Khammam (Women's Feature Service) - It takes less than 30 minutes to clean this village - the entire village. And it is no hamlet. With a population of about 3,000, Medepally, in the Mudigonda administrative mandal of Andhra Pradesh's Khammam district, is a village that is spread over a two-kilometre radius.
More than 500 women - all members of various self-help groups (SHGs) in the village - assigned themselves a stretch of each street that they clean twice a week. "I don't live in the village anymore. But, on Mondays and Thursdays, I commute to the village first thing in the morning to finish my part of the job," says Sudha Rani, who now lives in Kusumanchi, about 10 kilometres away. Sudha can be often seen zipping around the village in her two-wheeler, with a broom hanging onto the carriage.
The women behind Medepally's extraordinary progress pose for a group photo. From left to right: Drakshavathi, Nagamani Samineni, Shyamala Kollu, Ram Tulasi Akkineni, Nagalakshmi Kothapalli, Kanthamma Chinnam and Savitramma Perumalla. Pic: Sri Harsha Vadlamani.
But the 525 members of the 48 SHGs in Medepally haven't limited their good work to maintaining sanitation in the village. They have also got together to provide clean drinking water and ensure maintenance of the ground water, the chief source of drinking water here.
"It was more than a year ago that we noticed most of us were suffering from joint pains, hives and skin discolouration. But, it took us some time to link it with the water we drank and used," says Nagalakshmi Kothapalli, leader of a women's group and president of the Mandal Praja Parishad, a local body.
Although the neighbouring district of Nalgonda had hazardous levels of fluoride in its ground water, which had caused health problems and had led to mass migration, it was only recently that Khammam began to feel the impact of fluoride. In fact, the state government has identified the Palair region of the district, where a reservoir from the tail end of the Nagarjuna Sagar left bank canal was recently built, as a fluoride-affected region. Fluoride is essential, within permissible limits, for dental and skeletal strength. World Health Organisation (WHO) states the limit to be one ppm (parts per million). However, Nalgonda has reported 10 ppm in certain places and Mudigonda in Khammam has levels exceeding 2.5 ppm.
Recognising this as a hazard, the administration recently announced time-bound plans to pump in over Rs.1 billion (Rs.100 crores) for the provision of clean drinking water as the region is primarily dependent on ground water for all its water needs.
However, long before the authorities took any action, the women of Medepally decided to nip the problem in the bud. Acknowledging that ground water was their only source of water they consulted the sarpanch (village council head) and decided to build a water purification plant. Many meetings and plans later, the village launched a mineral water plant with an investment of about Rs.200,000.
The plant has been set up by the village-level federation of all SHGs, Snehita Mahila Grama Sangham. With the help of the sarpanch, some women leaders went to the district headquarters, Khammam, and collected the necessary information to build a water purification plant. They then sought a commercial estimate from a company, who came and set up the plant for them. The women contributed Rs.75,000 and collected the rest from the villagers. Money was also pooled in for the construction of the room that has the reverse osmosis machines and storage tanks.
The water purification plant set up underneath the main water tank of Medepally. Pic: Sri Harsha Vadlamani.
The work began in January this year and was completed within a couple of weeks. The plant itself has been set up under the village water storage tank, which is attached to the main water source, the ground water well. The filtered water is filled into a fibre tank, from which it is filled into cans through a tap. Since, the water is not stored for more than an hour at any given point of time there is no problem of moss or contamination and all the containers are periodically cleaned.
The women worked out cost of the purified water and also chalked out a timeframe in which to recover the money spent on the project. Today, a 20-litre can of purified water is sold at a mere one rupee. Similar sized cans bought from nearby towns come at the commercial price of Rs.40. A minimum of 300 cans are supplied to the village households in a day. This results in a monthly income of not less that Rs.10,000 to the woman's self help group.
Part of the money they earn goes to employ two workers of the panchayat towards returns for the money contributed by the villagers. "We did such pioneering work that three plants were set up in quick succession in the near-by villages. Even a popular hotel on the national highway followed in our footsteps. Now, we have leaders of SHGs visiting us from as far as Anantapur district (a severely drought-hit district about 400 kilometres away)," says a proud Drakshavathi Mikkilineni, president of the Snehita Mahila Grama Sangham.
A winner of both the Nirmal Gram Puraskar and State-level Shubhram Award, Medepally is a village that has achieved total sanitation. "Initially, when we got down to cleaning the streets, we were shocked at how much trash there was. Cow dung, weeds, garbage and open drains that buzzed with mosquitoes. It hit us hard, the combined fact that we were neither clean nor did we have proper drinking water," recalls Ram Tulasi Akkineni, Treasurer, Swayamkrushi group. Now, the SHGs have also employed two workers - with earnings from the water plant - to clean up the dung on the roads every day.
With a turnover of about Rs.12 million, the SHG has 856 life insurance policies among the members and does a whole range of activities from distributing calcium tablets to children to post office savings every month. They even managed to prevent liquor from being sold in their village, using a variety of techniques from cajoling their men to breaking arrack pots.
No other village is more eco-friendly than this one. From 100-per cent toilet coverage to rain water harvesting; from soak pits in every house to clean streets; Medepally has done it all. "The kids who study in our high school have a small session every morning to talk about sanitation and safe drinking water," says Savitramma Perumalla.
Under the Total Sanitation Programme, each household is given Rs.2,750 to build a toilet to which the owner adds another Rs.1,500, but in Medepally the target was achieved long before the government launched the scheme. "Now, we are so used to clean toilets that when we go visiting some other village, we just can't stand the muck," says Nagamani Samineni. "Even the kids in our village are so clued in, they mockingly threaten visitors against defecating in the public. They say 'you will be fined Rs 500 by our sarpanch'," laughs Hari Prasad Samineni, sarpanch. "And happily, we have not found a single offender until now," Savitramma adds.
Medepally, in the not-too-distant past, was the arena of a bloody feud between political leaders and their families, with rivals even having been hacked to death on its roads. The unity and the sheer pragmatism that the women of this village displayed stands as a great contrast to the violence and fear that had marked mainstream politics in the region. The women say that the happiest moment for them was when they could actually have a Rangoli (intricate floor patterns filled in with coloured powder) contest on their clean streets to celebrate the harvest festival of Sankranthi.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
No to noise
Mumbai appears to stealing the thunder over other cities in cracking down on noise pollution, thanks in no small measure to the indefatigable efforts over six long years of Sumaira Abdulali, who runs the Awaaz Foundation. In February, the city designated as many as 1113 silent zones where honking is prohibited. About a fifth of these are in the commercial district of south Mumbai itself, which is most congested during the day. The World Bank recently declared that Mumbai is now the most crowded city in the world. Indeed, as much as 40 per cent of Greater Mumbai, which covers some 438 sq km, will be covered by the law.
