Wind Energy, Yes - But Can We Do it Decently?

I do believe that wind energy will be an important part of moving to a sustainable energy supply for India. Yet, it is not binding on us that we do it in as gross a manner as possible. The picture below shows that we are going about it in the same mindless manner that we go about installing conventional power generation capacity. We should not remain in this blissful state of deluding ourselves that just because we are installing wind (or solar) that there will be no impacts.

Photo From MoEF Publication on Sustainable Development

In fact, wind and solar, if installed on the same scale as conventional energy will also have huge impacts. Sure, these may be less serious than drowning hundreds of villages in a dam, or spreading coal ash all over the place, but the key thing is that there will be impacts – social, environmental and others.

Coal Ash Dump in Odisha - Note Location Close to Water Body

So when pushing for sources like wind, we should avoid making the same mistake we have made with conventional sources – go about as if there are no impacts, or worse, don’t bother about the impacts because they are to be faced by some one else, someone who is economically and politically weak. The story of what Enercon Wind Farms project is doing in Kalpavalli region in Andhra Pradesh's Anantapur district is an example of this, and a pointer to what can happen. See the Kalpavalli story in Down To Earth at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/green-energy-takes-toll-green-cover

India’s Submissions to UN Panel on Sustainability: A Missed Opportunity

The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India’s recent submissions to the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel for Global Sustainability, on the occasion of its meeting at Helsinki on 17^th May 2011 “made a strong call for equity and universal energy access by the year 2030 for all.”[i] While the call for equity is welcome, it is a moot question as to why the world needs to wait till 2030 – almost 20 more years – before universal energy access is a reality.

Moreover, India’s detailed proposals to actualize universal energy access lack coherence, and belie the expectations raised by its strong call for equity. This note presents a critical look at the proposal on universal energy access.

MoEF has submitted three notes to back up its call, one on equity and sustainable development, the second on universal energy access, and the third outlining a new indicator to measure sustainable development.

Note on Equity in the Context of Sustainable Development

The note on Equity is a very well written note, outlining comprehensively what equity means, and how sustainability, environmentalism, and sustainable development is inextricably linked with equity. It is unfortunate, then, that this note does not inform the other note on Universal Energy Access (UEA Note). In a sense, it appears that the Minister’s left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Note on Universal Energy Access by 2030

The UEA Note starts with a very interesting statement that

“…the world has enough energy resources to last for centuries. Coal and nuclear can sustain the world energy for over four centuries. Therefore, there is no global energy crisis.”

If this is the case, the natural question is why so many people are without access to energy. (A wrong usage of units causes some confusion here, and even if it is a typo, such errors should be avoided when submitting notes at this level.)

The problem, according to the note, is that we are attempting to satisfy three criteria simultaneously – energy security, economics and environmental compatibility. However, subsequent discussions reduce the environmental problem to essentially that of carbon emissions. This is not only a very narrow view of the environmental impacts, but such an emphasis on the climate angle undermines India’s own stated position[ii] that it is not responsible for the climate crisis and hence the main liability to address it should be of those who have been the main contributors. The long section on Low Carbon Options seems a digression and does not fit into the main theme of the note, namely, universalizing energy access.

The note is problematic in many other ways. First of all, it has not stated explicitly what needs universal energy access is supposed to meet. By inference, we see that the aim seems to be to cover energy for lighting and cooking. Whatever it may be, it needed to be made explicit, as the expectations from universal energy access may be more than this. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many rural and poor households in India deem electricity for running TV sets and cell phone chargers to be as fundamental a need as lighting.

Secondly, there is no explanation as to why it should take 20 years to universalize energy access. Indeed, India should have strongly argued for a much smaller period to achieve this.

Thirdly, the note somehow very easily – and without and logical explanation – slips into the assumption that universalisation of energy access will have to come from decentralized, renewable sources like solar, which are very expensive at this moment. It is true that in some cases, decentralized renewable sources may be the most optimal option, but this need not be always the case. As a recent paper by Prayas Energy Group, Pune shows[iii], there are many steps, including allocation of energy from centralized sources on a priority basis to the poor that can help address this issue.

