From Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Bikaner to Manipur, India resonated with one voice on October 24, 2009. School children, college students, software professionals, police, fishers, farmers, divers, people on bicycles, and drivers of electric cars all participated in some 300 different actions across the country.

Youth in the town of Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, form a giant ‘350′

350 is a vital number. It is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we need to reach to avoid catastrophic climate change. In an effort to raise global awareness of this target, the campaign 350.org organized a global day of action on October 24, in which India was a major voice.

The day began with the hoisting of a massive banner in front of the Charminar, a mosque and one of the most famous monuments in the city of Hyderabad. As the day progressed, numerous rallies, seminars, movie screenings, awareness drives, competitions, and tree plantings—as well as the widespread creation of giant “350” human art formations—marked the widespread involvement of people for the cause.

Many beautiful stories emerged. In the Fazilka district near the Indo-Pakistan border, students organized the “Badha lake campaign,” each pouring a glass of water into the dried-up lake to symbolize the need to take action. In Gwalior, participants formed a two-kilometer long human chain, and in Kolkata people marched on foot. In Jaipur, a peace rally brought together artists, activists, and vendors to showcase organic seed varieties. In the ancient city of Udaipur participants held a religious ceremony to commemorate the lost ritual of valuing waste in day-to-day activities.

Goa saw the roll-out of 350 meters of cloth in five different locations, to be used for signature-writing campaigns and then turned into cloth bags. Pune hosted a Reiki workshop to heal the negative effects of climate change on the Earth. And Dal Lake in Srinagar saw the formation of the number “350” comprising 32 boats.

One of the high points of the day was the formation of a giant number “5” by more than 700 people in front of the Red Fort in Delhi. Students and enthusiasts from different walks of life, representing at least 19 colleges, civil society organizations, and media all joined in. This number formed part of a global sequence, with a “3” formed in Sydney and a “0” in Copenhagen. It was a truly global action to voice our concerns.

The day ended on a celebratory note, culminating in a huge rally at Mumbai’s Marine Drive, a rock concert in Chennai, and a music night in Bangalore. October 24 witnessed a truly unique mass mobilization in India, where people participated as one community, raising their voices and cutting across all lines of differences. The day saw the coming together of multiple civil society organizations as well—in particular the youth contingent, which deserves a special mention considering that half of India’s population is less than 25 years of age.

Young India displayed its strength and character, with the leaders of the future at the forefront of driving this change. The number of events led by young Indians is the undeniable testimony.

The exercise was organized by Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) in collaboration with the Lakes and Water Ways Development here to mark Oct. 24 as the International Day for Climate Action around the globe.

It was aimed at urging world leaders to support a clear solution to the climate change by reducing the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million.

The 350 figure is the maximum level that is considered a safe upper limit.

“The exercise was aimed to making people aware of the climate crisis and need to protect environment. The present rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million that we want to bring down below 350,” said Owaise Raheem, regional project director of IYCN.

More than 4227 simultaneous events are being organized across 170 countries in this regard.

The activities have been planned in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) starting from Dec. 7 in Copenhagen.

My favourite blog from the last few weeks came from Leela Raina of the Indian Youth Climate Network. Tracking one of the Indian negotiators at the UN negotiations in Bangkok, she came up with eleven cruelly funny reasons for “Why I Shouldn’t Date an Annex-1 Guy”. You can see the full link at http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/2009/10/07/why-i-shouldnt-date-an-annex-1-guy/

Now I’m a happily married man with three beautiful children, but I still feel the need to defend the good name of at least some of us Annex-1 guys. So I’ve compiled a list of ten good reasons “Why Annex-1 Guys Can Be A Good Date After All” in response to Leela’s:

1.      He is not willing to COMMIT.

We’re not afraid of commitments. We Europeans have already opened our hearts, and we’re ready to go even further if shown a little more love. We’re not alone. Our Japanese buddies have shown they’re in the mood for love, and after Bangkok nobody could doubt how serious those Norwegian guys are.

And we’re looking for a long-term relationship. We’re not just after a five year fling, or a relationship that ends in 2020 – we’re offering the best years of our lives, right up to 2050.

2. He takes more   S P A C E   in the relationship.

It’s a little unkind to be so personal about our size! We know we’ve eaten too many high carb meals in the past. But some of us have already put ourselves on a diet. In the UK, we’ve already lost over 20% of our weight since 1990, and we’re committed to losing over a third by 2020 – even more if others join us on our diet.

We think that a low carb diet will help us to get our economies fit and lean. We’ve put into law that, by 2050, we’ll be a mere 1/5 of the size of our 1990 former selves. That should give the Non Annex-1 girls who still need to plump out a bit space to grow, without the whole world bingeing.

3.      He refuses to FINANCE dinners.

We can’t deny that we’re careful with our wallets – times are tough. But we know we’ve got to stump up the cash – the British Prime Minister’s suggestion of $100 billion per annum by 2020 isn’t chicken feed! But who pays for a meal before it’s eaten, or before we even know what’s on the menu?

4.      Hates my mother (Read: Hates the rules imposed on him by the Kyoto
Protocol)

All European guys love their mothers, and we’re not alone. We don’t want to ditch the Kyoto Protocol. But if we’re going to be part of a long-term relationship, we know that means getting used to a new mother-in-law as well as dear old mum. If we’re going to be one big happy family, that is going to mean some compromise.