In the last two months, without making too much of a noise about it, the traffic police have silently booked as many as 36,000 drivers, which means that they have got into the act without waiting for the silent zones to be declared. Offenders can be fine Rs.1000 and their licenses temporarily confiscated. Some 983 drivers have also been fined for using noisy or musical reverse horns, which are also banned, unknown to many users. The police have earned a windfall of Rs.42 lakhs in the crackdown, which only goes to show that anyone who has the will can do wonders. This should make a case for the department to hire more traffic cops, who will penalise motorists for parking offences as well. The fines alone should pay for their keep!
In Mumbai, Harish Baijal, Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of Traffic, has been most proactive and working closely with the Awaaz Foundation, in sharp contrast to other official agencies. On 7 April last year, he designated a No Honking Day, with the help of many citizens' organisations. It had very limited impact; many citizens went about the day as if were like any other, but it set the ball rolling: old habits die hard. What is more, although relegated to a single day, the drive and education campaign lasted for the next three months.
The current crackdown is by no means restricted to the silent zones. The police can penalise anyone honking too loudly and insistently anywhere, which has left some motorists puzzled. As is only too well established with other driving offences, any latitude on the part of the traffic policeman in interpreting rules leaves the door wide ajar for money to change hands. One motorist interviewed by a newspaper had the temerity to state that the first priority of the police was to regularise traffic, whatever he interpreted that as meaning. "If you want to drive in Mumbai, you have to honk," he added for good measure.
This hits the nail on the head: motorists think they have the right to blow their horns; some might even think it is their duty, in order to avoid running into pedestrians or other vehicles. The damage that noise does, not least to hapless pedestrians and residents of arterial roads, is virtually ignored. Abdulali, in her writ petition before the Bombay High Court in 2007 notes: "The Petitioners state that Respondent No.1 [the Maharashtra government; others are the police and Transport Commissioner] has been charged with a statutory duty under the Noise Rules to ensure that noise levels are kept within the prescribed limits. However traffic noise in Mumbai and in all large cities in the state has reached alarming levels, much beyond the limits prescribed under the Noise Rules and the measures taken by the Respondents, if any, are wholly inadequate. Mumbai is said to be the third noisiest city in the world. The ill effects of noise are well established but however not known to most people as they are not immediately visible or discernible. The Petitioners seek directions from this Court for the strict implementation of the provisions of the Noise Rules and other statutory enactments..."
The court finally passed an order on 26 February earmarking the silent zones, which the municipal corporation has promptly put into effect. It is bound to have a salutary effect on drivers - particularly of the older, decrepit taxis and auto rickshaws - who will for the first time after several years be reminded that honking is an offence around schools and hospitals. In time, this will hopefully educate all drivers that the horn is a device to be used only in an emergency, and not as a method to alert others of one's impending arrival.
Health effects
Hardly anyone is aware of the health impacts of excessive noise. In an interview last November, the well-known Mumbai-based health activist Dr R K Anand (one of his earliest campaigns was to promote breast-feeding and discourage infant foods in the country) recounts going to a birthday party at a restaurant for a five-year-old and finding that fathers found it impossible to speak to each other because the music was turned on far too loud. I can cite a different experience from my own son's wedding some 15 months ago. I had grave misgivings that the reception would be a crashing bore because my son had banned all forms of music (or any amplification, for that matter!). However, in the end, everyone complimented us for being able to meet friends and actually talk to them, for a change.
As Dr Anand states, "It is little known that continuous exposure to such settings can cause temporary or permanent deafness in children. Loss of hearing due to extreme noise is well established. Young children and adults should know that if they cannot talk to a person two metres away, the background noise level is downright unsafe. This level of sound is not uncommon in birthday parties, dance floors and rock music shows. Noisy toys, certain fireworks, marriage bands and loud speakers during festivals only make it worse.
"The ear does not distinguish between different types of noise. All noise exposure is addictive. Sumaira Abdulali is very concerned about this issue. She studies the level of noise with a proper instrument. Sound exposure below 78 decibels (dB) is safe… Birthday parties using loud speakers often record unsafe noise levels. The levels during the final day of the Ganapati immersion varies from 90-100 dB. The noise levels increased through the use of loud speakers, especially when powered with generators, film music, bands and firecrackers. Children often participated in these processions. Some mothers had crying infants in their arms. Noise from most 'light based' crackers, used during processions and Diwali exceed 100 dB.
"Sound exposure above 78 dB should alert us to possible danger. Sounds above 85 dB may cause temporary hearing loss, as after one rock show or a birthday party, but the loss may worsen and become permanent with frequent exposure to noise. Sudden extreme noise of more than 140 dB due to a bomb or other source can cause permanent loss of hearing even after one exposure. Of course, there is a known individual variation in susceptibility to hearing loss induced by noise."
What Dr Anand doesn't add is the stress on the nerves which constant honking causes. When Mumbai autos went off the roads some weeks ago over some dispute, the silence on the city's streets was palpable (the noise caused by their engines is of course a much bigger contributory factor). While Bajaj and other two- and three-wheeler manufacturers have been pilloried for delaying the introduction of four-stroke engines and poisoning the atmosphere as a consequence, they have been let off the hook so far as their din is concerned. The ill-effects of air pollution or excessive heat or poor sanitation have been computed, but the full health and economic costs of stress due to noise haven't. We have become inured to this level of nuisance and take it for granted, so much so that when one goes to the West, one wonders whether there is a curfew in place or another ban on vehicles.
In her petition Abdulali cited the international norms: "The World Heath Organisation in its Report published in 1995 prescribes a safe noise level for a city as 50 dB. For the purpose of illustration, the sound of a bird chirping generates a reading on the sound meter of about 20 dB while the sound of an aeroplane is at about 130 dB. While the threshold of hearing is anything above 0 dB, the threshold of pain is at about 120 dB. While most people are familiar with the notion of loud noise causing harm, not many are aware that continuous exposure to low levels of noise over a period of time can also cause loss of hearing."
While enacting and enforcing laws is one part of the solution, education is surely another. Children, who now have to study the environment as part of their main curricula, ought to learn about the impact of noise on their well being and that of others. Consider that only 4 per cent of Mumbai's commuters - as distinct from the total population of 16 million - use private cars and another use 9 per cent taxis and autos, this minority of 13 per cent imposes a very heavy (dare one say deafening?) burden on pedestrians and residents. Needless to add, the longer-term solution is to encourage public transport and deter motorised transport of all kinds, not least because of the very harmful impact on the climate. ⊕
In the last two months, without making too much of a noise about it, the traffic police have silently booked as many as 36,000 drivers, which means that they have got into the act without waiting for the silent zones to be declared. Offenders can be fine Rs.1000 and their licenses temporarily confiscated. Some 983 drivers have also been fined for using noisy or musical reverse horns, which are also banned, unknown to many users. The police have earned a windfall of Rs.42 lakhs in the crackdown, which only goes to show that anyone who has the will can do wonders. This should make a case for the department to hire more traffic cops, who will penalise motorists for parking offences as well. The fines alone should pay for their keep!
