Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for Environment

‘Above normal’ monsoon this year: IMD

by

rain

New Delhi: There will be “above normal” monsoon this year, the Met office predicted today, easing fears over farm and economic growth after two consecutive years of drought.

Releasing its monsoon forecast for the season, IMD Director-General Laxman Singh Rathore said, “Monsoon will be 106 percent of the long period average (LPA). There is 94 percent probability that monsoon will be normal to excess this year. By and large, there will be fair distribution of monsoon across the country. But North-East India and South-East India, particularly Tamil Nadu, may get slightly less than normal rainfall.”Drought-hit Marathwada is also likely to receive “good” rainfall, Rathore added.

Anything less than 90 per cent of the LPA is termed as a “deficient” monsoon and 90-96 per cent of the LPA is considered as “below normal”. Monsoon is considered as “normal” if the LPA is between 96-104 per cent of the LPA.

“Above normal” monsoon is between 104-110 per cent of the LPA and anything beyond 110 per cent of the LPA is considered as “excess”.

Agriculture, which contributes 15 per cent to India’s GDP and employs about 60 per cent of the country’s population, is heavily dependent on the monsoon as only 40 per cent of the cultivable area is under irrigation.

Due to poor monsoon in 2015-16 crop year (July-June), 10 states have declared drought and the Centre has sanctioned relief package of about Rs 10,000 crore to help farmers.

(Agencies)

Australia: Great Barrier Reef coral dies from bleaching

by

Extreme weather conditions cause mass “die-off” on iconic reef, prompting adoption of highest emergency response level.

More than $3bn is generated each year from the reef's tourism industry [Courtesy: XL Catlin Seaview Survey]

More than $3bn is generated each year from the reef’s tourism industry [Courtesy: XL Catlin Seaview Survey]

by Al Jazeera

Extreme bleaching has caused the death of large amounts of coral on Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, prompting the government to implement its highest response level to help tackle the crisis.

New diver surveys conducted off Cape York, Australia’s remote far northeastern tip, found up to 50 percent coral mortality because of coral bleaching, caused by rising sea temperatures, the government announced on Sunday.

“The corals in the remote far north of the reef experienced extremely hot and still conditions this summer, and were effectively bathed in warm water for months, creating heat stress that they could no longer cope with,” said Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

He said a level three response meant stepped-up surveys to better understand and tackle threats to the reef.

Reichelt said, however, that the “extent and severity of bleaching varies greatly across the reef” and weather conditions “have so far spared most sections of the 344,400 square kilometre marine park from coral die-off”.

The Great Barrier Reef, comprising nearly 3,000 reefs and 900 islands, stretching 2,000km along Australia’s northeast coast and is considered the world’s largest living structure.

More than $3bn is generated each year from the Reef’s tourism industry.

The WWF, the wildlife protection group, said on Monday that while it welcomed the government’s action, higher-level policy decisions needed to be taken to address the root cause of the problem.

“This is the worst coral bleaching event ever to hit this most pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef,” said WWF spokesman Richard Leck.

“We can turn this around. The reef can recover but we must speed up the shift to clean, renewable energy and we must build reef resilience by reducing runoff pollution from farms and land clearing.

“Australia must speed up the transition to clean energy – like solar and wind – by setting a target of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035.”

Climate Change-Fueled Food Crisis Could Kill Half a Million by 2050

by

Rising greenhouse gas emissions could cut food productivity by one-third over next few decades

Farms and farmers have long been "in the crosshairs of climate change." (Photo: World Bank/flickr/cc)

Farms and farmers have long been “in the crosshairs of climate change.” (Photo: World Bank/flickr/cc)

by Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams

More than half a million people could die in the next few decades as a result of climate change, according to new research published Wednesday in The Lancet.

The study from the UK-based Oxford Martin Future of Food Programme is the first of its kind to assess the impact of climate change on diet composition and body-weight. It found that unless action is taken to reduce global emissions, climate change—and the resulting droughts, floods, and severe weather events—could cut food availability and in turn lead to roughly 530,000 deaths, predominantly in the Western Pacific region (264,000 additional deaths) and Southeast Asia (164,000).

Previous research has shown how climate change will impact global crop production. The Oxford study goes deeper, finding that climate change could cut the projected improvement in food availability by about a third by 2050, and lead to average per-person reductions in food availability of 3.2 percent (99 kcal per day), in fruit and vegetable intake of 4 percent, and red meat consumption of 0.7 percent. That could lead to changes in the energy content and composition of diets, and these changes “will have major consequences for health,” said study leader Marco Springmann.