5.      Doesn’t let me use the TV remote or the computer (Read: no transfer of
technology)

Everyone finds it difficult to hand over the remote when they’re watching a programme they like – we know we should be better at sharing. But we really like the Indian idea that we shouldn’t just focus on changing channels – we should be looking at developing whole new TV programmes together.

And in terms of technology development, if we’re still dating in five years time, where do you think the electric car we drive to the restaurant will have been made? My money’s on China.

6.      Wouldn’t save me if I fall off a cliff / Earthquakes hits/flash floods
take place

The old romantic in me found this difficult to take – the age of chivalry isn’t dead yet! We want to ensure that bags of gold are available fast – but don’t we all agree that we should rescue the damsels who are in most distress first?

And at the same time, we need to make sure that we design and build new castles or carts using the latest materials and to the right standards so that they’re fit for future hazards.

7.      Doesn’t follow through and is indecisive

We’re not just old romantics – we’re modern 21^st century guys too. That means we want to share the decision-making. We know it’s not a very attractive trait to decide what we’re going to do on a date without consulting. But that means it takes longer to come to a conclusion – especially when there’s 200 of us going on the same date! And we haven’t been shy to say that we know that we want to get hitched in Copenhagen this December.

And to show we’re modern guys, you can’t deny that we like an educated partner. We’re really keen on talking climate science and we want everyone to recognise the importance of two degrees.

8.      Possessive and wants daily reports

Isn’t being a little jealous a sign that we care? We don’t want daily reports – but is a love letter once a year too much to ask? And don’t forget that you’ve got all our numbers already. Building a long-term relationship needs trust on both sides.

9. Have such a consumption-oriented lifestyle

There you go on about our bulging middles again. I’ve already said that we are slimming down – but going on a crash diet is never good for anyone.

Anyway, in the run-up to Diwali, everyone likes to do a bit of shopping. And we’d really like to take you to a new and improved carbon market – one where you can buy and sell the best low carbon stuff without having to write out a separate cheque for every single item.

10. Would not make a good father

You know how dads can be – a bit possessive, a bit domineering, a bit stubborn. But we love our children too, and want to do the best for them we can.

October 19, 2009

National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM)

42/27 Esankai Mani Veethy

Parakkai Road Junction
Nagercoil 629 002, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: koodankulam@yahoo.com

The Manmohan Singh government’s recent allocation of a number of sites for setting up of nuclear power plants with imported reactors from the United States, France and Russia without any kind of national debate, parliamentary discussion or public consultations with the local populace is utterly condemnable. This reckless and unilateral decision of the UPA government has to be opposed and even resisted by all anti-nuclear, environmental, democratic, progressive and other popular groups and movements.

The claim that American companies are going to give us greater access to clean and affordable energy is simply fallacious. If that was indeed the case, why don’t these American companies build more nuclear power plants in their own country first? The whole world knows that nuclear energy is not clean but produces dangerous radioactive waste with disastrous consequences to people’s health, safety, and our rights to life and livelihood. Similarly, everyone knows that nuclear energy is not affordable but very very costly.

The UPA government that operates with a colonized mind-set is simply compromising our national interests in a desperate attempt to please their imperial masters. This government is bent upon pawning our people’s health, safety and futures in the pursuit of its megalomaniac hunt for nuclear power and weapons and in the process help American and other companies create jobs for their people and make huge profits for themselves.

Similarly, the government’s obstinate insistence on going ahead with uranium mining in Meghalaya despite strong public protests and consequent environmental disaster is also utterly condemnable.

Just as the Prime Minister misinformed the former American President Bush that all Indians loved him, now he is trying to impress upon President Obama on the eve of his state visit to the United States. This kind of adolescent acquiescence is not only unhealthy but dangerous for an independent country of 1,200 million people.

Instead of behaving like a kid in the (nuclear) candy store, the UPA government should be more mature, take the people of India into confidence, initiate a dialogue with them on an important national policy such as the nuclear power generation, and decide upon policies and projects in an open, transparent and democratic manner.

We condemn such actions of the UPA government and urge the people of India to stand up and resist.

Coordinators

NAAM

We’ve heard a lot in recent months about India’s international positioning on climate change, but what is opinion like at home? Is everyone in agreement with the formal government position? And what is the key to stronger Indian engagement with the international climate regime? A  working paper [PDF] on this subject was recently released by Navroz Dubash, a Senior Fellow at India’s Centre for Policy Research. It looks not only at the state of opinion within India’s government, corporations and civil society on how India should respond to the climate challenge, but also proffers that what is most needed in advance of the negotiations in Copenhagen is to build trust.

Dubash suggests that there is broad domestic agreement in India on three key points. Firstly, that India is being unfairly labelled a major emitter by the international community, secondly, that India has an ongoing and considerable development challenge, and thirdly, that India is moving in the right direction climate change mitigation is concerned. ”Climate diplomats from other countries would do well to recognize this reality,” says Dubash.

However, he also argues that opinion is far more divided at home around how India should respond to the climate challenge, with three major streams of opinion characterizing the debate. He describes as Growth First Stonewallers those who, frequently sceptical of the science, believe that pressures to respond to climate change are primarily a strategy employed by industrialized nations to keep emerging economies such as India and China at bay. As such, these pressures are a threat to Indian interests. Stonewallers, according to Dubash, see addressing climate change as less important than India’s economic development.