In Mumbai, Harish Baijal, Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of Traffic, has been most proactive and working closely with the Awaaz Foundation, in sharp contrast to other official agencies. On 7 April last year, he designated a No Honking Day, with the help of many citizens' organisations. It had very limited impact; many citizens went about the day as if were like any other, but it set the ball rolling: old habits die hard. What is more, although relegated to a single day, the drive and education campaign lasted for the next three months.
The current crackdown is by no means restricted to the silent zones. The police can penalise anyone honking too loudly and insistently anywhere, which has left some motorists puzzled. As is only too well established with other driving offences, any latitude on the part of the traffic policeman in interpreting rules leaves the door wide ajar for money to change hands. One motorist interviewed by a newspaper had the temerity to state that the first priority of the police was to regularise traffic, whatever he interpreted that as meaning. "If you want to drive in Mumbai, you have to honk," he added for good measure.
This hits the nail on the head: motorists think they have the right to blow their horns; some might even think it is their duty, in order to avoid running into pedestrians or other vehicles. The damage that noise does, not least to hapless pedestrians and residents of arterial roads, is virtually ignored. Abdulali, in her writ petition before the Bombay High Court in 2007 notes: "The Petitioners state that Respondent No.1 [the Maharashtra government; others are the police and Transport Commissioner] has been charged with a statutory duty under the Noise Rules to ensure that noise levels are kept within the prescribed limits. However traffic noise in Mumbai and in all large cities in the state has reached alarming levels, much beyond the limits prescribed under the Noise Rules and the measures taken by the Respondents, if any, are wholly inadequate. Mumbai is said to be the third noisiest city in the world. The ill effects of noise are well established but however not known to most people as they are not immediately visible or discernible. The Petitioners seek directions from this Court for the strict implementation of the provisions of the Noise Rules and other statutory enactments..."
The court finally passed an order on 26 February earmarking the silent zones, which the municipal corporation has promptly put into effect. It is bound to have a salutary effect on drivers - particularly of the older, decrepit taxis and auto rickshaws - who will for the first time after several years be reminded that honking is an offence around schools and hospitals. In time, this will hopefully educate all drivers that the horn is a device to be used only in an emergency, and not as a method to alert others of one's impending arrival.
Health effects
Hardly anyone is aware of the health impacts of excessive noise. In an interview last November, the well-known Mumbai-based health activist Dr R K Anand (one of his earliest campaigns was to promote breast-feeding and discourage infant foods in the country) recounts going to a birthday party at a restaurant for a five-year-old and finding that fathers found it impossible to speak to each other because the music was turned on far too loud. I can cite a different experience from my own son's wedding some 15 months ago. I had grave misgivings that the reception would be a crashing bore because my son had banned all forms of music (or any amplification, for that matter!). However, in the end, everyone complimented us for being able to meet friends and actually talk to them, for a change.
As Dr Anand states, "It is little known that continuous exposure to such settings can cause temporary or permanent deafness in children. Loss of hearing due to extreme noise is well established. Young children and adults should know that if they cannot talk to a person two metres away, the background noise level is downright unsafe. This level of sound is not uncommon in birthday parties, dance floors and rock music shows. Noisy toys, certain fireworks, marriage bands and loud speakers during festivals only make it worse.
"The ear does not distinguish between different types of noise. All noise exposure is addictive. Sumaira Abdulali is very concerned about this issue. She studies the level of noise with a proper instrument. Sound exposure below 78 decibels (dB) is safe… Birthday parties using loud speakers often record unsafe noise levels. The levels during the final day of the Ganapati immersion varies from 90-100 dB. The noise levels increased through the use of loud speakers, especially when powered with generators, film music, bands and firecrackers. Children often participated in these processions. Some mothers had crying infants in their arms. Noise from most 'light based' crackers, used during processions and Diwali exceed 100 dB.
"Sound exposure above 78 dB should alert us to possible danger. Sounds above 85 dB may cause temporary hearing loss, as after one rock show or a birthday party, but the loss may worsen and become permanent with frequent exposure to noise. Sudden extreme noise of more than 140 dB due to a bomb or other source can cause permanent loss of hearing even after one exposure. Of course, there is a known individual variation in susceptibility to hearing loss induced by noise."
What Dr Anand doesn't add is the stress on the nerves which constant honking causes. When Mumbai autos went off the roads some weeks ago over some dispute, the silence on the city's streets was palpable (the noise caused by their engines is of course a much bigger contributory factor). While Bajaj and other two- and three-wheeler manufacturers have been pilloried for delaying the introduction of four-stroke engines and poisoning the atmosphere as a consequence, they have been let off the hook so far as their din is concerned. The ill-effects of air pollution or excessive heat or poor sanitation have been computed, but the full health and economic costs of stress due to noise haven't. We have become inured to this level of nuisance and take it for granted, so much so that when one goes to the West, one wonders whether there is a curfew in place or another ban on vehicles.
In her petition Abdulali cited the international norms: "The World Heath Organisation in its Report published in 1995 prescribes a safe noise level for a city as 50 dB. For the purpose of illustration, the sound of a bird chirping generates a reading on the sound meter of about 20 dB while the sound of an aeroplane is at about 130 dB. While the threshold of hearing is anything above 0 dB, the threshold of pain is at about 120 dB. While most people are familiar with the notion of loud noise causing harm, not many are aware that continuous exposure to low levels of noise over a period of time can also cause loss of hearing."
While enacting and enforcing laws is one part of the solution, education is surely another. Children, who now have to study the environment as part of their main curricula, ought to learn about the impact of noise on their well being and that of others. Consider that only 4 per cent of Mumbai's commuters - as distinct from the total population of 16 million - use private cars and another use 9 per cent taxis and autos, this minority of 13 per cent imposes a very heavy (dare one say deafening?) burden on pedestrians and residents. Needless to add, the longer-term solution is to encourage public transport and deter motorised transport of all kinds, not least because of the very harmful impact on the climate. ⊕
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
While much of the negotiations at the UN climate change meet in Bonn (28 March to 8 April) centred around targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - mainly, but by no means exclusively by industrial countries, and funding developing countries to follow suit - the transfer of energy-efficient technologies was also hotly debated.