“Climate change is likely to have a substantial negative impact on future mortality, even under optimistic scenarios,” Springmann continued. “Adaptation efforts need to be scaled up rapidly. Public-health programs aimed at preventing and treating diet and weight-related risk factors, such as increasing fruit and vegetable intake, must be strengthened as a matter of priority to help mitigate climate-related health effects.”

Meanwhile, “depending on their stringency,” emissions-reduction policies could lower the number of climate-related deaths by 29–71 percent, the study says.

As reporter Chelsea Harvey wrote at the Washington Post, the paper is “a sobering look at just a single facet of the climate change dilemma. Of course, the impacts of climate change are expected to cause human deaths in a variety of other ways as well. The increased risk of infectious disease, natural disasters, forced migration and civil unrest are just a few examples.”

But farms and farmers have long been “in the crosshairs of climate change,”wrote Ryan Zinn, political director of the fair trade advocacy campaign Fair World Project, last year.

“Though farmers have seen negative impacts related to climate change for decades, these impacts have been exacerbated in recent years,” he continued. “Even relatively small temperature increases are having significant impacts on farming, including accelerated desertification and salinization of arable land, increased presence of pests, crop losses due to high temperatures and flooding, and, paradoxically, increased clean water scarcity.”

To confront these challenges, Zinn argued, policymakers must recognize that “the global agriculture system is at the heart of both the problem and the solution.”

“Industrial agriculture is a key driver in the generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs),” he explained. “Synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, heavy machinery, monocultures, land change, deforestation, refrigeration, waste and transportation are all part of a food system that generates significant emissions and contributes greatly to global climate change.”

“Addressing climate change on the farm can not only tackle the challenging task of agriculture-generated GHGs,” Zinn said, “but it can also produce more food with fewer fossil fuels.”

Global sea levels rising faster due to global warming

by

Man-made climate change responsible for fastest rise in sea levels in the past 2,800 years.

Sea levels rose 14cm during the 20th century [AP]

Sea levels rose 14cm during the 20th century [AP]

by Al Jazeera

Sea levels are rising several times faster than in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.

An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest rise in sea levels was about 3cm to 4cm a century, plus or minus a bit.

During that time the global sea level really did not get much higher or lower than 7.62cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Since 1993 the rate has soared to 30cm and two different studies, published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28 and 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

“There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest,” said Bob Kopp, Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor and the lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia.

“It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century, which has been driven by fossil fuel use.”

If seas continue to rise as projected, another 45cm of sea-level rise will cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surge during storms, said study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

The link to temperature is basic science, the study’s authors say. Warm water expands. Cold water contracts. The scientists pointed to specific past eras when temperatures and sea rose and fell together.

Both studies project increases of about 57 to 131cm if greenhouse gas pollution continues at the current rate. If countries fulfill the treaty agreed last year in Paris and limit further warming to another two degrees Fahrenheit, the rise in sea levels would be in the 28cm to 56cm range.

Historic climate deal reached, but campaigners say the work is just beginning

by

‘This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history.’— Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International

(Photo: Global 2000 / Liebentritt/flickr/cc)

(Photo: Global 2000 / Liebentritt/flickr/cc)

by Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams

The global talks known as COP21 ended Saturday with nearly 200 countries agreeing to a carbon emissions-slashing deal (pdf).  But climate campaigners are saying that the agreement doesn’t go far enough, and that the real work is just beginning.

While Reuters described the deal’s adoption as “setting the course for a ‘historic’ transformation of the world’s fossil fuel-driven economy within decades in a bid to arrest global warming,” commentator George Monbiot writes Saturday of the draft agreement, “By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.”

How Rainforest Action Network viewed the deal—”with both hope and disappointment”—captures the takeaway from Monbiot as well as many groups.

Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo’s take at the end of the talks was that the agreement marks “only one step on long a road, and there are parts of it that frustrate and disappoint me, but it is progress. This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep.”