The second are Progressive Realists. These Realists recognise that climate change poses a significant threat to India, but are deeply skeptical of the international process as a fair or effective way to address the climate problem. Seeing pressure on developing countries primarily as an attempt by industrialized countries to shift the burden of action away from their shores, they are resigned to focus on domestic climate change action through clean development efforts resulting in climate ”co-benefits,” while at the same time avoiding the ”obligations and constraints of an international regime.” Dubash describes this as India’s increasingly predominant position, with a shift from its former Stonewaller center of gravity.

Finally, Dubash highlights a ”small but increasingly vocal group” of Progressive Internationalists. Although in agreement with India’s Realists that the rich world is using India as an excuse for inaction and that equity must be paramount within any global climate change agreement, these Internationalists are of the opinion that India should work with, not separately from the global policy regime, aligning its efforts at home to facilitate and condition a stronger global deal. They argue, that a weak global climate deal resulting in weak action on climate change will result in greater inequities for the poor in the future, who will be the first to suffer the impacts of climate change and who are primarily located in developing countries. These Internationalists, describes Dubash, are in the distinct minority and perceived by most in India as naïve. Fears abound that a more concerted engagement from India with the international regime will result in greater constraints on India but little change in global dynamics and commitments.

Recent political developments in Bangkok have done little to allay these fears, with reports of a new proposal from some industrialised nations to scrap the Kyoto Protocol. Dubash argues that a split between India’s progressive thinkers driven by different opinions on the international climate regime is weakening India’s ability to respond to climate change. To bring these groups together, a far more progressive approach to the international negotiations will be required from all countries with trust building and signals of good faith an essential factor. ”A renewed Indian climate politics…will require far stronger signals of good faith from the international community, and industrialized countries in particular,” says Dubash in his paper, going on to elaborate what this would imply.

For a full recount of this insightful overview, please see the full  paper.

At the Bangkok negotiations, the American delegation spoke from a very familiar script and proposed that developing nations put their emission cutting targets on the table. Such a statement of ‘You first’ comes at a time when it is abundantly clear that USA will not be able to pass a climate change bill outlining its emission targets. What is especially unfortunate is that this particular stance of USA and other developed nations (or Annex 1 countries as the Kyoto Protocol refers to them) is derailing all possibilities of reaching a fair deal in Copenhagen. I can only agree with the Chinese delegate who so bluntly remarked that the ‘rich nations are trying to kill the Kyoto pact’.

The Indian minister of state for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh has the very unenviable job of being India’s main spokesperson on the COP-15 and other climate change issues and is under tremendous pressure from the national and international factors to commit to emission targets. And as India and other G-77 nations have been vehemently saying, binding emission targets are absolutely unacceptable. The Indian tone till recently has been provocative, but that has been softening over the past few months starting from Hillary’s trip in the summer to yesterday when Jairam Ramesh agreed to an international audit for India’s greenhouse gas mitigation steps. And I’m certain this is not due to mounting pressure, but due to the very real fear of not reaching a deal in Copenhagen this December.

The Indian minister recently publicy aired views that a deal in December at Copenhagen was unlikely and another meeting “next summer” would be required. The Indian minister also suggested ’scaling down ambitions’. This pessimism is not without merit after the Bangkok talks ended on 11th October, when even Yves de Boer, UN climate change chief, conceded that there has been ‘no advancement on key political issues’.

Not reaching a deal is simply unacceptable and will be a major failure in our global political system which cannot come to an agreement to even tackle the major challenge of this century. I’ve briefly described the key political issues and the obstacles standing in the way of an agreement here:

1. Replacing the Kyoto protocol with a new pact: Few nations lead by the US called for replacing the Kyoto protocol framework completely which would require India and China to commit to binding emission targets. The new framework will share similar principles with Kyoto, but call for emission targets from developing nations.

Obstacles: This is unacceptable to most countries because it would mean restarting the negotiations governed by a new framework, certainly unachievable before December. Developing nations especially oppose this because they believe it’s in violation of the ‘the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, also accounting for the historical responsibility of developed countries, providing an equitable approach to fair burden sharing.’ on which Kyoto protocol was built on. This displeasure was so radically demonstrated when delegates walked out of Canada’s keynote which proposed creating a new pact.

2. Emission targets of industrialized nations: In principle all nations agree that it is critical to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. But there’s little agreement on the exact emissions target for each country. Annex 1 countries are targeting upto 23% decrease from 1990 levels, while scientists say 40% is the necessary target to adhere to the temperature limit of 2 degrees Celsius.

Obstacles: Unfortunately even this number is hypothetical because most annex 1 countries have not passed laws with any such specific target. The Nobel committee recognized Obama’s climate change leadership due to which “the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.” Its a Nobel Peace prize in vain because it is improbable that the US senate can pass a bill outlining the emission target in such a short period before the COP. Not in the least because of the concurrent debate on its health bill or the major opposition from the Republican party. Without the USA, there’s no possibility of a successful Copenhagen protocol.