This follows in the wake of the negotiations in Bali in 2007, where developing countries, among some 190 present, agreed to take "nationally appropriate" mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable" manner. The proviso was that such actions would take into account "differences in their national circumstances".
In Bonn, Greenpeace called for developing countries to reduce their projected emissions by 15-30 per cent by 2020, with support from industrialised countries. As it stated: "Countries in this group range from the very poor nations which have scarcely contributed to climate change, to those that are richer than some industrialised countries and clearly cannot all be treated the same. In order to be fair, the level of action should be based on a country's historical responsibility for emissions and its capability and potential."
After eight years in the wilderness, the US - which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 and will be renegotiated in Copenhagen this December - has returned to the table. President Obama's Special Envoy on Climate Change (India's equivalent is Shyam Saran), Todd Stern made no secret of his country's continuing antipathy to the Kyoto Protocol, which does not require developing countries to commit to reducing their energy emissions. Stern is a Washington lawyer who was a former Clinton While House official.
"We all have to do this together," he told the Bonn conference. "We don't have a magic wand. I don't think anybody should be thinking that the US can ride on a white horse and make it all work ... Let me speak frankly here: it is in no one's interest to repeat the experience of Kyoto by delivering an agreement that won't gain sufficient support at home [in the US] ... Too much time has been lost in sterile debates ... America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America."
He also thought that the development challenge was making sure that developing countries have the opportunity to follow a cleaner path forward. "I like to tell the story that earlier this decade, India had only about 55 million people with phone service, but, rather than insist on following the industrialised countries' path of wired service, India leap-frogged to cell phones, with the result that a few years later 350 million Indians have phones. We need a similar leap-frogging of fossil fuels in the world of energy."
India itself, however, said that industrialised countries presented five problems. They ignored their historical responsibility; made unsubstantiated projections of likely future emissions from the developing world; created new categories such as 'more advanced developing countries' [including China, India and Brazil]; demanded that developing countries should deliver low carbon pathways without enabling financial, technological and capacity-building support; and drew unsubstantiated marginal abatement cost curves that showed large low cost abatement options even in the bottom 50 per cent of the world, which includes India, that has negligible historical responsibility and together accounts for only 11 per cent of the current carbon dioxide emissions.
The problem is that energy-efficient technologies are by no means cost-free, and developed countries - which have caused global warming in the first place - haven't put their money where their collective mouths are, despite repeated promises to this effect. In Bonn, developing countries called for relaxation of patents on climate-friendly technologies and products. India, in fact, stressed the need for removing barriers to technology transfer, including a "restructuring of the global Intellectual Property Rights regime".
Shyam Saran specifically referred to India's proposal that the UN climate control regime should set up "innovation centres" for research and development. During a plenary session, Dr Ajay Mathur, who heads the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in Delhi, cited an instance of such potential cooperation by holding up India's first commercially available LED (light emitting diodes) bulb, which had been launched by Crompton Greaves in Pune on 28 March. As Dr Mathur said, "It produces as much light as a 40 Watt incandescent bulb or an 8 Watt CFL (compact fluorescent). This has been introduced by an Indian company, which has entered into an agreement with the Dutch company which designed this LED bulb.
"The engineering and manufacturing of this bulb has been carried out in India, and it is estimated that if all Indians were to replace one incandescent bulb with this bulb, it would save 56 billion kWh of electricity, and 44 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which would be equal to planting 140 million trees.
"The problem is that this LED bulb costs $24 [Rs.1200], compared to $0.30 for a 40 Watt incandescent bulb. We will, of course, encourage the aggressive adoption of this technology, but it will be limited unless supported by a global regime for the accelerated adoption of climate-friendly technologies. We believe that a network of climate innovation centres would be an effective way to achieve this goal."
Dr Mathur told India Together that while the capital cost of the Pharox bulb was high, it had a five-year warranty. It had a life of 50,000 hours, as against a life of only a fifth of this for a CFL. Even CFL bulbs cost Rs.1000 when they were first introduced. The glass bulb has been manufactured in Firozabad, which is a traditional glass industry centre. Such technology could earn carbon credits because of its low consumption of energy.
Although the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, the EU has till 2015 to purchase carbon credits, which may not exist after then. In the current financial meltdown, the price of Certified Emission Reductions or CERs - the traded cost of reducing a tonne of carbon dioxide - has dropped in the international carbon market but should stabilise in the long term at around 8 Euros, which would work in such a deal without grants or subsidies. "We are working on upscaling this technology even without international support," Dr Mathur said. "The only way to reduce our emissions by half is by the massive transfer of technologies."
India's innovation centres were required for developing such products and also marketing them - virtually creating markets in some instances. The Electricity Act here didn't permit private operators to generate power but there was a huge opportunity for decentralised energy systems to provide electricity and cooking fuel to some 700 million Indians who had to make do without these two basic necessities. For cooking fuel, biomass, which is widely available in rural areas, would be energy-efficient and received a 60 per cent subsidy.
The Bush administration and Obama's too have preferred entering into bilateral environmental agreements with India and China instead of committing to international treaties. Thus Bush had launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. At the end of the Bonn conference, the US Deputy Special Envoy on Climate, Dr Jonathan Pershing, told Indian reporters that senior US and Indian officials and businessmen were meeting each other and that there was "enormous support" to facilitate such opportunities.
Flaring landfill gas
For example, according to America.gov, the official website, U.S. and Indian organizations are exploring ways to use methane gas from Indian landfills for fuel, heating and electricity with the Mumbai office of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, NEERI. Landfills, decomposing food and paper release gas, including methane gas, which is 23 times worse in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Methane is also the primary component of natural gas, used as a fuel and energy source.
The trick is to capture the methane before it leaves the landfill and escapes into the atmosphere so that its energy can be harnessed for positive uses," Joe Zietsman, project manager of one Indian landfill investigation, told America.gov. Zietsman is director of the Center for Air Quality Studies at the Texas Transportation Institute, which is part of Texas A&M University.
Zietsman's group is leading a study in Mumbai to investigate the feasibility of converting landfill gas to vehicle fuel or energy sources. Other partners in the study include NEERI, the Texas State Energy Office and Mack Trucks Inc. The investigations are funded by EPA as part of the agency's Methane to Markets partnership - an international initiative advancing cost-effective methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. (See "International Partners Reduce Methane Greenhouse Gas Emissions").
"India is one of 27 partner governments, plus the European Commission, who have joined the partnership to voluntarily reduce methane emissions," Rachel Goldstein, EPA team leader for the landfill methane outreach program, told America.gov. According to Kumar, operating vehicles with LNG would reduce vehicular emissions considerably. This option "could be more relevant for cities like Mumbai, which has a large population and generates about 6,000 tonnes of waste per day."