Fourth is the issue of burdening energy supply to the poor with extraneous considerations.

In his letter to the Chair of the UN Panel, Minister Jairam Ramesh says that

“The challenge before us is to ensure that this [universal energy] access happens rapidly, while ensuring that the sustainability related constraints are not violated”.

The UEA Note makes these sustainability constraints more explicit. It states that

“This [universalizing energy access] is a daunting task in its own right and it is further complicated by the constraint of reducing global CO2 emissions.”

What is puzzling and difficult to understand in this whole argument is why universalizing energy access should be made to shoulder the burden of sustainability related constraints, in particular reducing carbon emissions. We can well understand that local sustainability issues like preservation of forests, rivers etc would be important. But why load the burden of cutting global carbon emissions onto the energy for the poor?

Indeed, the UEA Note says that given the energy aspirations of developing countries (not to mention the heavy energy use lifestyles of the developed countries), coal will continue to remain a major part of world energy mix under any scenario. In other words, the world will continue to burn coal (and oil), emitting green house gases in huge quantities – to run the air conditions of the rich, to drive their automobiles, to light up big malls, run energy guzzling appliances like heaters and so on, but when it comes to meeting the energy for universal energy access, for the most basic needs, we want to insist that it meets the constraint of sustainability and reducing global CO2 emissions. This runs completely contrary to the basic principles of equity, which the other note of the MoEF has very well articulated.

It should be clarified that we are not making a case for continuing with “dirty energy”, nor are we making a case for highly centralized energy supply. We are only saying that it is odd, and highly iniquitous, that we burden the energy supply to the poor with high financial costs (of decentralized options like solar), and with tight constraints of meeting sustainability norms (of global carbon emissions, something that the world’s poor have been least responsible for), all the while allowing the energy use of the rich to come from cheap sources (like coal, cheap also because it externalizes many costs), and not imposing any particular constraints on them for meeting sustainability norms.

It may be mentioned here that the so called low carbon technologies considered in this note include nuclear (and other discussions include large hydro too), so what the note is suggesting is that we opt for low carbon even if we have to pay the price of other impacts. We would argue that for India – at least for the poor in India and globally too – what is more important and more appropriate is a “low impact” portfolio of technologies, rather than a “low carbon” portfolio.

Instead of all this, the note on universal energy access should have taken a firm and unequivocal stand that whatever energy options the global community chooses, the first right and claim on these energy sources must be to meet universal energy access obligations. Moreover, while the energy needed for these obligations should meet the requirements of low local social and environmental impacts, they should not be loaded with extraneous costs like meeting global carbon emissions targets. And last but not the least, India should have argued for a much smaller time period in which to meet the objective of universal energy access.

It is only such a stand that would do justice to the strong call for the equity made by Minister Ramesh at the UN Panel meeting.

It is not known whether there were any broad based consultations – or even peer reviews of the notes prepared on behalf of the Minister for submission to the Panel – before India’s positions were finalized. It is urged that at least for the next round, such consultations should be carried out. This will help India put up coherent positions, and take the lead in pushing critical aspects like equity and justice in global efforts at sustainability.

A longer Version of this note is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56354214/India%E2%80%99s-Submissions-to-UN-Panel-on-Sustainability-A-Missed-Opportunity

---

[i] Press note by MoEF

[ii] Low Carbon Growth Report of MoEF

[iii] Electricity for All, Ten Ideas towards Turning Rhetoric into Reality, Prayas Energy Group, 2010.