3. Emission targets of developing nations: There is a call for major developing nations to agree to binding emission targets, which will use a future year as the base. This is because according to current trends, they’re on an unsustainable GHG emissions growth path.

Obstacles: Major developing nations oppose this because it goes against the Kyoto protocol which doesn’t need emission commitments from developing countries. In addition there is no concrete agreement on the financing and technology transfers that are a must to achieve even the most modest of targets. Without a predictable channel of financing, all emission targets will be pulled out of thin air and simply unachievable.

4. Financing commitments: The Kyoto protocol outlines that developed countries will provide adequate, additional and predictable financing to developing nations to meet the requirements expected from developing nation parties. This is one of the pillars of Kyoto protocol to channelize funding for mitigation and adaptation in developing nations.

Obstacles: There is no binding financing commitment signed by a developed nation. The issue is especially complicated after the recent recession, which has contracted national coffers considerably. And EU is considering cutting international aid and use the same for climate change financing. Unfortunately few developing nations have put a number to the amount of financing they need to fund their national plans of mitigation and adaptation. Financing is a major concern of all developing nations and India for one might not sign the final deal if the financing mechanism is inadequate or vague. The African leaders estimated the cost of mitigation to be 44 billion Euros for their continent which emits just 4% of the world’s GHGs.

All these issues will be the major factors that will lead to either a half baked deal in Copenhagen or a deal unacceptable to many. We especially need to conciliate the developed and the developing nations.

I found the four expectations of Yves de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to be the best articulation of the least that should come out of the Copenhagen deal.

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?

4. How is that money going to be managed?

Simple enough? Now lets work on achieving this! Lets seal the deal.

On the 14^th of Oct 09 in Mumbai city at 4 pm, India, the fishermen community of Sarsole village, Navi Mumbai and Conservation Action Trust will showcase an event symbolizing the necessity to urge world leaders to take bold and immediate steps to address climate change and reduce carbon emission, to move beyond speeches and to initiate action on the ground as a part of the global day of action coordinated by 350.org. The fishermen will create a 350 symbol in the Thane Creek which will mark their protest against individual governments’ selfish negotiations rather than cooperating for a global consensus.

The Conservation Action Trust (www.cat.org.in) is a registered non-profit organization formed to protect the environment, particularly forests and wildlife. The main purpose of the Trust is to educate and enlighten decision makers and the public about the importance of forests and mangrove, wetlands for our survival.

Kolwanimata Mitra Mandal is a registered organization of fishermen at Sarsole which is one of the fishermen villages along the coast of Navi Mumbai. KMM is around four years old. It comprises of 40-50 boys of the village. Their mission is to highlight the issues concerning the lives of the small fishing village to the authorities who have turned a blind eye to their problems.

After decades of denial, humanities have woken up to the possible terminal illness of the planet, being global warming. Now is the time to act, to control the damage before the effects become irreversible.

For any further information kindly contact Mr Stalin D. (Site Manager) on 9820232302 or 022-27614012 or Meghna Daver (Conservation Officer) at 9930964304 at 022-27614016.

Address: CIDCO Building, 1^st Floor, Sector 3, Near HP petrol pump, Sanpada East, Navi Mumbai- 400614.

ENDS

Quotes :-

“Global Warming raises the sea water temperature which in tur1n directly effects the fish catch . It is affecting the fishermen and their livelihood, their Survival!”  Meghna Nayak Conservation Action Trust

“350 is parts per million of CO2, the safer upper limit of climate change. We are currently at 390 parts per million. At 390 ppm there are severe climatic disasters . We need to set 350 ppm as our goal in the United Nations Conference to be held in Copenhagen this December. On 24^th Oct , Global day of action , we want to get different people to do community iconic actions as part of the largest climate action asking for 350 ppm.

By doing a 350 boat action, we want to directly show the connection of 350 ppm as the most important number for all communities in the world. The existence of the fishermen communities depends on reaching this goal. We need to act fast to safe guard their survival. Global Warming will affect their livelihood” Ruchi Jain, Western and Central India Coordinator, 350.org  Campaign.

“The livelihood of the fishermen will get affected. The rising of sea levels will lead to displacing all the coastal communities to leave their communities. We are talking of their culture, their civilization; their livelihood getting wiped out from the Map They will ultimately land up in the slums in the cities. Do they deserve this existence?” Stalin Dayanand – Conservation Action Trust

“Near Thane city, in the 80s, fishermen used to get 27 varieties of fish. Now there is no fish catch, because of pollution, siltation and creek bed is rising because of Global Warming. Storm water is not getting flushed out. Fishes are changing the pattern. Marine cycle gets disturbed. The migratory pattern of the birds are also affected by global warming. This is all a vicious cycle of Global Warming. “Dr Amol Patwardhan- Conservation action Trust.

From Brave Blue Words I found out that Thursday Oct 15  was Blog Action Day for Climate Change. Bloggers all over the world are writing about various aspects of climate change.

Being a geologist I want to point to a study that reconstructs atmospheric CO2 levels as far back as the Miocene  – a 20 million year history. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been reconstructed with some confidence for the last 800,000 years or so using gas bubbles trapped in the Antarctic ice sheets. Before that the data was thin.