Here’s how environmental organization Earthjustice sums up just what the Paris Agreement commits its signatories to:

  • hold the increase in global temperature average to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, a goal that reflects the most current science on the uppermost limit of warming if we are to reduce the risk of the most catastrophic impacts of climate change
  • review progress every five years, the first before 2020, and bring countries back to the table to increase their emissions reduction efforts
  • robust transparency provisions to hold nations accountable to carry through on their pledges
  • provide support to poorer countries to help them leapfrog to low-carbon development, adapt to climate change and cope with unavoidable loss and damage.

The Guardian reports that the deal “for the first time commits rich countries, rising economies and some of the poorest countries to work together to fight climate change.”

“The overall agreement is legally binding,” the reporting adds, “but some elements—including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements —are not.”

That was noted by Friends of the Earth Scotland, who said that among the pact’s problems is the fact that “[t]here is no legally binding way forward to address the problem of lack of ambition of current national contributions towards post-2020 action—a very weak “facilitative dialogue” in 2018 with no obligation to actually improve these plans.” And as far as the 1.5 degree limit is concerned, the language used—”to pursue efforts”—is weak.

Naidoo said of the 1.5 degree limit, “That single number, and the new goal of net zero emissions by the second half of this century, will cause consternation in the boardrooms of coal companies and the palaces of oil-exporting states.”

“This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history,” Naidoo said. Indeed, similar to Reuters‘ phrasing of the outcome, the Guardianwrote in its reporting of the deal’s adoption: “Governments have signaled an end to the fossil fuel era.” Similarly, ThinkProgress‘ Joe Romm wrote that it’s a deal “that will leave most of the world’s fossil fuels unburned.” That laudable element aside, many of the nations’ pledges put the world on a path to warming of not 2 but over 3 degrees, Earthjustice says.

On the issue of climate finance, says ActionAid, the deal “lets the world’s biggest historical polluters off the hook.” Disappointments aside, the group’s chief executive, Adriano Campolina, said the deal “provides an important hook on which people can hang their demands.”

“And so our work is just beginning,” Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen. “Whether we live in rich nations or poor ones, in low-lying coastal communities or in the American heartland, our fates are bound together.”

Others at the Paris conference took to Twitter to underscore the importance of grassroots movements now in forcing governments to commit to making the changes required:

And that sentiment brought out thousands to the streets of Paris—in defiance of a protest ban—on Saturday. Among those is Philippine activist Joseph Purugganan from the organization Focus on the Global South.

“The message here is that the real solution will come from the people,” he told the New York Times.

As Naidoo added in his statement, “To pull us free of fossil fuels we are going to need to mobilize in ever greater numbers.” And there have been successes, he noted. “This year the climate movement beat the Keystone pipeline, we kicked Shell out of the Arctic and put coal into terminal decline.”

“For us,” he said, “Paris was always a stop on an ongoing journey. Ultimately our fate will be decided over the coming decades by the collective courage of our species. I believe we will succeed.”

‘Don’t bomb Syria’: Protests across the UK as Syria vote looms

by

Demonstrators protest against British bombing of Syria outside Downing Street in London, Britain, 28 November 2015. British Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on MP's to vote for Britain to join France with bombing raids against ISIS in Syria. (EPA/ANDY RAIN)

Demonstrators protest against British bombing of Syria outside Downing Street in London, Britain, 28 November 2015. British Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on MP’s to vote for Britain to join France with bombing raids against ISIS in Syria. (EPA/ANDY RAIN)

by Common Dreams

Thousands of people protested in London and around Britain Saturday against Britain joining in bombing attacks on ISIS in Syria.

The UK Parliament will vote next week on whether to join with the US and France in launching air strikes on Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron is leading the push for bombing.

The UK protests are organized by the Stop The War Coalition movement, which is also holding a string of other demonstrations around Britain.

The Stop The War Coalition said in a statement: “The proposed vote in Parliament on bombing Syria by British forces is likely to take place within the next week. The vote is more likely following the terrible events in Paris. Yet this bombing will not stop terror attacks. Stop the War is opposed to this military response.”

Cameron’s previous government suffered a humiliating defeat in 2013 over launching military action against the Assad government and did not push for a vote for the UK to join in bombing Syria last year.

Current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is a founder of the Stop The War Coalition, opposes air strikes.

Writers, musicians, politicians, academics, filmmakers, trade unionists, campaigners and artists write to David Cameron.
To be delivered by Brian Eno and Mark Rylance at the Downing Street protest on 28 November 2015.

