International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category, deeming them as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.
For years, scientists have described tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation as "probable carcinogens."
A new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30. Experts also found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused worrying mutations in mice, proof the radiation is carcinogenic. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
The new classification means tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation are definite causes of cancer, alongside tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, among others.
The research was published online in the medical journal Lancet Oncology on Wednesday, by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization.
"People need to be reminded of the risks of sunbeds," said Vincent Cogliano, one of the cancer researchers. "We hope the prevailing culture will change so teens don't think they need to use sunbeds to get a tan."
Most lights used in tanning beds give off mainly ultraviolet radiation, which cause skin and eye cancer, according to the International Agency for Cancer Research.
The classification of tanning beds as carcinogenic was disputed by Kathy Banks, chief executive of The Sunbed Association, a European trade association of tanning bed makers and operators
.
"The fact that is continuously ignored is that there is no proven link between the responsible use of sunbeds and skin cancer," Banks said in a statement. She said most users of tanning beds use them less than 20 times a year.
But as use of tanning beds has increased among people under 30, doctors have seen a parallel rise in the numbers of young people with skin cancer. In Britain, melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, is now the leading cancer diagnosed in women in their 20s. Normally, skin cancer rates are highest in people over 75.
Previous studies found younger people who regularly use tanning beds are eight times more likely to get melanoma than people who have never used them. In the past, WHO warned people younger than 18 to stay away from tanning beds.
Cogliano cautioned that ultravoilet radiation is not healthy, whether it comes from a tanning bed or from the sun. The American Cancer Society advises people to try bronzing or self-tanning creams instead of tanning beds.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Lieberman seeks GOP votes for climate bill
Sen. Joe Lieberman riled Democrats last year by criticizing then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. Now the Connecticut independent is helping the president push for a bill to combat global warming.
Lieberman's fingerprints have been on every major climate change bill ever considered by the U.S. Senate, and despite his differences with his former party, he is a regular at the weekly meetings of a dozen Democratic senators working to get a bill in shape by the end of September.
It's the first time in his 20-year Senate career that he is not a member of the key panel drafting the legislation. He lost his seat on the environment committee when he supported GOP presidential candidate John McCain, a move many view as a punishment for campaigning against the Democrats.
"My goal is exactly the same as it's been, but my role is different," said Lieberman in an interview with The Associated Press in his Washington office. "My goal is to help pass a law that will enable the United States to reduce the threat of global warming, and incidentally, make America energy independent, because the two now go together."
Perhaps no one knows more than Lieberman how tough it will be. None of the five global warming bills he has introduced or signed onto since 1998 has been successful.
The template for the Senate this year passed the House in late June by the slimmest of margins. Although Lieberman acknowledges that it would reduce global warming, wean the country off foreign oil and boost the economy with clean-energy jobs, he doesn't support it. Neither do many Republicans, or all Democrats.
Dangling nuclear energySo, as Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts lead the effort, Lieberman is busy on the sidelines drumming up support for measures — such as boosting the commitment to nuclear energy — that he says are necessary to improve the bill's chances.
I assume as I start my work on this that 60 Democrats will not vote for this bill, and therefore we got to get a core group of Republicans," said Lieberman, who has counted McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama as co-sponsors on previous bills. "And I think we can."
Last year, despite both presidential candidates supporting action on global warming and Democrats in charge of Congress, Lieberman watched his fifth try at getting a climate change bill fail. The bill fell a dozen votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
That legislation, like its predecessors in 2003, 2005 and 2007, would have limited heat-trapping gases the same way as the House bill currently under consideration. Its centerpiece was a "cap-and-trade" system where companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below emissions limits, or buy if they could not meet the requirements.
Cap-and-trade proponentLieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. He also says it would raise the money needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy, and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes, vehicles and businesses.
"That's the thing I like most and why I feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill," he said.
This year, however, Lieberman says the odds for passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill, the House passing global warming legislation for the first time and a looming December deadline for international talks on a new treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.
The science, he said, also has gotten more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. "Every year the problem gets worse, the threat of real damage gets worse, even catastrophic damage," said Lieberman, sounding like his 2000 presidential running mate, Vice President Al Gore, who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming.
Lieberman's fingerprints have been on every major climate change bill ever considered by the U.S. Senate, and despite his differences with his former party, he is a regular at the weekly meetings of a dozen Democratic senators working to get a bill in shape by the end of September.
It's the first time in his 20-year Senate career that he is not a member of the key panel drafting the legislation. He lost his seat on the environment committee when he supported GOP presidential candidate John McCain, a move many view as a punishment for campaigning against the Democrats.
"My goal is exactly the same as it's been, but my role is different," said Lieberman in an interview with The Associated Press in his Washington office. "My goal is to help pass a law that will enable the United States to reduce the threat of global warming, and incidentally, make America energy independent, because the two now go together."
Perhaps no one knows more than Lieberman how tough it will be. None of the five global warming bills he has introduced or signed onto since 1998 has been successful.
The template for the Senate this year passed the House in late June by the slimmest of margins. Although Lieberman acknowledges that it would reduce global warming, wean the country off foreign oil and boost the economy with clean-energy jobs, he doesn't support it. Neither do many Republicans, or all Democrats.
Dangling nuclear energySo, as Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts lead the effort, Lieberman is busy on the sidelines drumming up support for measures — such as boosting the commitment to nuclear energy — that he says are necessary to improve the bill's chances.
I assume as I start my work on this that 60 Democrats will not vote for this bill, and therefore we got to get a core group of Republicans," said Lieberman, who has counted McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama as co-sponsors on previous bills. "And I think we can."
Last year, despite both presidential candidates supporting action on global warming and Democrats in charge of Congress, Lieberman watched his fifth try at getting a climate change bill fail. The bill fell a dozen votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
That legislation, like its predecessors in 2003, 2005 and 2007, would have limited heat-trapping gases the same way as the House bill currently under consideration. Its centerpiece was a "cap-and-trade" system where companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below emissions limits, or buy if they could not meet the requirements.