Aradhna Tripati and colleagues have used the boron to calcium ratio in foraminifera shells to calculate ancient CO2 levels. As atmospheric CO2 increases some of it diffuses into the ocean increasing the dissolved CO2 content of sea-water. That in turn reduces the amount of boron that is incorporated in a growing calcium carbonate shell of the foraminifer individual. The variation in the boron to calcium ratio over time as recorded in foraminfera fossils of different ages should tell us something about transitions in CO2 levels.

The scientists first validated their calculations using the 800 K record of CO2 trapped in ice. They compared their results with those obtained by the direct measurement of CO2 trapped in gas bubbles. It was a good match. The scientists calculate that the uncertainty in their results is about 14 parts per million.

Their results show that there is a close coupling between CO2 levels, sea-level and temperature over the last 20 million years.  In the middle Miocene (~ 20 ma) CO2 levels were about 400 ppm – comparable to modern levels – and that sea-levels at that time were 30 -40 meters higher than today (geologists estimate this using distribution of ancient shorelines), with temperatures about 3-6 deg C higher (using geochemical proxies like the oxygen isotope composition of shells which depend partly on temperature of the water from which they precipitate). Decreases in CO2 levels in the later part of Miocene and Pliocene were synchronous with major episodes of cooling and glacial expansion.

Its important to establish that historical connection to answer doubts expressed on what exact impact would increasing levels of CO2 have on climate and sea-level. Many climate change doubters are not happy with computer simulations and models of CO2 increase and climate change. This study shows that CO2 has been a strong driver and amplifier of climate change in the deep geological past. History is also a guide and often a reliable one.

Go here for the press release.A minor quibble. The press release calls the shells used by the scientists as belonging to single celled marine algae. Foraminifera are not algae. They are protists.

A second study on these satellite measurements asserts that the groundwater loss amounts to about 54 cubic km per year over a time period of 2002 and 2008. A lot of this extracted groundwater ends up in the sea and could be contributing to raising sea-levels by 0.16 millimeters every year, about 5% of the total sea level rise. That is about the same as contributed by runoff from melting Alaskan glaciers the authors conclude.

I don’t have access to the full paper so I don’t know the details of the calculation but here is what the scientists have to take into account:

Part of the groundwater extracted will be taken up by plants and remain there over the life of the plant and make its way into the food chain.
Part of it will be lost through the plants through evapo-transpiration.
Part of the water will remain in soil adhering to clay and sand particles.
Part of it will make its way back to the aquifer.
Part of it will make its way through the soil to local streams and eventually to the sea.
Part of it will be lost by direct evaporation. That evaporated water (and the water lost by evapo-transpiration) will fall as rain and part of it will infiltrate as groundwater and part of it will be surficial runoff into streams and eventually into the sea.

Just giving you  something to think about what happens to extracted groundwater.

Renewable power sources could form upto 5% of India’s power generation by 2012 according to India’s 11^th five year plan for the period 2007-2012.

India will continue pursuing ambitious economic growth figures of 8% while trying to accomplish the two objectives of sustainable development and inclusive growth. India’s 11^th five year plan released in 2006, has optimistic targets for the renewable energy sectors. The government’s growing committed to developing a sustainable economy with a high percentage of renewable energy in the fuel mix, is a shot in the arm for the fledgling renewable energy sector.

The proposals have a potential for enhancing India’s energy security, decreasing dependency on coal imports and decrease emissions profile, while enabling power to reach previously non-electrified regions.

Photo Credit: Planning Commission, India

Approach for the 11^th plan:

The plan proposes development and deployment strategies through a sector based approach in place of a technology based approach adopted in the 10^th plan. The 11^th plan seeks to overcome the shortcomings the 10^th plan suffered from lack of vision, effective coordination and even duplication of efforts, by well defining of aims, target areas, integration and coordination of programs.

The deployment programs that have been proposed are: 1. Grid-interactive renewable Power 2. Renewables for Urban, Industrial and Commercial Applications and 3. Renewables for Rural Areas. In addition a Research & Development in Renewable Energy will be pursued.

Proposals:

Renewable power will form 20% of the share in the new power capacity to be installed by 2012, at a cost of 12,000bn USD. This would increase by nearly 50%, the current installed capacity of hydro and wind which was 31,995 MW in 2005 and annually growing at 4.35%.

Wind and solar power would continue enjoying fiscal incentives along with generation based tax credits. Although the feed-in tariffs and generation based incentives for solar will be strengthened more to encourage investment in the sector that currently has only a sparse 2.12 MW power capacity.

40% of energy requirement in a rural household is met by firewood and other non-commercial biomass fuels. The Village Energy Security Programme (VESP) will aim to provide renewable energy services of cooking, lighting and motive power to villages through biomass, biofuel and biogas power generation systems. To achieve this, subsidies for distributed renewable power generation should be introduced to enhance local economic activity and also enable electricity to reach non-electrified areas where there’s demand backed by financial incentives.

In addition the Village Electrification Program for remote villages which under achieved during the 10^th plan has been revised with introduction of solar powered home-lighting systems to meet basic needs in the absence of detailed proposals from states for distributed generation and supply. The Rural Electrification Policy target to provide 1kwh/household/day, but achieving this is a distant dream.

The grid-connected villages will receive systems for solar thermal heating and cooking along with biogas plants for cooking applications. All these systems will be subsidized along with a feed-in tariff for grid interaction. The chief reason for subsidies is to make these systems affordable in comparison to commercial fossil fuel options.

