization and environmental concerns water stress has emerged as a real threat. The scarcity of water for human and ecosystem uses and the deteriorating water quality leads to “water stress” and intense socio-political pressures. Many areas in the country are already under severe water stress. Any addition to the intensity of water stress in the existing water scarcity areas, or addition of new areas to water stressed list, will only further push the problem in to the realm of a disaster. Freshwater supply to ecosystem and humans is from river system, lakes, wetlands, soil moisture and shallow groundwater is less than 1% of all freshwater and only 0.01% of all the WATER ON EARTH.
As per WHO estimates only 0.007% of all water on earth is readily available for human world consumption. This indicates that Freshwater on earth is finite and also unevenly distributed. Despite the importance of Freshwater Resources in our lives and well-being, we are increasingly beginning to take this resource as being infinite, and for granted. In today’s world, much water is wasted, used inefficiently and polluted through its abusive use. The per capita availability of freshwater is fast declining all over the world. If the present consumption pattern continued, two out of every three persons on earth will live in water stressed conditions- moderate or severe water shortages- by the year 2025.
Water Facts
* 1.1 billion people lack access to save drinking water (1\6th of population) and 2.4 billion lack safe sanitation (40% of population) (more…)
Plants that range northward because of climate change may be better at defending themselves against local enemies than native plants, as said by a team of scientists from University of Florida geneticist.
The team reported online in the journal Nature, that certain plants could become invasive if they spread to places that were previously too cold for them. ‘The paper suggests the mechanisms which aid invasive species to move from one continent to the other may actually work within continents when climate change gradually extends the distributional range of a species’, said Koen J.F. Verhoeven, an evolutionary biologist at The Netherlands Institute of Ecology.
Often the exotic plants and animals which are introduced to new continents or geographic regions by travellers, separating from their natural enemies can find invasive success in the new range. But, increasingly, the distribution of many species is shifting because of climate change and changes in land use. “The native and exotics responded differently to natural enemies such as herbivores or microorganisms in the soil,” said Lauren McIntyre, an associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology in UF’s College of Medicine and a member of the UF Genetics Institute.
Serving as the voice of the nascent climate movement in India, “What’s with the Climate?” is attempting to provide an open forum for the discussion of climate change in the Indian as well as the global context. More?