The Threat to Nuclear Establishments in Japan, and Two Posters

Many years ago, I saw a poster whose message has forever remained etched on my mind. It was a poster on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with a picture of the nuclear station, and just one brief, terse message. But the message captured many things about the nuclear debate, especially the arrogance of the scientific and engineering community and their utter disdain towards any questions raised by citizens. It was a searing commentary on the supremely confident assertions that everything has been thought of, and taken care of and the brushing aside or even ridiculing any other opinion, particularly using the argument that the common people know nothing and understand nothing in these highly technical matters. And then of course, the attempts to to cover up problems when they occur using the tactics of denial, suppression of information with arguments of national security and playing down the risks of problems that are impossible to deny any longer.

As the threat of a nuclear disaster looms large on Japan, I am reminded once again of that poster. It said, simply “They said it could not happen. It did.”

Repeatedly, this is the scenario we face, not just in case of nuclear, but in several other areas. They – in their supreme arrogance – assure us that it will not happen. And it does, with a monotonous certainty. This is especially true with technologies that are “highly advanced”, so advanced that no one except the scientists, engineers and of course the companies that sell them can know anything about the impacts of these technologies. And we are supposed to take them on faith, place complete trust in their sophisticated knowledge that “it can never happen.” Do we have a choice?

I think we do, but the choice has to begin far more upstream than present. It has to begin at the stage where the directions of the technologies themselves are evolving. In this, I am reminded of another poster message that I have seen. It is about all the old and new and great technologies like nuclear, genetic modification, massive dams in fragile environments and many others where the assertion is made that “this is a fail safe technology”. The poster says, “We don’t want fail safe technologies, we want technologies that can fail safely.”

(Image courtesy: http://topuspost.com/2011/03/12/nuclear-reactor-japan-but-confirms-the-radiation-leakage/)

Clearance to POSCO Project in Odisha: Taking the Nation for a Ride

With the decision on 31st Jan 2011 to grant clearance to the POSCO project, against strong recommendations of its own committees, the Environment Ministry and its Minister stand exposed. Minister Jairam Ramesh has finally shed the last vestiges of any pretence to be a Minister who is serious about implementing environmental laws.

Ramesh had initially shown much enthusiasm for enforcing to some minimum level the environmental and forestry laws, but soon this was seen to be tapering off, raising questions about whether Ramesh really is different from any earlier Environment Ministers.

He has now shown that the only difference is that he initially huffs and puffs, and breathes fire, (where there is fire, there must be smoke, to rephrase a popular saying, and where there is smoke there must a smoke screen) only to then readily hand over the clearances. The earlier ministers did not even bother about the prior pyrotechnics.

The POSCO clearance can only be described as blatant, and its justifications as insults to the intelligence of Indian citizens. For example, the clearance note put up by the Ministry on the web site announces that clearances have been granted with large number of additional conditions. Such “significant” conditions include following the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards and ensuring that no industrial activity is carried out in the CRZ area other than permissible under the notification. In other words, the project should follow the law of the land.

Another condition is carrying out the study of the sustainability of water requirement – something which should be done before the clearance, not after. And it requires the Project to “voluntarily sacrifice water” in case of a shortfall at the source. This is a rather touching belief in the Company.

In any case, where the MoEF has hardly any capacity to monitor conditions so that it is a case “impose conditionalities and forget them”, when everyone knows that once a project is given clearance, then even if violations of conditions are noted hardy any action is taken, then what is the sanctity of these conditions? And how can the conditions form the justification of the clearance?

As the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti has stated in its statement “The decision today can be summarised in one sentence: "Repeat your lies, give us promises that we all know are false, and then loot at will."”

The Samiti has also stated that “We repeat: we will not give up our lands, our forests and our homes to this company. It is not the meaningless orders of a mercenary government that will decide this project's fate, but the tears and blood of our people. Through the road of peaceful demonstrations and people's resistance we have fought this project, in the face of torture, jail, firings and killings. If this project comes it will come over our dead bodies.

I express my full support and solidarity to their struggle, and wish them strength and success in this fight.

My latest article is now up on India Together. It talks about the dams that China is planning to build on the Brahmaputra, the likley impacts of these dams in India, how the Government of India views these and the views of the local communities.

http://indiatogether.org/2011/jan/env-brahm.htm