28 November 2015

Dear Prime Minister

The current rush to bomb Syria following the terrible events in Paris risks a dangerous escalation which will inflame the war there and increase bitterness against the West. The US has been bombing Isis for a year and admits that Isis is as strong as ever and has continued recruiting.

The experience of the wars in Afghanistan Iraq and Libya shows that Western military interventions lead to large scale casualties, devastating destruction and huge flows of refugees.

Far from tackling terrorism the last fourteen years of war have seen massively increased Jihadi terrorist organization around the world.

Rather than ignoring this recent history by joining the long list of countries that have bombed Syria in the last year we urge the government to stop arming reactionary and aggressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that sponsor terrorist groups and look for political solutions as the only viable way to end the conflict.

Yours,

Mark Rylance Actor
Brian Eno Musician
Hans von Sponeck Former UN Assistant Secretary-General
Frankie Boyle Comedian
Will Self Writer
Ken Loach Filmmaker
John Pilger Journalist
Owen Jones Journalist
Caryl Churchill Playwright
Francesca Martinez Comedian
Jeremy Hardy Comedian
Caroline Lucas MP Green Party
Tommy Sheppard MP SNP
Arthur Smith Comedian
Miriam Margolyes Actor
John Hilary Executive Director of War on Want
Michael Rosen Writer
Mark Serwotka PCS General Secretary
Tariq Ali Writer
David Gentleman Artist
Prof John Kinsella Poet
Prof Diane Reay University of Cambridge
Prof Richard Wilkinson University of Nottingham
Victoria Brittain Journalist
Manuel Cortes TSSA General Secretary
Christine Shawcroft Labour NEC
Prof Ray Bush University of Leeds
Prof Christopher Cramer SOAS
Prof George Irvin SOAS
Andrew Murray Chair of Stop the War Coalition
Lindsey German Convenor of Stop the War Coalition
Kate Hudson CND General Secretary
Logic Musician
Prof Susan Newman University of the West of England
Prof Gurminder Bhambra University of Warwick
Prof Ozlem Onaran University of Greenwich
Prof Prem Sikka University of Essex
Jean Urquhart MSP Independent
Elaine Smith MSP Labour

Mexico braces for Hurricane Patricia: ‘strongest storm ever measured’

by

‘An extremely dangerous, potentially catastrophic hurricane,’ warns the National Hurricane Center

Hurricane Patricia became a Category 5 storm overnight and the National Hurricane Center has said it is the most powerful storm of its kind ever recorded on the planet. Mexico has declared a state of emergency over a massive area as landfall looms. (Photo: NOAA/National Hurricane Center)

Hurricane Patricia became a Category 5 storm overnight and the National Hurricane Center has said it is the most powerful storm of its kind ever recorded on the planet. Mexico has declared a state of emergency over a massive area as landfall looms. (Photo: NOAA/National Hurricane Center)

by Jon Queally, Common Dreams

A state of emergency has been declared over large sections along Mexico’s Pacific coast on Friday as Hurricane Patricia, listed now as a Category 5 and described as the “strongest storm ever measured on the planet.”

With sustained winds of over 160 mph and maximum speeds of 200 mph, the U.S. National Hurricane Center described Patricia as the “strongest hurricane on record” in eastern North Pacific Basins and forecasters are warning that coupled with those devastating winds, a powerful storm surge—featuring giagantic waves and massive inland flooding—could overwhelm coastal regions when it makes landfall in the coming hours.

“This is an extremely dangerous, potentially catastrophic hurricane,” said NHC meteorologist Dennis Feltgen.

Writing for the Weather Underground blog, meteorologist Bob Henson said that “history is being made” as experts assessed the size and strength of the unprecedented storm. “Late Thursday night,” Henson reports, “an Air Force Hurricane Hunter flight captured some of the most extreme observations ever recorded in 70 years of reconnaissance activity.”

In a subsequent post, Henson and his colleague Jeff Masters characterized the storm in even more dramatic terms:

Stunning, historic, mind-boggling, and catastrophic: that sums up Hurricane Patricia, which intensified to an incredible-strength Category 5 storm with 200 mph winds overnight. At 2:46 am EDT October 23, 2015 an Air Force hurricane hunter aircraft measured a central pressure of 880 mb in Patricia, making it the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere. The aircraft measured surface winds of 200 mph, which are the highest reliably-measured surface winds on record for a tropical cyclone, anywhere on the Earth.