Cap-and-trade proponentLieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. He also says it would raise the money needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy, and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes, vehicles and businesses.
"That's the thing I like most and why I feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill," he said.
This year, however, Lieberman says the odds for passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill, the House passing global warming legislation for the first time and a looming December deadline for international talks on a new treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.
The science, he said, also has gotten more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. "Every year the problem gets worse, the threat of real damage gets worse, even catastrophic damage," said Lieberman, sounding like his 2000 presidential running mate, Vice President Al Gore, who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming.
China drives electric bike, scooter boom
It's a simple pleasure, but Xu Beilu savors it daily: gliding past snarled traffic on her motorized bicycle, relaxed and sweat-free alongside the pedal-pushing masses. China, the world's bicycle kingdom — one for every three inhabitants — is going electric.
Workers weary of crammed public transport or pedaling long distances to jobs are upgrading to battery-powered bikes and scooters. Even some who can afford cars are ditching them for electric two-wheelers to avoid traffic jams and expensive gasoline.
The bicycle was a vivid symbol of China in more doctrinaire communist times, when virtually no one owned a car. Even now, nearly two decades after the country began its great leap into capitalism, it still has 430 million bicycles by government count, outnumbering electric bikes and scooters 7-1.
ut production of electric two-wheelers has soared from fewer than 200,000 eight years ago to 22 million last year, mostly for the domestic market. The industry estimates about 65 million are on Chinese roads.
Car sales are also booming but there are still only 24 million for civilian use, because few of the 1.3 billion population can afford them. And unlike in many other developing countries, Chinese cities still have plenty of bicycle lanes, even if some have made way for cars and buses.
"E-bike" riders are on the move in the morning or late at night, in good weather or bad. When it's wet, they are a rainbow army in plastic capes. On fine days, women don gloves, long-sleeved white aprons and face-covering sun guards.
One of them is Xu, on her Yamaha e-bike, making the half-hour commute from her apartment to her job as a marketing manager. She had thought of buying a car but dropped the idea. "It's obvious that driving would be more comfortable, but it's expensive," she says.
"I like riding my e-bike during rush hour, and sometimes enjoy a laugh at the people stuck in taxis. It's so convenient and helpful in Shanghai, since the traffic is worse than ever."
nroads elsewhereThe trend is catching on in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In Japan, plug-in bicycles are favored by cost-conscious companies and older commuters. "Many company workers are beginning to use them to visit clients instead of driving, to save fuel costs," says Miyuki Kimizuka of the Japan Bicycle Promotion Institute, a private industry group.
Australians use electric bicycles in rural towns without bus and train service. Tony Morgan, managing director of The Electric Bicycle Co. Pty. Ltd., the continent's largest manufacturer and retailer of e-bikes, says he has sold about 20,000 in the past decade, priced at about $800-$1,600.
In the Netherlands, an especially bicycle-friendly country, the industry says sales passed 138,800 last year.
In India, Vietnam and other developing countries, competition from motorcycles, as well as a lack of bike lanes and other infrastructure, are obstacles.
Indian sales have risen about 15 percent a year to 130,000 units, thanks in part to a $150 government rebate that brings the cost down to about the cost of a conventional bicycle. But they are far outnumbered by the millions of new motorcycles taking to India's roadways.
In China, electric bikes sell for $250 to $450. They require no helmet, plates or driver's license, and they aren't affected by restrictions many cities impose on fuel-burning two-wheelers.
It costs a mere 1 yuan (15 U.S. cents) — about the same as the cheapest bus fare — to charge a bike for a day's use, says Guo Jianrong, head of the Shanghai Bicycle Association, an industry group.
They look like regular bicycles, only a bit heavier with the battery strapped on. Some can be pedaled; others run solely on battery. In China, their maximum weight is about 90 pounds, and maximum legal speed is about 12 mph.
"For us, these are tools for transportation," Guo said. "We're not like Americans and Europeans, who tend to bicycle for fun or exercise."
The e-bike doesn't emit greenhouse gases, though it uses electricity from power plants that do. The larger concern is the health hazards from production, recycling and disposal of lead-acid batteries.
Problems with lead batteriesAlthough China is beginning to turn out more electric bikes equipped with nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion batteries, 98 percent run on lead-acid types, says Guo.
A bike can use up to five of the batteries in its lifetime, according to Christopher Cherry, a professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville who researches the industry. A Chinese-made battery containing 22 pounds of lead can generate nearly about 15 pounds of lead pollution, he says.
"Electric bikes result in far more emissions of lead than automobiles. They always use more batteries per mile than almost any other vehicle," Cherry said in a phone interview.
In China, owners are paid about $30 to recycle old batteries but the work is often done in small, under-regulated workshops.
With price competition brutal among China's 2,300 electric bike and scooter makers, manufacturers have shied away from embracing costlier, cleaner technology. But bigger foreign sales and demand for better batteries may speed improvements.
"We are trying to upgrade to lithium battery technology to be able to sell internationally," said Hu Gang, a spokesman for Xinri E-Vehicle Group Co., the country's biggest e- bike manufacturer, with sales of more than 2 million units last year.
The goal is to boost production to more than 5 million units by 2013, he said.
"It's not that we're that ambitious," Hu said. "It's just that the industry is growing so quickly."
Workers weary of crammed public transport or pedaling long distances to jobs are upgrading to battery-powered bikes and scooters. Even some who can afford cars are ditching them for electric two-wheelers to avoid traffic jams and expensive gasoline.
The bicycle was a vivid symbol of China in more doctrinaire communist times, when virtually no one owned a car. Even now, nearly two decades after the country began its great leap into capitalism, it still has 430 million bicycles by government count, outnumbering electric bikes and scooters 7-1.
ut production of electric two-wheelers has soared from fewer than 200,000 eight years ago to 22 million last year, mostly for the domestic market. The industry estimates about 65 million are on Chinese roads.