EPA's Goldstein said the next step "is for each municipality running a landfill to assess their options," including estimating the revenue anticipated from generating electricity and selling the gas. For one Mumbai landfill, the choice has been made. "The Gorai dumpsite will soon be the first landfill in India, as far as we know, to begin flaring landfill gas, when this begins at the end of April," Goldstein said. Worldwide, millions of tonnes of municipal solid waste are discarded daily into sanitary landfills and dumpsites. Landfills are the third-largest human-induced source of methane gas, accounting for about 12 per cent of global emissions.
Developing countries wary
One reason why India and other developing countries may be wary of such deals is that after such technologies are demonstrated on the ground, they may be commercially exploited in the international market. In other words, such pilot projects may be testing grounds to see how this know-how works in tropical conditions. By entering into such deals, the US may seek to avoid parting with patented technologies under a global climate regime.
It has, for example, been pursuing the "carbon capture and sequestration" method of scrubbing carbon dioxide from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, which would reduce the emissions by up to 80-90%. This carbon dioxide can then be buried deep in the earth or in storage tanks in ocean beds. However, this is extremely expensive and untested technology, which however could conceivably be cost-effective in the long run when the cost of reducing a tonne of carbon rises prohibitively. But right now, there are a range of existing technologies which would help developing countries, but industrial nations have shown extreme reluctance to part with them without a fee. ⊕
This follows in the wake of the negotiations in Bali in 2007, where developing countries, among some 190 present, agreed to take "nationally appropriate" mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable" manner. The proviso was that such actions would take into account "differences in their national circumstances".
In Bonn, Greenpeace called for developing countries to reduce their projected emissions by 15-30 per cent by 2020, with support from industrialised countries. As it stated: "Countries in this group range from the very poor nations which have scarcely contributed to climate change, to those that are richer than some industrialised countries and clearly cannot all be treated the same. In order to be fair, the level of action should be based on a country's historical responsibility for emissions and its capability and potential."
After eight years in the wilderness, the US - which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 and will be renegotiated in Copenhagen this December - has returned to the table. President Obama's Special Envoy on Climate Change (India's equivalent is Shyam Saran), Todd Stern made no secret of his country's continuing antipathy to the Kyoto Protocol, which does not require developing countries to commit to reducing their energy emissions. Stern is a Washington lawyer who was a former Clinton While House official.
"We all have to do this together," he told the Bonn conference. "We don't have a magic wand. I don't think anybody should be thinking that the US can ride on a white horse and make it all work ... Let me speak frankly here: it is in no one's interest to repeat the experience of Kyoto by delivering an agreement that won't gain sufficient support at home [in the US] ... Too much time has been lost in sterile debates ... America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America."
He also thought that the development challenge was making sure that developing countries have the opportunity to follow a cleaner path forward. "I like to tell the story that earlier this decade, India had only about 55 million people with phone service, but, rather than insist on following the industrialised countries' path of wired service, India leap-frogged to cell phones, with the result that a few years later 350 million Indians have phones. We need a similar leap-frogging of fossil fuels in the world of energy."
India itself, however, said that industrialised countries presented five problems. They ignored their historical responsibility; made unsubstantiated projections of likely future emissions from the developing world; created new categories such as 'more advanced developing countries' [including China, India and Brazil]; demanded that developing countries should deliver low carbon pathways without enabling financial, technological and capacity-building support; and drew unsubstantiated marginal abatement cost curves that showed large low cost abatement options even in the bottom 50 per cent of the world, which includes India, that has negligible historical responsibility and together accounts for only 11 per cent of the current carbon dioxide emissions.
The problem is that energy-efficient technologies are by no means cost-free, and developed countries - which have caused global warming in the first place - haven't put their money where their collective mouths are, despite repeated promises to this effect. In Bonn, developing countries called for relaxation of patents on climate-friendly technologies and products. India, in fact, stressed the need for removing barriers to technology transfer, including a "restructuring of the global Intellectual Property Rights regime".
Shyam Saran specifically referred to India's proposal that the UN climate control regime should set up "innovation centres" for research and development. During a plenary session, Dr Ajay Mathur, who heads the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in Delhi, cited an instance of such potential cooperation by holding up India's first commercially available LED (light emitting diodes) bulb, which had been launched by Crompton Greaves in Pune on 28 March. As Dr Mathur said, "It produces as much light as a 40 Watt incandescent bulb or an 8 Watt CFL (compact fluorescent). This has been introduced by an Indian company, which has entered into an agreement with the Dutch company which designed this LED bulb.
"The engineering and manufacturing of this bulb has been carried out in India, and it is estimated that if all Indians were to replace one incandescent bulb with this bulb, it would save 56 billion kWh of electricity, and 44 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which would be equal to planting 140 million trees.
"The problem is that this LED bulb costs $24 [Rs.1200], compared to $0.30 for a 40 Watt incandescent bulb. We will, of course, encourage the aggressive adoption of this technology, but it will be limited unless supported by a global regime for the accelerated adoption of climate-friendly technologies. We believe that a network of climate innovation centres would be an effective way to achieve this goal."
Dr Mathur told India Together that while the capital cost of the Pharox bulb was high, it had a five-year warranty. It had a life of 50,000 hours, as against a life of only a fifth of this for a CFL. Even CFL bulbs cost Rs.1000 when they were first introduced. The glass bulb has been manufactured in Firozabad, which is a traditional glass industry centre. Such technology could earn carbon credits because of its low consumption of energy.
Although the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, the EU has till 2015 to purchase carbon credits, which may not exist after then. In the current financial meltdown, the price of Certified Emission Reductions or CERs - the traded cost of reducing a tonne of carbon dioxide - has dropped in the international carbon market but should stabilise in the long term at around 8 Euros, which would work in such a deal without grants or subsidies. "We are working on upscaling this technology even without international support," Dr Mathur said. "The only way to reduce our emissions by half is by the massive transfer of technologies."
India's innovation centres were required for developing such products and also marketing them - virtually creating markets in some instances. The Electricity Act here didn't permit private operators to generate power but there was a huge opportunity for decentralised energy systems to provide electricity and cooking fuel to some 700 million Indians who had to make do without these two basic necessities. For cooking fuel, biomass, which is widely available in rural areas, would be energy-efficient and received a 60 per cent subsidy.
The Bush administration and Obama's too have preferred entering into bilateral environmental agreements with India and China instead of committing to international treaties. Thus Bush had launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. At the end of the Bonn conference, the US Deputy Special Envoy on Climate, Dr Jonathan Pershing, told Indian reporters that senior US and Indian officials and businessmen were meeting each other and that there was "enormous support" to facilitate such opportunities.