Using predictions of the storm’s path, the Mexican government declared a state of emergency for 56 municipalities in the coastal states of Colima, Nayarit and Jalisco. Residents in those areas were being told to prepare for the “worst-case scenario” and government emergency agencies were using the hashtag #PrevenirEsVivir (“to prevent is to live”) to remind citizens of hurricane safety protocols.

This satellite image on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015, taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows Hurricane Patricia moving over Mexico’s central Pacific Coast. (NOAA via AP)

Regarding the unprecedented strength of the storm, Weather.com adds:

Hurricane Patricia became the strongest Pacific hurricane on record shortly after midnight CDT early Friday. Air Force Hurricane Hunters had flown through the eye of Patricia and reported a sea-level pressure of 894 millibars as measured by a dropsonde inside the eye itself. Wind measurements suggested that the pressure measurement was not in the exact center of the eye and was probably not the absolute lowest pressure, prompting NHC to estimate the minimum central pressure at 892 millibars in its special 12:30 a.m. CDT advisory.

Current wind reports at selected cities in Mexico. Some sites do not report at all times of day. Enhanced satellite imagery shows the cloud pattern in and around the hurricane.

Tropical cyclone strength comparisons are typically based on minimum central pressure. At 892 millibars, Patricia shattered the Eastern Pacific basin’s previous record of 902 millibars set by Hurricane Linda in 1997.

While a number of typhoons in the western North Pacific have been stronger, Patricia is by far the strongest hurricane in any basin where the term “hurricane” applies to tropical cyclones – namely, the central and eastern North Pacific basins and the North Atlantic basin, which includes the North Atlantic Ocean itself plus the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.

10 Million at risk of hunger due to Climate Change and El Niño, Oxfam Warns

by

A rendering of current El Nino conditions. (Photo: NOAA/flickr/cc)

A rendering of current El Nino conditions. (Photo: NOAA/flickr/cc)

by Tharanga Yakupitiyage, Inter Press Service

At least ten million of the poorest people face food insecurity in 2015 and 2016 due to extreme weather conditions and the onset of El Niño, Oxfam has reported.

In Oxfam’s new report called Entering Uncharted Waters, erratic weather patterns were noted including high temperatures and droughts, disrupting farming seasons around the world.

Countries are already facing a “major emergency,” said Oxfam, including Ethiopia where 4.5 million people are in need of food assistance due to a drought this year.

Almost three million face hunger in Malawi as a result of erratic rains followed by drought. These conditions have caused a stifling in food production and a rise in food prices.

Christian Aid reported that the production of maize, Malawi’s staple food, has dropped by 30 percent in 2014, while maize prices have risen between 50 and 100 percent.

Central American farmers have been coping with a drought for almost two years, also disrupting its maize production and decreasing access to sufficient food.

Oxfam warns that conditions will worsen due to the incoming El Niño, which could be the “most powerful” since 1997

El Niño is a weather phenomenon where there is periodic, but prolonged warming of the Pacific Ocean. This can last between 9 months to 2 years, producing below-average rains and high temperatures.

El Niño has already reduced the Asian monsoon over India, potentially triggering a prolonged drought and food insecurity in the Eastern region of the continent.

The warming of the oceans, exacerbated by climate change, may double the frequency of the most powerful El Niños, Oxfam says.

The charity urged for preemptive action, pointing to the consequences of failure of response, such as the death of 260,000 during the food crisis in the Horn of Africa in 2011.

Christian Aid has also reported funding deficits in Malawi of over 130 million dollars, hindering support to the worst-affected communities.

“If governments and agencies take immediate action, as some are doing, then major humanitarian emergencies next year can be averted,” Oxfam said in its report.

“Prevention is better than cure,” they continued.

The Oxfam report comes a week after the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which includes commitments to eradicating hunger and addressing climate change.

They described the unfolding crisis as the “first test” for world leaders who will be meeting in December for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

“This should serve as a wake-up call for them to agree a global deal to tackle climate change,” said Oxfam Great Britain’s Chief Executive Mark Goldring.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2014 was the hottest year on record. However, global data currently reveal that 2015 may surpass last year in record high temperatures.

India pledges to cut emissions by 33-35 percent

by

emmission

New Delhi: India on Friday pledged to cut its emission levels by 33-35 percent over the next 15 years in what it has termed as a fair and balanced commitment to protect the environment, based also on its own agenda for economic development.