Car sales are also booming but there are still only 24 million for civilian use, because few of the 1.3 billion population can afford them. And unlike in many other developing countries, Chinese cities still have plenty of bicycle lanes, even if some have made way for cars and buses.
"E-bike" riders are on the move in the morning or late at night, in good weather or bad. When it's wet, they are a rainbow army in plastic capes. On fine days, women don gloves, long-sleeved white aprons and face-covering sun guards.
One of them is Xu, on her Yamaha e-bike, making the half-hour commute from her apartment to her job as a marketing manager. She had thought of buying a car but dropped the idea. "It's obvious that driving would be more comfortable, but it's expensive," she says.
"I like riding my e-bike during rush hour, and sometimes enjoy a laugh at the people stuck in taxis. It's so convenient and helpful in Shanghai, since the traffic is worse than ever."
nroads elsewhereThe trend is catching on in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In Japan, plug-in bicycles are favored by cost-conscious companies and older commuters. "Many company workers are beginning to use them to visit clients instead of driving, to save fuel costs," says Miyuki Kimizuka of the Japan Bicycle Promotion Institute, a private industry group.
Australians use electric bicycles in rural towns without bus and train service. Tony Morgan, managing director of The Electric Bicycle Co. Pty. Ltd., the continent's largest manufacturer and retailer of e-bikes, says he has sold about 20,000 in the past decade, priced at about $800-$1,600.
In the Netherlands, an especially bicycle-friendly country, the industry says sales passed 138,800 last year.
In India, Vietnam and other developing countries, competition from motorcycles, as well as a lack of bike lanes and other infrastructure, are obstacles.
Indian sales have risen about 15 percent a year to 130,000 units, thanks in part to a $150 government rebate that brings the cost down to about the cost of a conventional bicycle. But they are far outnumbered by the millions of new motorcycles taking to India's roadways.
In China, electric bikes sell for $250 to $450. They require no helmet, plates or driver's license, and they aren't affected by restrictions many cities impose on fuel-burning two-wheelers.
It costs a mere 1 yuan (15 U.S. cents) — about the same as the cheapest bus fare — to charge a bike for a day's use, says Guo Jianrong, head of the Shanghai Bicycle Association, an industry group.
They look like regular bicycles, only a bit heavier with the battery strapped on. Some can be pedaled; others run solely on battery. In China, their maximum weight is about 90 pounds, and maximum legal speed is about 12 mph.
"For us, these are tools for transportation," Guo said. "We're not like Americans and Europeans, who tend to bicycle for fun or exercise."
The e-bike doesn't emit greenhouse gases, though it uses electricity from power plants that do. The larger concern is the health hazards from production, recycling and disposal of lead-acid batteries.
Problems with lead batteriesAlthough China is beginning to turn out more electric bikes equipped with nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion batteries, 98 percent run on lead-acid types, says Guo.
A bike can use up to five of the batteries in its lifetime, according to Christopher Cherry, a professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville who researches the industry. A Chinese-made battery containing 22 pounds of lead can generate nearly about 15 pounds of lead pollution, he says.
"Electric bikes result in far more emissions of lead than automobiles. They always use more batteries per mile than almost any other vehicle," Cherry said in a phone interview.
In China, owners are paid about $30 to recycle old batteries but the work is often done in small, under-regulated workshops.
With price competition brutal among China's 2,300 electric bike and scooter makers, manufacturers have shied away from embracing costlier, cleaner technology. But bigger foreign sales and demand for better batteries may speed improvements.
"We are trying to upgrade to lithium battery technology to be able to sell internationally," said Hu Gang, a spokesman for Xinri E-Vehicle Group Co., the country's biggest e- bike manufacturer, with sales of more than 2 million units last year.
The goal is to boost production to more than 5 million units by 2013, he said.
"It's not that we're that ambitious," Hu said. "It's just that the industry is growing so quickly."
Nissan shows off its electric car — sort of
company vows to be 'leader in zero-emission vehicles'
Nissan Motor Co. showed off its super-quiet, zero-emission electric car Monday — a key green offering for Japan's No. 3 automaker, which has fallen behind in hybrid technology.
Nissan showed the prototype in a Tiida compact that is already on sale. It is withholding the unveiling of the electric car's exterior design until the Tokyo-based manufacturer opens its new Yokohama headquarters Aug. 2.
"Nissan will be a leader in zero-emission vehicles," Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga said ahead of a test-drive event at the automaker's facility in this Tokyo suburb. "EV is the answer."
Sales of Nissan's electric vehicle are scheduled to begin in Japan and the U.S. next year. Nissan says it plans to mass produce zero-emission cars globally from 2012. Until then, Nissan will produce all initially targeted 100,000 units at its Oppama plant, including export models.
Nissan has received a $1.6 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy loan to modify its Smyrna, Tennessee, plant to produce electric vehicles and batteries to power them, with production starting in 2012.
The car shown Monday uses a lithium-ion battery pack that is placed under the vehicle floor to allow for more cabin and luggage space. The braking system recharges the battery while the car is driving, extending the driving range to 160 kilometers (99 miles) under a full charge, Nissan said. With the lighter weight and more energy efficient batteries, the new electric car can double the mileage of the current Hypermini model introduced in 1998.
Nissan shares the battery design with its alliance partner Renault as part of a cost-cutting effort.
Proponents of hybrids, like market-leader Toyota Motor Corp., the world's biggest automaker, say the limited driving range of electric vehicles makes them suited for daily commutes or shopping at best, and so hybrids are the best solution.
Hybrids have gas engines as well as a motor on board, and they charge themselves as they scoot along so they don't have to be plugged in for charging, as do electric cars.
But Nissan Executive Vice President Mitsuhiko Yamashita said the company plans to cut gas emissions by 90 percent by 2050, "a challenge that goes far beyond what hybrids can achieve but not electric vehicles."
Nissan's electric vehicle shows the driving radius within range of the car's charge on a dashboard navigation map, so drivers won't get stranded on the highway. It can also calculate if the vehicle is within range of a destination. A handheld remote control allows a user to preset room temperature, set a timer for nighttime battery recharging, and to receive a message when the vehicle is fully recharged.
The new EV prototype hardly makes a sound when operated, and officials are studying ways to add noise to catch the attention of pedestrians for safety, officials said.
Nissan has promised to tackle the other widely viewed obstacle to the proliferation of electric vehicles — pricing.
Although Nissan has yet to announce the price, company spokeswoman Pauline Kee said the electric vehicle would be "competitive" with regular gasoline vehicles.
In June, Nissan's smaller Japanese rival, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., launched its electric vehicle, the 4.59 million yen ($48,300) i-MiEV. The company has acknowledged that maybe be too expensive for most consumers.
Other carmakers, including U.S.-based Tesla Motors, are also racing to make electric cars.
Toyota has said it plans to sell electric vehicles in the U.S. by 2012 while Chinese automaker Dongfeng Motor Corp. has teamed up with a Dutch-based company to develop and make electric cars
Nissan Motor Co. showed off its super-quiet, zero-emission electric car Monday — a key green offering for Japan's No. 3 automaker, which has fallen behind in hybrid technology.
Nissan showed the prototype in a Tiida compact that is already on sale. It is withholding the unveiling of the electric car's exterior design until the Tokyo-based manufacturer opens its new Yokohama headquarters Aug. 2.
"Nissan will be a leader in zero-emission vehicles," Chief Operating Officer Toshiyuki Shiga said ahead of a test-drive event at the automaker's facility in this Tokyo suburb. "EV is the answer."
Sales of Nissan's electric vehicle are scheduled to begin in Japan and the U.S. next year. Nissan says it plans to mass produce zero-emission cars globally from 2012. Until then, Nissan will produce all initially targeted 100,000 units at its Oppama plant, including export models.
Nissan has received a $1.6 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy loan to modify its Smyrna, Tennessee, plant to produce electric vehicles and batteries to power them, with production starting in 2012.
The car shown Monday uses a lithium-ion battery pack that is placed under the vehicle floor to allow for more cabin and luggage space. The braking system recharges the battery while the car is driving, extending the driving range to 160 kilometers (99 miles) under a full charge, Nissan said. With the lighter weight and more energy efficient batteries, the new electric car can double the mileage of the current Hypermini model introduced in 1998.
Nissan shares the battery design with its alliance partner Renault as part of a cost-cutting effort.
Proponents of hybrids, like market-leader Toyota Motor Corp., the world's biggest automaker, say the limited driving range of electric vehicles makes them suited for daily commutes or shopping at best, and so hybrids are the best solution.
Hybrids have gas engines as well as a motor on board, and they charge themselves as they scoot along so they don't have to be plugged in for charging, as do electric cars.
But Nissan Executive Vice President Mitsuhiko Yamashita said the company plans to cut gas emissions by 90 percent by 2050, "a challenge that goes far beyond what hybrids can achieve but not electric vehicles."
Nissan's electric vehicle shows the driving radius within range of the car's charge on a dashboard navigation map, so drivers won't get stranded on the highway. It can also calculate if the vehicle is within range of a destination. A handheld remote control allows a user to preset room temperature, set a timer for nighttime battery recharging, and to receive a message when the vehicle is fully recharged.
The new EV prototype hardly makes a sound when operated, and officials are studying ways to add noise to catch the attention of pedestrians for safety, officials said.
Nissan has promised to tackle the other widely viewed obstacle to the proliferation of electric vehicles — pricing.
Although Nissan has yet to announce the price, company spokeswoman Pauline Kee said the electric vehicle would be "competitive" with regular gasoline vehicles.
In June, Nissan's smaller Japanese rival, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., launched its electric vehicle, the 4.59 million yen ($48,300) i-MiEV. The company has acknowledged that maybe be too expensive for most consumers.
Other carmakers, including U.S.-based Tesla Motors, are also racing to make electric cars.
Toyota has said it plans to sell electric vehicles in the U.S. by 2012 while Chinese automaker Dongfeng Motor Corp. has teamed up with a Dutch-based company to develop and make electric cars
Godrej group goes green
The Godrej group for years has been serving its customers through its consumer products. For over 25 years, the company has not only adopted innovative ways to lure the hearts of their customers, but has also undertaken several eco-friendly initiatives in an aim to build a brighter and more sustainable India.
In 1989, the first Sewage Treatment and Recycling Plant, with a capacity of 500 cubic metres per day for recycling sewage water from industrial premises, was put into effect. The unit recycles around 5 lakh litres of water by treating domestic sewage and around 6 lakh litres of water by treating industrial effluents to get this clear water as the final product. This treated water is then used in the gardens and landscaping requirements in the industrial township. So in an attempt to avoid use of good potable water for secondary use like landscaping, the company has managed to reduce the burden on Municipal sewers and eventual outflow of untreated water to the environment.
Adi Godrej, Chairman, Godrej Group said, "All companies in India need to be committed to the green movement because pollution, climate change are problems that will affect our country we need to do our best, the good news is most of these practices are economical so that adds to your profit. They don't get subtracted from them if you do it well. So dissemination of this investment and commitment to it is important."
The Godrej Green Business Centre in Hyderabad was setup as a joint initiative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) with the technical support of USAID to ensure companies undertake energy efficiency, green buildings, renewable energy, and water recycling initiatives.
The company has a detailed process in place before it takes on a project. It Identifies target industries in Hyderabad, after which it conducts a preliminary plan visit to study and understand the overall functioning of the particular unit. A team then identifies cases and opportunities for possible cleaner production solutions. It then jots down the need for additional measures. This then results in a pilot plant experiment. The centre finally helps the company setup the required equipment and demonstrates cleaner production solutions.
This project can be implemented in various industrial sectors like Paper and Pulp, Chemical, Engineering, Pharmaceutical, steel and others.
But there are environmental concerns that stretch a little beyond the day to day functioning of a company. It is in the supply chain management for instance that carbon emissions are seen the most.
Dipankar Ghosh, Partner - Climate Change & Sustainability Services said, "Analyst on Customers pressurizing companies to go the green way and how carbon emission can be reduced on SCM level."
Adi Godrej, Chairman, Godrej Group said," Extremely important for India and Indian business to be conscious and ensure we create an environment which is less polluted and friendly to climate change."
An industry report conducted in the 1st quarter of this year showed that out of 100 companies 47% plan to increase their investments in eco friendly way to conduct business and Consumer goods manufacturers and retailers appear to be the leaders. So with companies making firm commitments to the environment we sure are headed toward a greener future
In 1989, the first Sewage Treatment and Recycling Plant, with a capacity of 500 cubic metres per day for recycling sewage water from industrial premises, was put into effect. The unit recycles around 5 lakh litres of water by treating domestic sewage and around 6 lakh litres of water by treating industrial effluents to get this clear water as the final product. This treated water is then used in the gardens and landscaping requirements in the industrial township. So in an attempt to avoid use of good potable water for secondary use like landscaping, the company has managed to reduce the burden on Municipal sewers and eventual outflow of untreated water to the environment.
Adi Godrej, Chairman, Godrej Group said, "All companies in India need to be committed to the green movement because pollution, climate change are problems that will affect our country we need to do our best, the good news is most of these practices are economical so that adds to your profit. They don't get subtracted from them if you do it well. So dissemination of this investment and commitment to it is important."
The Godrej Green Business Centre in Hyderabad was setup as a joint initiative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) with the technical support of USAID to ensure companies undertake energy efficiency, green buildings, renewable energy, and water recycling initiatives.
The company has a detailed process in place before it takes on a project. It Identifies target industries in Hyderabad, after which it conducts a preliminary plan visit to study and understand the overall functioning of the particular unit. A team then identifies cases and opportunities for possible cleaner production solutions. It then jots down the need for additional measures. This then results in a pilot plant experiment. The centre finally helps the company setup the required equipment and demonstrates cleaner production solutions.
This project can be implemented in various industrial sectors like Paper and Pulp, Chemical, Engineering, Pharmaceutical, steel and others.
But there are environmental concerns that stretch a little beyond the day to day functioning of a company. It is in the supply chain management for instance that carbon emissions are seen the most.
Dipankar Ghosh, Partner - Climate Change & Sustainability Services said, "Analyst on Customers pressurizing companies to go the green way and how carbon emission can be reduced on SCM level."
Adi Godrej, Chairman, Godrej Group said," Extremely important for India and Indian business to be conscious and ensure we create an environment which is less polluted and friendly to climate change."
An industry report conducted in the 1st quarter of this year showed that out of 100 companies 47% plan to increase their investments in eco friendly way to conduct business and Consumer goods manufacturers and retailers appear to be the leaders. So with companies making firm commitments to the environment we sure are headed toward a greener future
BIOFUELS
When we burn vegetable oil in an internal combustion engine, the carbon in the oil is turned into carbon dioxide and is released into the atmosphere.
The next batch of plants grown for vegetable oil will consume carbon dioxide. The plants will release oxygen and combine the carbon with hydrogen to make vegetable oil hydrocarbons.
Instead of a system where hydrocarbons are extracted from the ground and carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, the use of renewable fuels creates a cycle where hydrocarbons are grown and carbon is moved out of the atmosphere and into plants.
A crop of oil-producing plants will absorb exactly the same amount of carbon dioxide in order to produce a gallon of vegetable oil as a gallon of vegetable oil emits when it is burned in an engine.
Because plants produce hydrocarbons and absorb carbon dioxide, renewable fuels do not contribute significantly to global warming.
Exclusive: A Review of an Important New Report: ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’
If – and at this point the chances admittedly look slim – we avoid the economic catastrophe attendant on the Obama administration’s effort to roll back global temperatures, this country will owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which, through its publications and conferences has provided a forum for the many scientists who dissent from the great global warming panic of the last 20 years.
This 800 page plus volume, based on the research of these many scientists, is designed to provide a “Team B,” independently examining the same climate data used by the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And while the IPCC’s most recent 2007 report concluded “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations [emphasis in original], “Team B” came to the opposite conclusion, namely “that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause.”
That’s a gentlemanly way of putting it. The nine chapters in this volume devastatingly refute the findings of the turgidly named Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) released in 2007. Because everything else depends on them, the computer models the IPCC uses to forecast future climate are fundamental to global warming science. The first chapter explores the weaknesses of computer models in fields, like climate, characterized by complexity and uncertainty. Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, explains that climate models “do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.” MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen notes mordantly that the IPCC “is trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
Some important predictions based on models simulating CO2 -induced global warming have already been proven false. To quote from Climate Change Reconsidered: “All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the tropics, peaking around 10 km at roughly twice the surface value. However the temperature data from balloons give the opposite result: no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.”
Responding to scathing criticism on the blog of the science journal Nature, Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of one segment of the IPCC’s 2007 Report, insisted the IPCC did not make “forecasts” but “‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios” and hopes these “projections” will “guide policy and decision makers.” Yet surely no one expects policy makers to transform our society on the basis of “what if” scenarios of falling asteroids or invasions by aliens (hey, you never know) in apocalyptic Hollywood movies. Nor does the IPCC present its findings in that light. The 2007 Report uses the words “forecasts” and “predicts” repeatedly and it is because they believe they are dealing with “scientific forecasts” that policy makers are now acting.
Nothing better illustrates the IPCC’s slippery way of dealing with exposure of error than its handling of the controversy over the hockey stick graph, used to dramatic effect in the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth. Climate Change Reconsidered recounts the full story, which can only be briefly summarized here. The graph first appeared in a 1998 study led by Michael Mann, then a young Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts. Purporting to assess temperature changes from the year 1000 to 1980, it showed nine hundred years of stable global temperatures until 1910 when temperatures seemed to rocket out of control. Gone was the Medieval Warm period (800-1300 A.D.) and the following Little Ice Age. When Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadian non-scientists trained in statistics, obtained the original study data from Mann, they found a host of mistakes. They recalculated the Northern Hemisphere temperature index for the period 1400-1980 using Mann’s own methodology and in a 2003 article in Energy and Environment (with the data refereed by the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology) summed up: “The major finding is that the [warming] in the early 15th century exceed[s] any [warming] in the 20th century.” Neither this study nor a number of other critical studies of Mann’s work has deterred the IPCC from continued reliance on the debunked hockey stick, which again appears in a series of graphs in the most recent 2007 report.
Going through Climate Change Reconsidered, this reader was struck by how thin the evidence is that human activities bear chief responsibility for global warming. A large body of research suggests changes in solar output are responsible for the lion’s share of climate change over time. (A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research since publication of Climate Change Reconsidered finds the surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed in large measure to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific ocean.) But even more striking to this reader was how strong the evidence is that the effects of global warming and specifically CO2-induced global warming (the IPCC’s biggest bugbear, since atmospheric CO2 levels rise with industrialization) are precisely the opposite of those claimed by the IPCC Reports. Far from dooming men, animals and plants to disease or extinction, the scientists who produced Climate Change Reconsidered document that rising CO2 levels increase plant growth, make plants more resistant to drought and pests, are a boon to the world’s forest and prairies, farmers and ranchers. Indeed, the evidence is strong that ecosystem biodiversity will increase in a warmer and CO2 enriched world.
If the “science” underlying the successive IPCC Reports is so half-baked, how could their findings sweep up the policy makers of the world, to the point that even the heads of government in China and India, however unwilling to sacrifice their economies on the global warming altar, feel they have to make excuses for that refusal? Thus far Czech President Vaclav Havel is the only head of state willing to stand up and say bluntly “the emperor has no clothes.” (To be sure, some Third World countries are developing novel ways of fighting back against Western demands that they reduce their carbon footprint as well. When, on a recent trip to India, Secretary of State Clinton “apologized” for the disproportionate U.S. role in producing greenhouse gases, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded the West fork over $200 billion a year to the developing world to offset the cost of cutting emissions. Tort lawyers, take note. Now that the U.S. has admitted “fault,” a whole new world of liability may be opening up with multi-billion dollar jackpots for such model low greenhouse gas emitters as North Korea and Zimbabwe.}
Part of the explanation for the impact of the IPCC is that from its origin as an organ of the UN in 1986, the IPCC’s agenda was to justify control of greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2. Climate Change Reconsidered reports: “From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position.” The IPCC Reports derive much of their authority from their sheer size, typically 800 or more pages, reflecting what the public is told is the work of thousands of scientists. But these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions reached by the IPCC. In the case of each Report these are formulated in a highly selective Summary for Policymakers {SPM]. As Climate Change Reconsidered puts it, “these policy summaries were produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs were revised and agreed to, line by line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.”
Naturally, neither policymakers nor media ever attempt to deal with the unreadable-to-a-layman 800 page Reports. They read the SPMs, with their simplified scenarios of doom if something is not done immediately. The media eats this stuff up. It underpins disaster scares with the supposed weight of a vast scientific consensus. Global warming provides an apocalyptic scare of the century, meaty matter compared to the trivial alarms that were formerly set off by ABC’s 20/20, which used to be dubbed cancer scare of the week. The result is a vast echo chamber. Unreadable reports generate overblown summaries which produce media scare stories that mobilize publics who put pressure on policy makers who provide more funds for the unreadable reports that generate more end-of-days summaries and so on.
And for the media, global warming is the gift that keeps on giving. That’s because there’s always another Report on the horizon. The Fourth Assessment Report has come and gone but a fifth is in preparation. Between Reports climate activists hold a steady stream of conferences and congresses to ramp up the pressure. For example, in March of this year the University of Copenhagen hosted a congress on climate change attended by an impressive 2,000 scientists from over 70 countries. In June, a 36-page summary Report on Congress findings “for laymen” was presented in Brussels to a meeting of EU leaders assembled to discuss climate change. (The Report was handed to the Prime Minister of Denmark who would be hosting in December yet another UN Climate Change Conference.)
The summary Report moved up the apocalypse, warning that, barring dramatic action, it was approaching faster than anyone had thought. “[T]here is evidence pointing towards the very real possibility of triggering tipping points caused by human man-made climate change. This would lead to societal disruption for very large numbers of people…[W]e’re also starting to see signs of tipping points in connection with ocean acidification…which could put places in dangers such as the Great Barrier Reef. To recover ecosystems like that would likely take hundreds of thousands, if not many millions of years.…We cannot afford to take a business as usual approach…Future generations will inherit an unlivable planet.”
As for the thousands of scientists who participate in these congresses and write studies incorporated in various reports, scientists are no different from other people in going where the money is and the research funds are currently rolling in for studies documenting climate change. (Now that the earth shows embarrassing signs of cooling, “climate change” has displaced global warming – under that rubric, whether the earth warms or cools, we did it, and it’s up to governments to undo it.) For many of those 2,000 scientists from 70 countries in Copenhagen, this was an all-expenses-paid junket. What’s more, scientists take note that the rewards are high for those who come up with something that turns out to be politically useful. As Climate Change Reconsidered observes, there’s no better example than the rewards showered on Michael Mann. In addition to seeing his hockey stick graphs used as centerpieces by President Clinton and Al Gore, the young researcher was named an IPCC lead author and an editor of a major professional journal, The Journal of Climate.
On the other hand, critics of man-makes-climate dogma can expect nothing but invective. Al Gore, the chief water-carrier for global warming, refuses all challenges to debate. That allows others, the mainstream media included, to shut down dissent on the ground a supposed overwhelming scientific consensus has left nothing to argue over. Dissenters are dismissed as flat earthers, deniers [as in Holocaust denier] or patsies for corporations who put their bottom line above saving the planet.
Silence is another weapon in the arsenal of the reigning elite, a weapon not to be minimized. Nature, Science, and Scientific American should have been first in line to review Climate Change Reconsidered. For science writers of major newspapers its appearance should have been a major story: after all, a large number of dissenting scientific experts on climate (who aren’t supposed to exist), had combined efforts to marshal an impressive body of evidence contradicting the prevailing orthodoxy, even as major policy decisions hang in the balance. Instead, it has been ignored. Joseph Bast, long time head of the Heartland Institute, understands but is no less frustrated: “Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist compelled Scientific American to publish a lengthy (highly partisan and error-ridden) rebuttal, which only helped legitimate the kinds of questions he and many of us before him were raising. The liberal establishment is perhaps too clever to make the same mistake twice, so they are studiously ignoring Climate Change Reconsidered, even though it is a vastly more authoritative criticism of the keystone of the environmental movement today.”
How did it come to pass where CO2, an essential ingredient of life, is treated by the EPA as a pollutant? How did it come to pass that when at a time of huge dangers, ranging from imploding economies to a nuclear Iran, the leaders of the free world meet – to decree the temperature shall not rise? (Both Investors Business Daily and The Wall Street Journal compared the G-8 summit’s decision this July that the temperature should not be allowed to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels to King Canute telling the tide not to come in, but while King Canute was demonstrating to his courtiers the limits of kingly power, the G-8 was demonstrating that the folly of politicians has no limits.)
The roots can be traced to the birth of the modern environmental movement on Earth Day, April 22, 1970. Contrary to popular belief, environmentalism did not develop as a typical reform movement to combat pollution. As my husband Erich Isaac and I wrote in The Coercive Utopians in 1983, it was born in a sudden apocalyptic panic. “We are already 5 years into the biosphere self-destruct era” read a sign in the Berkeley office of Ecology Action, one of the two hundred environmental groups that mushroomed in the San Francisco area alone during the panic. “The generations now on earth may be the last” read the cover of The Dying Generations, a book of readings published in 1971. Then, as now, politicians jumped on board. Congress closed down for Earth Day and New York Mayor John Lindsay told an estimated hundred thousand people packed into Union Square that the environmental issue could be summed up simply, “Do we want to live or die?”
As the environmental movement grew, the campus-based New Left, obsessed with the evils of American society and looking for issues beyond a fading Vietnam War, was increasingly attracted to it. While the environmental movement focused on energy because its leaders sought alternatives to polluting fossil fuels, political utopians saw control of energy, the economy’s lifeblood, as the key to reshaping the detested capitalist system. Moreover, the political utopians realized that environmentalists had hit on an issue capable of mobilizing masses to action – fear of nuclear power. One Friends of the Earth “public service announcement” broadcast on radio stations was typical: “Announcer: You’re looking at America’s worst pollution problem. What’s that? You say you can’t see anything? Of course you can’t. This is radio. But that’s okay. You couldn’t see it anyway. America’s worst pollution problem is the radioactive waste that comes out of nuclear power plants.” (Given that nuclear power was the one form of power that in fact produced no pollution, it might seem an odd bête noir for environmentalists, but so it was.
The common campaign of environmental and political utopians against nuclear energy was enormously successful. It is often written that the core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1981 was responsible for ending the development of new reactors in this country but it was merely the final nail in the coffin. Yet the very success of the campaign meant some other issue was needed to keep up the environmentalist momentum and global warming would turn out to more than fill the bill. Here was an apocalypse – mass starvation, the civilized world under a wall of water – that put any possible accident at a nuclear power plant in the shade and that finally offered utopian activists the chance to reshape national energy policy.
As we pass cap and trade legislation on the basis of junk science, we put not only our economy but science itself in jeopardy. We scorn the Inquisitors who condemned Galileo for insisting that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the solar system. But the saga of global warming shows that the vaunted scientific method offers scientists no reliable protection from succumbing to prevailing political theology. With unconscious humor, given his choice of aggressively ideological science advisers, President Obama in April announced “the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.”
Climate Change Reconsidered is an immensely important contribution to genuine scientific debate on issues where unscientific fear-mongering has thus far triumphed. It surely brings closer the day when science will once again assume the driver’s seat.
India to unveil 20GW solar target under climate plan
India will unveil its first solar power target as soon as September, pledging to boost ouptut from near zero to 20 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 as it firms up its national plan to fight global warming, draft documents show.
The target, which would help India close the gap on solar front-runners like China, is part of an ambitious $19 billion, 30-year scheme that could could increase India's leverage in international talks for a new U.N. climate pact in December, one of several measures meant to help cut emissions.
If fully implemented, solar power would be equivalent to one-eighth of India's current installed power base, helping the world's fourth-largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions limit its heavy reliance on dirty coal and assuaging the nagging power deficit that has crimped its growth.
The "National Solar Mission", yet to be formally adopted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special panel on climate, envisages the creation of a statutory solar authority that would make it mandatory for states to buy some solar power, according to a draft of the plan, which provided detailed proposals for the first time, obtained by Reuters,
"The aspiration is to ensure large-scale deployment of solar generated power for both grid connected as well as distributed and decentralised off-grid provision of commercial energy services," the policy draft said.
Confirming the proposed plan, a top Indian climate official told Reuters that the mission contained "quite stiff" targets that could be announced in September. In June a senior climate official had hoped it could be submitted this month.
"The draft should not change much and the target of 20 GW will be there," the official said on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.
Money would be spent on incentives for production and installation as well research and development, and the plan offers financial incentives and tax holidays for utilities.
It envisions three phases starting with 1-1.5 GW by 2012 along with steps to drive down production costs of solar panels and spur domestic manufacturing. The world now produces about 14 gigawatts (GW) of solar power, about half of it added last year.
The move could unlock India's huge renewables potential and benefit companies such as Tata BP Solar, a joint venture between Tata Power (TTPW.BO) and BP plc's (BP.L) solar unit, BP Solar, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL.BO), a state-run power and engineering equipment firm, and Lanco Infratech (LAIN.BO).
Shares in Chinese solar equipment firms like Suntech Power Holdings (STP.N) and Trina Solar (TSL.N) have tripled since March, when Beijing first announced subsidies; Beijing is widely expected soon to raise its solar target to up to 20 GW by 2020.
Japan is targetting 28 GW of solar power by 2020.
India's climate plan released last year identified harnessing renewable energy, such as solar power, and energy efficiency as central to its fight against global warming. At the moment only about 8 percent of India's total power mix is from renewables, although it is a leading provider of wind power technology.
Experts say the voluntary domestic action will add to India's bargaining power in international negotiations, although India's refusal to commit to any binding emission targets has angered many rich countries demanding greater commitment.
"Such unilateral action will give India the moral high-ground because the rich countries have not committed to anything (in terms of finance and technology)," said Siddharth Pathak, Greenpeace India's chief climate campaigner.
Nearly 200 countries meet in Copenhagen in December to try to agree on a broader climate pact to replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase ends in 2012.
MANDATORY
The draft policy document estimated that India could cut about 42 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions with its new solar plan, which aims to provide access to solar-powered lighting for 3 million households by 2012.
The plan is to make the use of solar-powered equipment and applications mandatory for hospitals, hotels and government buildings, and encourage use of solar lighting systems in villages and small towns with micro financing.
The plan also outlines a system of paying households for any surplus power from solar panels fed back into the grid.
India's long-neglected power sector is regarded by many observers as the greatest infrastructure investment opportunity in a country where nearly 56 percent of the 1.1-billion plus population do not have access to electricity.
In spite of its pledge to clean technology, coal remains the backbone of India's power sector -- accounting for about 60 percent of generation -- with the government planning to add 78.7 GW of power generation during the five years ending March 2012. Of this, 15.1 GW has been commissioned.
In comparison, China's power generation capacity rose to 792.5 GW in 2008, more than five times India's capacity.
India says it must use more energy to lift its population from poverty and that its per-capita emissions are a fraction of those in rich nations, which have burned fossil fuels unhindered since the industrial revolution.
India, whose economy has grown by 8-9 percent annually in recent years, contributes around 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The target, which would help India close the gap on solar front-runners like China, is part of an ambitious $19 billion, 30-year scheme that could could increase India's leverage in international talks for a new U.N. climate pact in December, one of several measures meant to help cut emissions.
If fully implemented, solar power would be equivalent to one-eighth of India's current installed power base, helping the world's fourth-largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions limit its heavy reliance on dirty coal and assuaging the nagging power deficit that has crimped its growth.
The "National Solar Mission", yet to be formally adopted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special panel on climate, envisages the creation of a statutory solar authority that would make it mandatory for states to buy some solar power, according to a draft of the plan, which provided detailed proposals for the first time, obtained by Reuters,
"The aspiration is to ensure large-scale deployment of solar generated power for both grid connected as well as distributed and decentralised off-grid provision of commercial energy services," the policy draft said.
Confirming the proposed plan, a top Indian climate official told Reuters that the mission contained "quite stiff" targets that could be announced in September. In June a senior climate official had hoped it could be submitted this month.
"The draft should not change much and the target of 20 GW will be there," the official said on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.
Money would be spent on incentives for production and installation as well research and development, and the plan offers financial incentives and tax holidays for utilities.
It envisions three phases starting with 1-1.5 GW by 2012 along with steps to drive down production costs of solar panels and spur domestic manufacturing. The world now produces about 14 gigawatts (GW) of solar power, about half of it added last year.
The move could unlock India's huge renewables potential and benefit companies such as Tata BP Solar, a joint venture between Tata Power (TTPW.BO) and BP plc's (BP.L) solar unit, BP Solar, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL.BO), a state-run power and engineering equipment firm, and Lanco Infratech (LAIN.BO).
Shares in Chinese solar equipment firms like Suntech Power Holdings (STP.N) and Trina Solar (TSL.N) have tripled since March, when Beijing first announced subsidies; Beijing is widely expected soon to raise its solar target to up to 20 GW by 2020.
Japan is targetting 28 GW of solar power by 2020.
India's climate plan released last year identified harnessing renewable energy, such as solar power, and energy efficiency as central to its fight against global warming. At the moment only about 8 percent of India's total power mix is from renewables, although it is a leading provider of wind power technology.
Experts say the voluntary domestic action will add to India's bargaining power in international negotiations, although India's refusal to commit to any binding emission targets has angered many rich countries demanding greater commitment.
"Such unilateral action will give India the moral high-ground because the rich countries have not committed to anything (in terms of finance and technology)," said Siddharth Pathak, Greenpeace India's chief climate campaigner.
Nearly 200 countries meet in Copenhagen in December to try to agree on a broader climate pact to replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase ends in 2012.
MANDATORY
The draft policy document estimated that India could cut about 42 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions with its new solar plan, which aims to provide access to solar-powered lighting for 3 million households by 2012.
The plan is to make the use of solar-powered equipment and applications mandatory for hospitals, hotels and government buildings, and encourage use of solar lighting systems in villages and small towns with micro financing.
The plan also outlines a system of paying households for any surplus power from solar panels fed back into the grid.
India's long-neglected power sector is regarded by many observers as the greatest infrastructure investment opportunity in a country where nearly 56 percent of the 1.1-billion plus population do not have access to electricity.
In spite of its pledge to clean technology, coal remains the backbone of India's power sector -- accounting for about 60 percent of generation -- with the government planning to add 78.7 GW of power generation during the five years ending March 2012. Of this, 15.1 GW has been commissioned.
In comparison, China's power generation capacity rose to 792.5 GW in 2008, more than five times India's capacity.
India says it must use more energy to lift its population from poverty and that its per-capita emissions are a fraction of those in rich nations, which have burned fossil fuels unhindered since the industrial revolution.
India, whose economy has grown by 8-9 percent annually in recent years, contributes around 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)