Solar water heaters, industrial waste to energy, solar passive architecture and municipal waste to energy technologies are fairly mature in the Indian context. Yet they face low deployment due to lack of information and unaffordability.

Solar passive architecture has the potential to decrease energy consumption by upto 40% at an additional cost of only upto 10%. A scheme of subsidies along with a system of rating architecture is being developed.

Indian cities have great potential for generating power from municipal solid waste with an estimated potential of 2550 MWe in 2007. Tapping this potential has been hindered due to lack of segregation of waste and low financial viability of proposed projects. The 11^th plan proposes more subsidies, increasing funding to municipal bodies for waste segregation and more research of the appropriate technologies.

Projects for energy recovery from industrial wastes are relatively more with an installed capacity of 26 MWe and the 11^th plan targets to reach 200 MWe by 2012 and there’s a proposed subsidy of 1m USD per project.

The 11^th plan does not talk much about alternative fuels for transportation other than setting a target of 10% alternative oil in the fuel consumption of transport, ‘portable and stationary applications’ (generators).

All the data has been taken from India’s 11th Plan and TERI’s National Energy Map.

Crossposted from ThinkAboutIt.eu’s Climate Change blog.

“Anti-Nuclear Rally” was organized on October 1 and 2, 2009 in New Delhi. Around 100 people had come from states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. Scores of people from Delhi including the members of “Indian Youth Climate Network” also participated in the program.

October 1, 2009

On October 1, 2009, a National Seminar on “Nuclear Threats to India’s Children and Their Futures” was organized at the Indian Social Institute(ISI). The event began with Tamil and Oriya songs.

The coordinator of National Alliance For Anti-Nuclear Movement(NAAM) Dr. S. P. Udayakumar welcomed the seminar participants and spoke in detail about the status of Nuclear Energy in India and quoted examples of eminent personalities in the U.S. and Germany opposing the adoption of nuclear power as a source of energy. Next, the stage was graced by Dr. Gopal Krishna who stripped the Department Of Atomic Energy(DAE) naked in his address ,talking about the chicanery of DAE, he elaborated upon the vast target-achievement gap of the DAE, calling it a fraud and “an organization that is prone to lie”. For example in 1984, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) had a dream of generating 10,000 MW of electricity by the year 2000. It’s 2009 and India still produces only somewhat more than 4000MW. He expressed his despair over Nuclear energy being a sustainable source of energy.  His views were complemented by many a speakers who spoke after him. Prof. Achin Vanaik emphasized on the mad rush by third world countries for nuclear power pointing in particular to India and China. With his emphatic stride, he was instrumental to flint a debate over the extreme emphasis of third world countries on nuclear energy which remained the topic of discussion for quite some time to follow. He vehemently deprecated the stand of Government of India (GOI) which endorses Nuclear Power as a climate solution. The speakers which followed the discussion seemed particularly infuriated over GOI’S covertness towards renewable sources of energy. Professor Banwarilal Sharma went on to say “The Government Of India is not representing the people of India instead it’s a representation of monetary superpowers”. He carried an economic analysis of nuclear power verses thermal power and concluded nuke power to be available at Rs. 19 per unit as compared to Rs. 2 per unit for thermal power. The discussion gave birth to many innovative ideas contributing to an alternate option of energy resources available to India, these included usage of biogas owing to the large amount of agricultural waste produced by us.

Mr. Samuel Jyrwa, President of Khasi Student Union, Meghalaya talked in length about the ill effects of uranium mining in their state and its repercussions as well as it’s immediate effects on the people of Meghalaya. He also threw light on the grave dangers of nuclear power plants which are to be set up in the country for which excessive mining has been carried out in their homeland.

Mr. Sukla Sen from Coalition For Nuclear Disarmament And Peace(CNDP) drew a connection between nuclear power and nuclear proliferation, asserting clearly that nuclear power will serve as a gateway for nuclear armament especially in the third world countries. Saraswati Kavula, an activist from Movement Against Uranium Projects(MAUP) extended her support to this as she shared her experiences relating to Nuclear developments in Andhra Pradesh. Hazards of nuclear radiations were put to focus by a group of doctors from Punjab who enlightened the audience regarding the fatal consequences of radiations caused due to nuclear power plants. Eminent speakers like Professor Praful Bidwai graced the stage following the address of  activists from MAUP,CNDP and MAPM which was followed by an interactive question- answer session. The concluding dialogue was delivered by Mr. Neeraj Jain  who briefed everyone about NAAM’S future plans and strategies. The event was concluded with thanksgiving remarks by Mr. S. P. Udayakumar.

At 3:00 PM a Press Meet was conducted at the Indian Women’s Press Corp, New Delhi. Samuel Jyrwa, Saraswati Kavula, Sukla Sen, Neeraj Jain, Gabrielle Dietrich and S. P. Udayakumar addressed the media persons.

After that Sukla Sen, Neeraj Jain, Gabrielle Dietrich and S. P. Udayakumar went to the Rashtrapati Bhavan and submitted a memorandum to the President. The memorandum pointed out the dangers involved in setting up uranium mines and nuclear power plants all over the country and exhorted the President to intervene in the matter and to direct the UPA government not to proceed with the dangerous nuclear plans.