Ahead of the crucial, 21st meeting of the Conference of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change due in Paris from November 30 to December 11, India made a 38-page submission under what is called the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

The submissions, called from the 196 parties (or countries) under the framework, is to serve as the basis for negotiating an agreement that will lay the path for a low-carbon, climate-resilient future. Thus far, 120 countries, collectively accounting for 85.3 percent of global emissions, have made submissions.

“Through this submission, India intends to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33-35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level. This commitment is further echoed in India’s actions in climate change adaptation with setting up its own ‘National Adaptation Fund’,” said New Delhi’s 38-page document.

“India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions is fair and ambitious considering the fact that India is attempting to work towards low carbon emission pathway while endeavouring to meet all the developmental challenges the country faces today.”

The submission said the country’s current policy framework also includes a favourable environment for a rapid increase in renewable energy, move towards low carbon sustainable development and adapting to the impacts of climate change — the highest possible efforts as evident from its multiple initiatives.

“Accordingly, India’s development plans will continue to lay a balanced emphasis on economic development and environment,” it said, recounting the framework’s mandate based on the principles of equity, as also common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of the member nations.

The paper submitted by India, coinciding with Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, is based on the 1992 Kyoto convention and says that both in terms of cumulative global emissions and per capita emission, it has caused much less damage to environment but its actions to mitigate climate change were fair and ambitious.

“Much before the climate change debate began, Mahatma Gandhi, regarded as the father of our nation had said that we should act as ‘trustees’ and use natural resources wisely as it is our moral responsibility to ensure that we bequeath to the future generations a healthy planet,” the document said.

The issue of climate change, ahead of the Paris conference, has been high on the Indian government’s agenda. During his visit to the US last month, this was the key point of discussions which Prime Minister Narendra Modi had when he met with the leaderships of several countries, notably the US, the UK, France, Japan and Germany.

India has also outlined in its document the impact of climate change on its economy and nation as a whole.

It said the country will need $206 billion between 2015 and 2030 to implement actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems to achieve the targets, not counting the additional investments needed to strengthen resilience and disaster management.

Quoting an Asian Development Bank study, it said the approximate adaptation cost for India in energy sector alone would roughly about $7.7 billion in 2030s, while the economic damage and losses to the country from climate change to be around 1.8 percent of its GDP annually by 2050.

“Mitigation requirements are even more enormous. Estimates by Niti Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) indicate that the mitigation activities for moderate low carbon development would cost around $834 billion till 2030 at 2011 prices,” it said.

The paper said the efforts thus on combating climate change has been self-financed.

“However, our efforts to avoid emissions during our development process are also tied to the availability and level of international financing and technology transfer, since India still faces complex developmental challenges,” it said.

(IANS)

WTO ruling against India’s solar push threatens climate, clean energy

by

“The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the WTO to strike the program down.”

India's ambitious solar program was rebuked by the WTO in a decision that climate advocates say shows the potential damage of deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Photo: Knut-Erik Helle/flickr/cc)

India’s ambitious solar program was rebuked by the WTO in a decision that climate advocates say shows the potential damage of deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Photo: Knut-Erik Helle/flickr/cc)

by Nadia Prupis, Common Dreams

The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Wednesday ruled against India over its national solar energy program in a case brought by the U.S. government, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.

As power demands grow in India, the country’s government put forth a plan to create 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules, and included incentives to domestic manufacturers to use locally-developed equipment.

According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies—siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis,” Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, said on Thursday. “The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the WTO to strike the program down.”

According to Indian media outlet Livemint, the U.S. government

has resorted to similar measures, specifying local content requirements and offering a range of subsidies for promoting its renewable energy sector at the federal, state, regional and local levels.

India spoke repeatedly against the US at WTO’s committee on subsidies and countervailing measures, stating that American subsidy schemes relating to local or domestic content requirements for its solar companies are inconsistent with its global trade obligations.

In addition, Livemint reports, the ruling “goes against the spirit of an agreement signed early this year…. [in which] the two sides agreed to promote clean energy and expand solar energy initiatives.”

Regardless, Solomon said, the WTO “needs to get out of the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe. The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership encourage trade in fossil fuels and discourage countries from developing local clean energy capacity.”

“These rules simply do not reflect the urgency of solving the climate crisis and stand in the way of clean energy growth,” Solomon said.

The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO’s highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country’s food security program in 2014.

The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was “inconsistent with the global norms.”

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives