A new report: “Capitan America.”

By Tom Ewing

I recently received an email with the following question in the subject line: “What will be the outcome of scrapping the US Clean Power Plan on its INDC?” (Note: INDC = “intended nationally determined contributions.” “Contributions” in this context is not a positive amount, so to speak. Rather it is what you, as a nation, or representing a nation, will “contribute” towards efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, most commonly CO2. It is one of many awkward acronyms and phrases that are part of the climate change lingo; possibly a result of a search for some commonality among so many languages.)

As you likely know if you’ve signed up for announcements about COP21 and the Paris Framework or Agreement there’s no shortage of groups sending out stuff. For some, climate change will prove to be very lucrative, indeed, what with endless conferences, consultancy contracts, new legal and graduate courses, burgeoning travel budgets with endless expenses for travel, meals, hotels, car rentals, oh, the struggle of it all. So this e-mail with the wonky rhetorical question about scrapping the US Clean Power Plan was really just one of about 10 climate emails that day.

Wow. I’m glad I opened it! And then sat unmoved, reading it. I know your time is valuable but you need to read this report, too.

It’s got the deliberately smart-alecky name of “Capitan America,” published by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi. It’s got cartoons of a fat Uncle Sam sort of sitting on and squashing the rest of the world. Its general thesis: that the US ain’t doin’ much about this ol’ climate change thing. Yes, there was plenty of graceful dancing cheek-to-cheek at the recent Paris cotillion. But that hot dance floor was just a lot of sizzle and not much steak from Capitan America.

Here are some out-takes:

* “The electricity sector emissions in the US reduced 1.8 per cent annually (2005-2014) mainly due to the switch from coal to natural gas. Under the CPP, it will reduce only by 1.6 per cent from now on till 2030 which is worse than the business as usual. Even in 2030, about 60 per cent of US electricity will be produced from coal and gas.” (Emphasis added.)

* “We present a few inconvenient truths — one per chapter — that might throw cold water on the celebration. The US climate action plan is dramatic. But it is neither ambitious nor equitable. Worse, it is but business-as-usual. If implemented, we have analysed, emissions reduction will be marginal.”

* “We also know that if Americans continue their guzzle, it is not possible to expect the rest will not follow in their footsteps. The world — the US and us — cannot combat climate change without changing the way we drive, build homes or consume goods. The C-word is the C-word.”

Note the reference above to one inconvenient truth per chapter. The report starts with a close analysis of the US’ INDC, which the authors conclude is neither fair nor ambitious, that the US has so bullied the metrics that reductions from 2005 can look quite robust, but, in fact, are intentionally misleading. Subsequent chapters deliver a body blow to Americans’ unchanged investments and behaviors regarding private automobiles, conspicuous and bloated consumption, including many food issues, shopping malls, huge houses and buildings, in short, everything that, uh, pretty much most people just take for granted, and, critically, take it for granted that none of that activity and stuff will ever have to change! Even if you want to lower the temperature of a planet!

As important and provocative as this report is, it’s not the be-all and end-all of climate debates and whether or not certain activities are meaningful or not. The authors do not reference and cover some important and critical issues. But their basic reference and concern – that the US is hogging the final remaining “space” for carbon emissions, space desperately needed for development in very poor parts of the world – forms a critical presentation, one that needs to be read and thought about, particularly by people who are patting themselves on the back regarding US decisions and directions so far.

After you read Capitan America and if you want to start a dialogue on its critical tenets, please send a note – I’ll add it to the blog. You can stay anonymous if you want.

Oh by the way, just a few minutes after finishing my read I noticed the following headline on a so-called Internet “news site:”

“Why A Swimming Pool Needs An Internet Connection.”

Ahhh, living in the US and fighting climate change…! It’s tough!

Originally published in Regulatory Clarity on 18-02.2016



What will be the outcome of scrapping the US Clean Power Plan on its INDC?

It is interesting to see how the sudden demise of Antonin Scalia affects the US Supreme Court’s decision on the implementation of the US Clean Power Plan (CPP). Scalia was one of the five out of nine judges who had ruled in favour of blocking the CPP.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that the Environment Protection Agency will not be able to enforce the rules listed under the CPP until and unless the court decides on its legality. If the court decides to scrap the CPP, it would be major blow to President Barack Obama’s climate legacy.

The CPP is crucial for the US to meet its emissions reduction targets of 26-28 per cent by 2030 from the 2005 levels. The plan aims to reduce power sector emissions by 30 per cent below the 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering US $ 55-93 billion in annual net benefits from reducing carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants.

It is estimated that the CPP accounts for about 10 per cent of the reductions (see figure1) committed under the US INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) submitted in 2015.

Scrapping this plan may mean an increase in the global emissions by 680 million tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is equal to about a fourth of India’s emissions in 2012. Most of the energy efficiency and emission reduction improvements under this plan will be economically motivated. These would include technological improvements and fuel changes from coal to gas in a number of power plants across the US.

CSE’s analysis

Delhi-based non-profit Centre for science and Environment had earlier published a detailed report on the US climate action plan titled Capitan America. According to the report, the electricity sector emissions in the US reduced 1.8 per cent annually (2005-2014) mainly due to the switch from coal to natural gas.

Under the CPP, it will reduce only by 1.6 per cent from now on till 2030 which is worse than the business as usual. Even in 2030, about 60 per cent of US electricity will be produced from coal and gas.

In addition to the CPP, the US INDC also relies on energy efficiency improvements in its transport and manufacturing sectors. These include the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and standards for fuel efficiency in heavy-duty vehicles. These improvements in efficiency have, however, led to an increase in consumption trends.

Another key proposal that Obama has made in his so-called climate legacy involves reducing emissions by moving away from high global-warming gases—hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs) used mainly in refrigeration and air conditioning systems industry across the world.

It is proposed that phasing down HFCs will help in reducing 0.5 degrees Celsius by end of the century. Last year in Dubai, the US has been a major player in pushing hard for implementing the HFC phase down. The US stand on climate change is largely based on business interests of the associated industries and will not necessarily mitigate the emission impacts.

Originally published on Monday 15 February  2016 in Down to Earth

Speech at "Renewable Energy & Climate Change: Problems & Prospects" on February 11-12, 2016 at Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen

I am humbled to speak in the presence of such an esteemed and experienced panel.

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to address you all today and to deliver a strong message to fight climate change, one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Let me start by sharing the story of Radha, a widow from a village in Telangana. Her husband committed suicide because of the failure of crop. She has two children to raise but now also a farm to take care of. The crop is completely dependent on rain fed agriculture and with erratic power supply, it doesn't really help having a borewell.

The land she owns is seriously degraded; the water she drinks is not safe. While she enjoys great solidarity from neighbours and relatives, Radha's life is precarious. She witnesses changing conditions of her environment, which affect the productivity of her land. Though she had heard people speak about climate change, she had no clue that activities undertaken by fellow Humans, thousands of kilometres away from her village would affect her life.

.

Sadly, This is a story not far from reality. Warming of the climate system is now evident from various scientific findings as well as from observations. As per Intergovernmental panel for Climate change (IPCC), extreme weather events are on the rise around the world. 2015 was  recorded as warmest year in the history. We are seeing more and more hailstorms, floods, droughts, cyclones than ever. Three out of the four metros are coastal cities, any disaster here will take years to cope with.

For a country like India, Climate change is a great challenge and a tremendous opportunity to move towards a low carbon, resource efficient and sustainable development society. Indeed development pathways influence climate change, and climate change could have significant impacts on development.

There is an urgent, but very simple, reason why we need to address the issue of climate change: the world is running out of carbon space. As per IPCC to stay under 2 degrees C, all we have is around 1000 Gt of Carbon space. Crossing that 2 degree target will only mean increase in extreme weather events which the world may not be ready to face. Infact, in the Paris agreement countries negotiated to try and keep the temperature under 1.5 degrees which would have been commendable if only an action plan to maintain it was also discussed.

We at CSE have analysed that to develop to a certain level, the required amount of carbon space is only going to come down in the future. We are only going to get more and more efficient but there is a need to apportioning of the global atmospheric commons, which is arguably the most important political challenge the world faces today.

India inspite of being the fourth largest emitter of CO2 has a Human development index of 0.6 and a per capita emissions 1.7 tonnes which is way below the world average. It is also because historically we have not emitted due to various reasons. The targets committed by India in the recent Paris conference to reduce its emission intensity and its commitment to increase the share of renewables  are commendable. It is evident that renewable energy is meant to grow, our energy potential is meant to grow but It is also evident that we need to change the way we do business if we want to grow efficiently. We have a billion aspiring people to provide more than just food, clothing and shelter.

In the run up to the Paris conference on climate change, there were 5 things india wanted in the Paris agreement text which will decide the way forward

1. Equity
2. CBDR
3. Loss and damage
4. Finance and tech transfer
5. Capacity building

What India got is the agreement under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);

• a mention of the fact that this agreement will be guided by principle of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)
• the words climate Justice for some and Lifestyle changes in the preamble.
• A section on loss and development,
• Mention of finance but no clear guidelines

But if you observe the text carefully, you will notice that there are still some threads still left to negotiate further.

The reason why India was not able to get everything it rightfully deserves is also because it was pushed into corner for claiming that coal will still be the major source of energy in 2030 but its announcement of the solar alliance was seen as a major push from a developing country that they are serious about climate change.

Renewable energy not only stands out as a potential solution for reducing our emissions but also as a tool to place India as an efficient developing country in race for being a super power. As per some estimates all we need is a land as big as the Jodhpur district to provide electricity t everyone in this country. But it is not easy as it is being made to sound, there are many technical, financial issues to deal with first.

As per India’s climate action plan (INDC), in 2030 India will need triple the electricity demand it has now. It is a humongous challenge. Coal is proposed to be a major source of energy even in 2030. But the good news is that renewable energy is going to grow. India has committed to increase its share in non fossil fuel to 40% in installed capacity by 2030. When Renewable energy and Energy efficiency go hand in, the gains are only going to be bigger.

With the challenges ahead of us we have to enter a new era of partnerships. Over the last 10 to 15 years, leaders in the political, environmental, scientific, and economic fields have recognized that environment and climate change will require cooperation across disciplines, and that the solutions are not only technical but also connected to our moral obligations of providing a better life to all.

States, international organizations and the public sector in general are expected to push commitments and show political will to help policies that preserve our environment, create jobs and leave no one behind. We need leaders and champions, and it is by working together that we will achieve our sustainable development and climate action goals. Let morality and not economics alone drive the leaders.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why we are here today. We may or may not know this, Radha from the story I told today and her poor family place high hopes in meetings like this where the next big change could happen.

Thank you very much.

Refrigerant gases: what’s all the fuss about?

We look at what impedes negotiations under the Montreal Protocol

By Rakesh Kamal

Unlike the recent climate change conference in Paris during which countries subtly exercised their sociopolitical agenda under the pretext of fighting climate change, negotiations under the Montreal Protocol are unashamedly about business interests. Any change to the Protocol can impact businesses directly. Therefore it becomes very important to persistently remind parties to stick to the mandate of the convention and present proposals which, before everything, benefit the environment and protect the interests of developing countries.

What is the Montreal Protocol and why is it important?

Montreal Protocol is considered one of the world’s most successful environment treaties. It was signed by 197 parties to control ozone depleting substances (ODS), mainly Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from refrigeration gases. To protect the ozone layer from the damaging effect of CFCs, a phase-down mechanism was introduced and the less harmful Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) were introduced as a replacement.

HCFCs were then replaced by synthetic chemicals called Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which contained no ODS. It may appear that the main purpose of the Montreal Protocol of eradicating ODS was thus achieved. But HFCs have high global warming potential (GWP), much like other greenhouse gases.

They are extensively used in industrial, commercial and domestic refrigeration, air-conditioning equipment, blowing agents for foams and aerosol sprays. Because of the growth in these sectors, mainly in developing countries, HFCs have the potential of emitting 9-19 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario. They could become a big contributor to climate change if they are not controlled and replaced with suitable natural or low GWP alternatives.

Why can’t we just use natural refrigerants?

Hydrocarbons (propane, butane, and cyclopentane), CO2, ammonia, water and air are referred to as the “Gentle Five”. These natural alternatives have lower global warming potential and can replace traditional HFCs in many sectors. But using them is not as simple as replacing the existing refrigerant gas. Many factors such as flammability standards, safety concerns, technological and financial viability are the major hurdles which stand in the way of using these gases.

How do we phase down HFCs then?

During the 27th Meeting of the Parties (MOP27) in Dubai last October, parties agreed on setting up a contact group to negotiate the phasing down of HFCs. They agreed to work together towards an HFC amendment in 2016 by first resolving challenges and generating solutions on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs at Montreal Protocol meetings.

Currently, countries have put forward four proposals to amend the Montreal Protocol for this phase-down:

• Joint proposal by the US, Canada and Mexico (the North American proposal)
• Joint proposal by Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, the Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands (the Micronesian or Island States Proposal)
• Proposal submitted by India (Indian proposal), and
• The proposal by the European Union and its member states (the European proposal)

There is wide divergence on various issues in these proposals. Each of them has proposed different baselines and phase-down schedules. Some have addressed energy efficiency, some have not. While each proposal has enumerated their respective advantages, we need a standard set of indicators to judge how appropriate they are in addressing the issue of climate change. These four proposals will be discussed in the upcoming meetings in Geneva and beyond to come to a consensus on the way forward.

Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has come up with an alternate proposal which contains a comparison of all four proposals and demonstrates how an ambitious and equitable HFC phase-down proposal can be achieved.

What does the Indian proposal say about Intellectual Poperty Rights (IPR)?

The main concern for developing countries is that developed countries have exhausted the carbon space by using cheap HFCs to develop and push the use of expensive technologies. Developing countries fear that new technology will come with expensive patents if they are to produce their own refrigerants and they may be forced to buy from developed countries because of the lack of capacity and research and development facilities.

The Indian proposal is the only one to address this concern. It asserts that to enable developing countries to shift to low-GWP or zero-GWP alternatives, the entire cost of conversion must be borne by the multilateral fund (MLF) formed under the Protocol. This cost will include the cost of IPR, in addition to capital costs, patent costs, technology transfer, research and development, and other factors. 

India has initiated pilot projects and is making attempts to move to more sustainable natural refrigerants with increased safety standards in sectors that are possible. The main problem is for sectors where no natural alternative is available. One such sector is the Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC) sector where the only safe alternative with low GWP is hydrofluoroolefin (HFO). Patents for HFO are owned by Dupont and Honeywell in the US. If negotiations head in a direction unfavourable to India because of pressure from the international community, the Indian MAC Industry will be forced to buy the only alternative available in the market and might not be in a position to manufacture in-house.

Which other issues impede the shift to low GWP gases?

Other major concerns include the lack of different safety standards for different sectors and an understanding of the existing potential of natural refrigerant market. Addressing these issues could help developing countries switch to existing low-GWP natural alternate technologies in sectors where possible

Originally published in Down to Earth on Friday 05 February  2016