At 8 PM, Garhwal Bhawan, all the “Delhi Rally” participants had a strategy meeting discussing the various activities that they could undertake under the auspices of NAAM.

October 2, 2009

Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday was celebrated in its true spirit; on the 2^nd of October activists from MAUP, NAPM, CNDP, KSU and various other organizations including members of Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) under the banner of NAAM practiced Ahimsic Satyagraha against GOI’s lethal nuclear policies. The participants went to Rajghat accompanied by Mr. Bernie Meyer, known as the American Gandhi. At the Gandhi Samadhi, the NAAM activists surrounded the Gandhi look-alike Mr. Meyer and wailed and cried about the UPA government’s nuclear policies, projects and programs. The activists complained loudly that the nuclear policies and programs of the government would hurt, harm and kill our people, especially our children and their descendants. As the wailing and crying went on, the visitors and the presspersons present at Rajghat gathered around them and enquired about the campaign. Handbills were distributed to the visitors and people were encouraged to abet the cause.

The “Delhi Rally” started from Samta Sthal and people marched along the highway, walked nearly 5-6 kilometers under scorching sun to Jantar Mantar distributing both English and Hindi handbills to the bystanders and motorists. The marchers were also singing, shouting slogans and making short speeches. A marvelous depiction of secularism was observed as people from all over the country echoed an alien tongue for a common cause, it was heartening to see people from Meghalaya, Delhi, Rajasthan, U.P. , Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Orissa etc. chanting “vendaam vendaam anushakti vendaam” in Tamil and people from the southern part of the country engaging in folk songs from the north east. Such unity in diversity seemed transcendental.

At Jantar Mantar, activists sang songs and danced to the music. Several activists including Prem Verma, Bernie Meyer, Anil Choudhary, Dr. Krishnaswamy, Achin Vanaik, Samuel Jyrwa, Saraswati Kavula and others gave brief speeches. From there the participants proceeded to Teen Murti.

Stand Up together for enabling peace (STEP) had arranged a cultural performance at the Teen Murti auditorium. After enjoying some fantastic performances, they rally participants left for Garhwal Bhawan and passed the “Charter of Demands” of the “Delhi Rally and concluded the rally.

Stand Up and Take Action Against Poverty and for MDGs

The Millennium Development Goals were adopted by 189 world leaders from the north and south, as part of the Millennium Declaration which was signed in 2000. These leaders agreed to achieve the Goals by 2015. The impacts of climate change threaten the achievement of the MDGs and the Millennium Development Goals represent an essential step in tackling the climate change challenge in developing countries. With about 6 years to reach the target, and a lot more to be achieved, we the young people of the country have to take the lead and demand action.

The Stand Up and Take Action Campaign is a part of the global movement for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and also demand strong policy actions for the same. We Stand up and take action along with millions of other people across to remind the decision makers about their commitment. We campaign at traffic signals, clean up parks, file petitions, send out letters to politicians, take pledges, talk to people about sustainability amongst many others….

To find out more about what is happening in your region, please visit www.iycn.in/suta

International Day of Climate Action

We are eight weeks away from the all important UN negotiations at the Conference of Parties in Copenhagen. In the recently concluded intercessionals in Bangkok, there seems to be a broad consensus on limiting temperature increases to two degrees Celsius, but there is still no consensus on how to reach that goal. The International Day of Climate Action is an attempt to show to the world leaders the urgency to Together we can show our world and it’s decision-makers just how big, beautiful and unified the climate movement really is.

On October 24, about 2000 organizers are organizing actions in about 148 countries (and still growing). We walk, we march, we cycle, we plant trees and the list is endless. We take pictures of these events and send them to the world leaders and demand bold actions that would lead to solutions – solutions that science and justice demands.
It may not be too late to start your own action (www.350.org/oct24).

To find out what is happening in your region, please visit www.iycn.in/oct24

To organize an action in your region or if you need assistance, please contact Surendran at suren@iycn.in or 011 4679 2246

COME BE A PART OF THE HISTORY

Saraswati Kavula is an Anti-nuclear activist from Movement against Uranium Projects (MAUP), Andhra Pradesh which enjoys the support of Human Rights Forum (HRF), National Alliance For People’s Movement (NAPM), and National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements (NAAM).She has been actively opposing nuclear developments in Andhra Pradesh for over a decade.

Question (Vinayak). What is the situation in Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) related to “Nuclear” developments?

Answer (Saraswati)- The situation is scary. In A.P. ll these plants are planned within a radius of 100km.the plan is to build Nuclear reactors in districts of Nalagunda, Kadappa, Shikakulam and Vishakhapatnam (near BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE). All these plants are planned within a radius of 100km. We have opposed the construction of these plants with the support of people from HRF and NAPM. In spite of our efforts the government has remained unperturbed. Everyone knows how harmful nuclear waste is, even the government knows that. What do you think, don’t they know about the alternate sources of energy. Everyone knows, but that is not in the interest of the big money holder’s they work for. No one in this world can dispose off nuke waste in a safe manner yet they are propagating it. “I don’t know where they want to take this country!”

Question: What do you think of the politicians’ stand on Nuclear Power debate especially in A.P.?

Answer: The political stand has always wavered. For example when YS Rajasekhar Reddy(Y.S.R. Reddy) was the leader of opposition in A.P. he opposed uranium mining in Nalagunda but when he came to power, he vehemently supported the construction of a nuclear power plant in Kadappa.

Question: Many hydel-power projects have been established in A.P. as well. Are you supportive of them?

Answer: Rivers like Krishna and Godavari are sinking because of dams. Do you know by building these days, silt from rivers is not coming down as a consequence of which deltas are sinking. These large hydel projects require huge capital, vast areas of cultivable land are wasted and millions of people are displaced. High dams are not sustainable. We are simply disturbing the nature by building them. It’s utter madness.

Question: How do you think we can meet our growing energy needs?

Answer:-Why do you need so much energy? For whom is this energy required? For big corporates or the common man. The poor man does not want so much energy. His first need is food and water. It is just the rich elite class which is craving for energy.

I am much happy living in a mud house living a happy and healthy life. As far as alternate solutions go we can use solar energy. India has got such vast potential for solar, why not manifest on that. Even countries like Germany are going for it then why can’t we do it.

Question: India is growing in the manufacturing sector. We need energy for development. Don’t we?

Answer-What is development?

You say industries are growing yet there is less employment, why?

People are losing out on jobs. Adivasis are being thrown out from their home land and ripped off their livelihood. It is all being done by the rich for the rich, all in the name of development.

Whose development are you referring to??

It has not benefited the common man.

Why do you want to throw a farmer out of farmland in the name of development, it is his means of earning livelihood.

Question: What mechanism do you suggest to overcome our employment and energy problems?

Answer-“The answer to our problems lies in decentralizing the production and distribution of energy in India”. When every state is self reliant then the transmission problems can be solved.

As Gandhi ji put it-“Small scale industry is better than a large scale industry”.

I’ll give the example of Indian textiles. Our handloom sector was best in the world. British came up with industrialization; handloom could not compete the stern competition in terms of price and eventually died. It rendered millions out of their jobs precisely that is what is happening in contemporary India. We have to promote and adopt decentralization. See, this thing the elite and the big corporates will not promote because “if small scale grows it will hamper the growth of large scale”.

Question: Don’t you think you are pushing the country back?

Answer-No we are not going back, we are simply trying to restructure the system .Please don’t give up what was good in the past .Instead of going crazy, we need to start saving more rather than generating more. Liberalization has messed this all up, it has been responsible for the current energy and employment crisis. This whole model of development is faulty. It does not solve problems. What is the use of a higher GDP if people’s health has deteriorated?

Question: What I get from your talks is that all we need is food, shelter and clothing, that’s it.

Answer-Well, these must be met first. At least the country must have proper health, sanitation, food and drinking water facilities as priority and then we can think of development. What’s the point of competing with the world when you can’t provide your people with the bare minimum?

Through the eyes of 47 expert authors, Into a Warming World outlines not only the serious challenge that climate stabilization now presents to the global community, but also the multitude of economic, social, environmental, and security opportunities that exist to manage and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Bearing in mind that each country will need to adopt a unique yet coordinated response to address this challenge, Worldwatch has collaborated with the Centre for Environment Education (CEE) to tailor State of the World 2009 for an Indian audience. This has been done through the inclusion of a Preface by Kartikeya Sarabhai, CEE’s Director, in which he offers an overview of India’s engagement with the issue of climate change to date and elaborates on the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the country.

Into a Warming World was first launched in Washington in January 2009, a year that is set to become the most crucial year yet for climate change in 25 years of global warming diplomacy. 2009 is a year that has seen a new and more proactive U.S. administration, borne witness to a growing number of climate change-related impacts around the world as well as considerable growth in global awareness of the challenge and the opportunities that exist to address the problem, and is the year that will end with a meeting of global leaders in Copenhagen this December to decide the shape and form of a new global treaty on climate change within the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).“At this critical juncture in history” said Sarabhai in his preface, “as the world meets for the UNFCCC climate negotiations, this Indian edition will make the volume available to a large cross-section of decision makers, students, and field practitioners in India and in the process will help enrich the quality of discussion as India searches for that alternative and sustainable paradigm of development.”

During October alone, the report will be presented to a wide audience in seven major cities across India. Organised by CEE, each of the launches includes two panel discussions around key themes drawn from the report. The choice of topic has been tailored to that of most interest and relevance for each city. The first launch took place in Pune this week, and events to follow this month will take place in Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Guwahati, Bhubaneshwar, Bangalore and New Delhi.  For more information on these events, please see here.

“This is an ambitious series of events,” said Christopher Flavin, President of the Worldwatch Institute, “and one that we welcome in our effort to understand the Indian context and elucidate how to most effectively support and catalyze a sustainable, low carbon economy in India and around the world.”

Speaking about the launch in Pune, Archana Devar, India Coordinator for the CleanStar Trust, a Pune-based NGO that supports rural poor in setting up agro-forestry and clean energy micro-enterprises, said “the panel discussions elaborated on the various clean development challenges and opportunities India has, particularly for a metropolis like Pune. NGOs working towards combating the challenges of climate change were well represented and the flow of ideas was aplenty. We look forward to some great action in and around Pune.”

Cross-Posted from Dateline: Copenhagen, Worldwatch Institute