India Left Behind?

India recently set forth its National Action Plan on Climate Change (summary and link to whole plan here). It orders the various ministries to submit detailed implementation plans in each of eight mission areas by the end of this year. Although the plan contemplates no specific limits on Indian carbon emissions, and that development objectives have priority over limiting global warming, it pledges that India's per-capita greenhouse gas emissions "will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives." Since India's per-capita GHG emissions are about 2 tonnes CO₂equivalent, while the average of the developing world is about 16 tonnes, that seems like a safe bet.

But what if the United States miraculously follows Al Gore's "Generational Challenge to Repower America", and becomes largely carbon-neutral in energy within ten years? That would give Americans per-capita GHG emissions of about 3 tonnes CO₂e (more than 85% of U.S. GHG emissions come from energy use). Even if other developed countries didn't do the same, the average of their per-capita emissions would be around 6-7 tonnes. Could India beat that at its current rate of increase in coal-based power?

And consider that such a crash program would make the United States the leader in a whole range of renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies, from solar and wind to electric vehicles and public transport. Plus redirecting spending from importing oil to domestic research and manufacturing would have a profound effect on the economy. Paychecks for Americans instead of for Canadians and Saudis.

When do you think India's per-capita emissions will exceed America's?

IT Greening, But It Doesn't Add Up

"In our experience the sectors that are ahead in eco initiatives are larger organisations that are exposed to customer pressure. As the pressure from customers and government to reduce environmental impact increases, the ripple effect will spread to all suppliers, no matter the size," — Duncan Bennet, Vice President and Managing Director, Sun Microsystems ANZ.

This has been HaraBara's contention from its beginning, and is the basic reason for our existence.

Mr. Bennet's statement is based on a survey of Australian and New Zealand IT managers carried out by Sun Microsystems. I found these results the most interesting:

Measurement of carbon emissions

• 22% have practices in place to enable the measurement of carbon emissions
• 36% have no practices in place but are interested in evaluating them
• 33% have no plans to measure carbon emissions

Greening the IT department

• 38% have dedicated green IT plans in place
• 23% plan to deploy eco responsible technology in the next 12 months
• 21% are evaluating putting green IT plans in place
• 15% have no plans at all

So 38% have green IT plans, but only 22% can measure carbon emissions? What, then, does "green IT plan" mean?

The following findings were unsurprising, since all studies of "going green" show that businesses are focused on the bottom line:

Drivers for uptake of green technology (multiple answers allowed, top 4 below):

• Reduced power consumption - 78%
• Lower costs - 73%
• Lower carbon emissions and environmental impact (eg recycling) - 61%
• Improved systems performance and utilisation - 50%

Costs of Future Carbon Reductions Estimated by IEA

We Can Cut CO₂ Emissions In Half, But It Won't Be Cheap

A new report from the International Energy Agency provides some estimates of the cost of reducing global CO₂ emissions 50% by 2050. Their scenarios depend on implementing new technologies such as carbon capture and storage, and involve cost of tens of trillions of dollars. Information about the report is here. The executive summary is here(pdf).

Maintaining Our Current Course Might Cost Just As Much

The IEA's "business as usual" scenario sees oil demand increasing 70%, requiring increased production equal to five times Saudi Arabia's current output. Obviously this would require huge investment, plus imposing much higher oil prices on future consumers. And under this scenario CO₂ emissions would rise 130%. Who knows how much would have to be spent on climate change mitigation projects?

So we are going to invest many trillions either way. It is a question of what sort of planet we will have in the end.

(Environmental Leader article)