Flaring landfill gas
For example, according to America.gov, the official website, U.S. and Indian organizations are exploring ways to use methane gas from Indian landfills for fuel, heating and electricity with the Mumbai office of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, NEERI. Landfills, decomposing food and paper release gas, including methane gas, which is 23 times worse in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Methane is also the primary component of natural gas, used as a fuel and energy source.
The trick is to capture the methane before it leaves the landfill and escapes into the atmosphere so that its energy can be harnessed for positive uses," Joe Zietsman, project manager of one Indian landfill investigation, told America.gov. Zietsman is director of the Center for Air Quality Studies at the Texas Transportation Institute, which is part of Texas A&M University.
Zietsman's group is leading a study in Mumbai to investigate the feasibility of converting landfill gas to vehicle fuel or energy sources. Other partners in the study include NEERI, the Texas State Energy Office and Mack Trucks Inc. The investigations are funded by EPA as part of the agency's Methane to Markets partnership - an international initiative advancing cost-effective methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. (See "International Partners Reduce Methane Greenhouse Gas Emissions").
"India is one of 27 partner governments, plus the European Commission, who have joined the partnership to voluntarily reduce methane emissions," Rachel Goldstein, EPA team leader for the landfill methane outreach program, told America.gov. According to Kumar, operating vehicles with LNG would reduce vehicular emissions considerably. This option "could be more relevant for cities like Mumbai, which has a large population and generates about 6,000 tonnes of waste per day."
EPA's Goldstein said the next step "is for each municipality running a landfill to assess their options," including estimating the revenue anticipated from generating electricity and selling the gas. For one Mumbai landfill, the choice has been made. "The Gorai dumpsite will soon be the first landfill in India, as far as we know, to begin flaring landfill gas, when this begins at the end of April," Goldstein said. Worldwide, millions of tonnes of municipal solid waste are discarded daily into sanitary landfills and dumpsites. Landfills are the third-largest human-induced source of methane gas, accounting for about 12 per cent of global emissions.
Developing countries wary
One reason why India and other developing countries may be wary of such deals is that after such technologies are demonstrated on the ground, they may be commercially exploited in the international market. In other words, such pilot projects may be testing grounds to see how this know-how works in tropical conditions. By entering into such deals, the US may seek to avoid parting with patented technologies under a global climate regime.
It has, for example, been pursuing the "carbon capture and sequestration" method of scrubbing carbon dioxide from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, which would reduce the emissions by up to 80-90%. This carbon dioxide can then be buried deep in the earth or in storage tanks in ocean beds. However, this is extremely expensive and untested technology, which however could conceivably be cost-effective in the long run when the cost of reducing a tonne of carbon rises prohibitively. But right now, there are a range of existing technologies which would help developing countries, but industrial nations have shown extreme reluctance to part with them without a fee. ⊕
Discovery could ease cancer pain
A breakthrough could lead to drugs to alleviate the pain experienced by cancer patients.
The biology of cancer pain is different to other types of pain, often rendering analgesic drugs ineffective.
Work by a German team, published in Nature Medicine, shows that blocking a specific type of hormone-like molecule produced by tumours could help.
The team showed that the molecules make nerve endings grow in nearby tissue, causing an acute sensation of pain.
Pain is one of the most debilitating symptoms associated with the many forms of the disease.
It can become excruciating as cancer advances, but tackling it has proved difficult for doctors.
The molecules highlighted by the latest study, by a team at Heidelberg University, were known to play a role in the development of blood cells in the bone marrow.
But this is the first time they have also been shown to have a role in causing pain.
New drugs
The researchers hope their work could lead to new drugs to block this action.
Dr Mark Matfield is scientific adviser to the Association for International Cancer Research, which partly funded the work.
He said: "Identifying one of the ways in which cancer causes pain - in fact, perhaps the main mechanism - is a crucial step towards drugs that could bring relief to cancer sufferers across the world."
Dr Joanna Owens, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said: "It's important that we continue to improve pain relief for people with cancer, and this study reveals an intriguing new avenue to explore.
"What's particularly encouraging is that this research could one day lead to drugs that can block pain locally at the tumour site - which could ultimately lead to more effective pain relief with fewer side effects."
The biology of cancer pain is different to other types of pain, often rendering analgesic drugs ineffective.
Work by a German team, published in Nature Medicine, shows that blocking a specific type of hormone-like molecule produced by tumours could help.
The team showed that the molecules make nerve endings grow in nearby tissue, causing an acute sensation of pain.
Pain is one of the most debilitating symptoms associated with the many forms of the disease.
It can become excruciating as cancer advances, but tackling it has proved difficult for doctors.
The molecules highlighted by the latest study, by a team at Heidelberg University, were known to play a role in the development of blood cells in the bone marrow.
But this is the first time they have also been shown to have a role in causing pain.
New drugs
The researchers hope their work could lead to new drugs to block this action.
Dr Mark Matfield is scientific adviser to the Association for International Cancer Research, which partly funded the work.
He said: "Identifying one of the ways in which cancer causes pain - in fact, perhaps the main mechanism - is a crucial step towards drugs that could bring relief to cancer sufferers across the world."
Dr Joanna Owens, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said: "It's important that we continue to improve pain relief for people with cancer, and this study reveals an intriguing new avenue to explore.
"What's particularly encouraging is that this research could one day lead to drugs that can block pain locally at the tumour site - which could ultimately lead to more effective pain relief with fewer side effects."
Science policy scrutiny 'at risk'
Scrutiny of science policy is at risk, say MPs who have urged the government to establish a House of Commons science and technology committee.
The warning comes in a report by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee (IUSS).
With science and business merged into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, "science could be lost in a black hole", they say.
They want the science committee, which was abolished in 2007, re-established.
The Science and Technology Committee was discontinued with the creation of the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills.
This recent merger appears to be the final straw for IUSS committee MPs, who fear that science could disappear in what committee chairman Phil Willis MP called the "all-encompassing 'super department' of Business, Innovation and Skills".
Mr Willis said that the "desire to exploit the UK's world-class science base in order to contribute to economic recovery" was "commendable, valid and not in dispute".
But, he added, "establishing a science and technology select committee is critical both to reassure the science community that proper examination of science and engineering across government remains a priority, and to ensure MPs have an effective and transparent arena in which to hold the government's science policy to account".
The Campaign for Science & Engineering (Case) welcomed the IUSS report.
Nick Dusic, Case's director, said: "The abolition of the Science and Technology Committee was a mistake that the government should rectify.
"Letting parliament re-establish the Science and Technology Committee would show that it is handing power back to the House of Commons.
"Incorporating science scrutiny within a business, innovation and skills committee would severely limit both the scope and frequency of inquiries on science and engineering issues within government."
The warning comes in a report by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee (IUSS).
With science and business merged into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, "science could be lost in a black hole", they say.
They want the science committee, which was abolished in 2007, re-established.
The Science and Technology Committee was discontinued with the creation of the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills.
This recent merger appears to be the final straw for IUSS committee MPs, who fear that science could disappear in what committee chairman Phil Willis MP called the "all-encompassing 'super department' of Business, Innovation and Skills".
Mr Willis said that the "desire to exploit the UK's world-class science base in order to contribute to economic recovery" was "commendable, valid and not in dispute".
But, he added, "establishing a science and technology select committee is critical both to reassure the science community that proper examination of science and engineering across government remains a priority, and to ensure MPs have an effective and transparent arena in which to hold the government's science policy to account".
The Campaign for Science & Engineering (Case) welcomed the IUSS report.
Nick Dusic, Case's director, said: "The abolition of the Science and Technology Committee was a mistake that the government should rectify.
"Letting parliament re-establish the Science and Technology Committee would show that it is handing power back to the House of Commons.
"Incorporating science scrutiny within a business, innovation and skills committee would severely limit both the scope and frequency of inquiries on science and engineering issues within government."
Cold reality of global warming efforts
To some, any suggestion that the world is not on course to make drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions smacks of heresy and should be given no credence.
In their view, fossil fuel use simply must be reduced if we are to avoid disaster later in the century.
But, although most politicians subscribe to the view (informed by the scientific mainstream) that urgent action is needed to avoid possibly catastrophic global warming, policy actions do not yet match their words.
Setting targets is easy, achieving them is not.
The much-vaunted European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has turned out to be an ineffective and costly piece of market fixing, which will not achieve its stated aims.
Carbon offsetting is even worse: transferring money to developing countries to fund projects that probably would have been implemented anyway, and with little real impact on emissions.
The carbon emissions market risks being the next bubble to burst.
dose of cold realism is needed if any significant, affordable reductions in carbon intensity are to be made.
Believing strongly that drastic reductions in fossil fuel use are essential does not make them happen; it just ignores the reality that effective action is not taking place.
It is in everyone's interest, whether you fully believe or are sceptical of the received wisdom, to accept this rather than allow policymakers to repeat the mantra of emissions reduction without taking realistic and effective action.
The impression is that governments want to say the right things, but hope that the whole issue will go away before they have to do anything.
Why would so many powerful people say that global warming is the single biggest threat facing humanity and yet fail to take action?
Weather woes
There are probably three main reasons for this.
The first is timescale. Put simply, weather patterns are just not following the sort of steady trend which would instil confidence in IPCC pronouncements.
No amount of "it's even worse than we thought" headlines will convince a sceptical public if the words don't fit with the evidence of their own eyes.
1998 remains the warmest year on record, and since then there has been no discernable upward trend
Last year saw a miserable summer in much of western Europe, and the same countries are in the middle of a winter which has been colder than for many years.
For the average layman, global warming remains a distant prospect.
Politicians are naturally reluctant to impose apparently unwarranted costs on their citizens if those same people can vote them out of office at the next election.
Which leads to the second point: whoever bears the initial cost, ultimately taxpayers (and therefore voters) will have to pay.
Businesses may have to buy emission permits, but (unless the cost is so small as to be meaningless as an incentive to reduce energy consumption) they will pass on the additional amount to their customers.
Whether we care to admit it or not, it is wealth created in the private sector which is taxed and enables the public sector to operate. The two cannot be divorced.
If businesses have higher costs, they either try to absorb them, become uncompetitive and fail (leading to both lower tax revenues and higher welfare costs for the state) or they put their prices up and consumers pay.
After you...
The third reason follows naturally: neither companies nor countries want to go out on a limb.
For almost all countries, it is a case of "we will if you will". If everyone moves in concert, then co-ordinated action is possible.
If some countries are perceived to be benefiting unfairly, then the whole system can fall apart.
This is the reason why agreement on a post-Kyoto deal in Copenhagen in December is going to be so difficult. This is only the first stage of a long process, a setting of targets and commitments.
Experience in the EU, which likes to see itself as setting an example to the rest of the world, suggests that not all countries will leave their negotiated goals unquestioned after agreement is reached.
There is certainly no guarantee that even the most enthusiastic will reach their targets.
Worse, from the point of view of those who see an effective deal as vital, is that Kyoto set rather undemanding goals, which look unlikely to be achieved by all countries who ratified it.
The world recession will cut energy consumption and help reduce emissions (every cloud has a silver lining), but will make no structural changes to how we generate and use energy.
What chance, then, for the far more demanding post-Kyoto targets?
Faced with a less than enthusiastic electorate, suspicious of the motives of other countries and having learnt some hard lessons from the example of Kyoto, it is hardly surprising that politicians try to play a waiting game.
They go with the flow in setting targets for carbon dioxide emissions reductions, but do not take radical action to achieve this because they want neither to alienate voters nor harm the economy.
This is not to say that drastic reduction of fossil fuel use without upsetting most members of the public is impossible.
The answer is to use the best available and most cost effective low carbon technology for base load generation (nuclear power), increase the focus on energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy, and encourage R&D on new transport and power generation technologies.
But to start to move in this direction needs policymakers to acknowledge the hard fact that the present unwarranted faith in power from renewables and emphasis on punishing emitters is going nowhere.
In their view, fossil fuel use simply must be reduced if we are to avoid disaster later in the century.
But, although most politicians subscribe to the view (informed by the scientific mainstream) that urgent action is needed to avoid possibly catastrophic global warming, policy actions do not yet match their words.
Setting targets is easy, achieving them is not.
The much-vaunted European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has turned out to be an ineffective and costly piece of market fixing, which will not achieve its stated aims.
Carbon offsetting is even worse: transferring money to developing countries to fund projects that probably would have been implemented anyway, and with little real impact on emissions.
The carbon emissions market risks being the next bubble to burst.
dose of cold realism is needed if any significant, affordable reductions in carbon intensity are to be made.
Believing strongly that drastic reductions in fossil fuel use are essential does not make them happen; it just ignores the reality that effective action is not taking place.
It is in everyone's interest, whether you fully believe or are sceptical of the received wisdom, to accept this rather than allow policymakers to repeat the mantra of emissions reduction without taking realistic and effective action.
The impression is that governments want to say the right things, but hope that the whole issue will go away before they have to do anything.
Why would so many powerful people say that global warming is the single biggest threat facing humanity and yet fail to take action?
Weather woes
There are probably three main reasons for this.
The first is timescale. Put simply, weather patterns are just not following the sort of steady trend which would instil confidence in IPCC pronouncements.
No amount of "it's even worse than we thought" headlines will convince a sceptical public if the words don't fit with the evidence of their own eyes.
1998 remains the warmest year on record, and since then there has been no discernable upward trend
Last year saw a miserable summer in much of western Europe, and the same countries are in the middle of a winter which has been colder than for many years.
For the average layman, global warming remains a distant prospect.
Politicians are naturally reluctant to impose apparently unwarranted costs on their citizens if those same people can vote them out of office at the next election.
Which leads to the second point: whoever bears the initial cost, ultimately taxpayers (and therefore voters) will have to pay.
Businesses may have to buy emission permits, but (unless the cost is so small as to be meaningless as an incentive to reduce energy consumption) they will pass on the additional amount to their customers.
Whether we care to admit it or not, it is wealth created in the private sector which is taxed and enables the public sector to operate. The two cannot be divorced.
If businesses have higher costs, they either try to absorb them, become uncompetitive and fail (leading to both lower tax revenues and higher welfare costs for the state) or they put their prices up and consumers pay.
After you...
The third reason follows naturally: neither companies nor countries want to go out on a limb.
For almost all countries, it is a case of "we will if you will". If everyone moves in concert, then co-ordinated action is possible.
If some countries are perceived to be benefiting unfairly, then the whole system can fall apart.
This is the reason why agreement on a post-Kyoto deal in Copenhagen in December is going to be so difficult. This is only the first stage of a long process, a setting of targets and commitments.
Experience in the EU, which likes to see itself as setting an example to the rest of the world, suggests that not all countries will leave their negotiated goals unquestioned after agreement is reached.
There is certainly no guarantee that even the most enthusiastic will reach their targets.
Worse, from the point of view of those who see an effective deal as vital, is that Kyoto set rather undemanding goals, which look unlikely to be achieved by all countries who ratified it.
The world recession will cut energy consumption and help reduce emissions (every cloud has a silver lining), but will make no structural changes to how we generate and use energy.
What chance, then, for the far more demanding post-Kyoto targets?
Faced with a less than enthusiastic electorate, suspicious of the motives of other countries and having learnt some hard lessons from the example of Kyoto, it is hardly surprising that politicians try to play a waiting game.
They go with the flow in setting targets for carbon dioxide emissions reductions, but do not take radical action to achieve this because they want neither to alienate voters nor harm the economy.
This is not to say that drastic reduction of fossil fuel use without upsetting most members of the public is impossible.
The answer is to use the best available and most cost effective low carbon technology for base load generation (nuclear power), increase the focus on energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy, and encourage R&D on new transport and power generation technologies.
But to start to move in this direction needs policymakers to acknowledge the hard fact that the present unwarranted faith in power from renewables and emphasis on punishing emitters is going nowhere.
Climate activists blockade Rudd's office
Activists took to the streets and blockaded the prime minister's Sydney office protesting the Rudd government's response to climate change.
Streets were blocked off as protesters in Sydney marched from the harbour to Kevin Rudd's city office, where they staged a short sit-in protest against the carbon emissions scheme.
Families, young children and the elderly gathered in every state capital and Canberra dressed in red as part of the "climate emergency" message.
The rallies attracted about 6,000 people nationwide, and included environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society who want an emissions scheme ditched in favour of an alternative dubbed "Plan B", which includes the phasing out of coal-fired power stations.
The protest movement also wants 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020.
Government legislation setting up the scheme is due to go before the Senate during the next sitting in June, but the coalition and the Greens have indicated they will block the bill.
Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne, who addressed 1,200 activists in rainy Hobart, said her party would block the government's carbon emission's trading scheme (CPRS) unless it committed to 40 per cent cuts by 2020.
"What we need is a can-do mentality rather than listening to the people who say we can't do it," Senator Milne told AAP.
"The Australian Greens will oppose the CPRS legislation because the target is not ambitious enough."
NSW Greens Upper House MP Lee Rhiannon told Sydney's 2,000-strong crowd the government's scheme would not cut reliance on fossil fuels.
"The world is on red alert, urgent action is needed to rein in runaway climate change now," Ms Rhiannon said.
"The prime minister needs to recognise that baby steps is not what is needed, we need the giant leap to a zero emissions future.
"We know that achieving that is not going to come with the carbon pollution reduction scheme - that's a scam."
As protesters chanted, climate change minister Penny Wong defended the government's position.
"Like the people who are at these rallies this government does want to take action on climate change," Senator Wong told ABC Radio.
"The best way to take action on climate change is for senators to pass these laws that will for the first time reduce Australia's carbon pollution."
A leaked United Nation analysis, dated June 6, says that on conservative estimates, rich countries need to embrace 25 to 40 per cent cuts in emissions by 2020, below 1990 levels, to give the world a chance of avoiding a two degree temperate rise.
Labor is promising carbon cuts of 25 per cent by 2020 if an ambitious climate change agreement is reached at the UN climate change talks at Copenhagen in December.
Australian National University earth sciences visiting fellow Andrew Glikson told the Canberra rally the government's flagged emissions targets were inadequate.
"Government listens to economists, they listen to corporations, they listen to lawyers. There are no scientists at that level," Dr Glikson said.
Streets were blocked off as protesters in Sydney marched from the harbour to Kevin Rudd's city office, where they staged a short sit-in protest against the carbon emissions scheme.
Families, young children and the elderly gathered in every state capital and Canberra dressed in red as part of the "climate emergency" message.
The rallies attracted about 6,000 people nationwide, and included environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society who want an emissions scheme ditched in favour of an alternative dubbed "Plan B", which includes the phasing out of coal-fired power stations.
The protest movement also wants 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020.
Government legislation setting up the scheme is due to go before the Senate during the next sitting in June, but the coalition and the Greens have indicated they will block the bill.
Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne, who addressed 1,200 activists in rainy Hobart, said her party would block the government's carbon emission's trading scheme (CPRS) unless it committed to 40 per cent cuts by 2020.
"What we need is a can-do mentality rather than listening to the people who say we can't do it," Senator Milne told AAP.
"The Australian Greens will oppose the CPRS legislation because the target is not ambitious enough."
NSW Greens Upper House MP Lee Rhiannon told Sydney's 2,000-strong crowd the government's scheme would not cut reliance on fossil fuels.
"The world is on red alert, urgent action is needed to rein in runaway climate change now," Ms Rhiannon said.
"The prime minister needs to recognise that baby steps is not what is needed, we need the giant leap to a zero emissions future.
"We know that achieving that is not going to come with the carbon pollution reduction scheme - that's a scam."
As protesters chanted, climate change minister Penny Wong defended the government's position.
"Like the people who are at these rallies this government does want to take action on climate change," Senator Wong told ABC Radio.
"The best way to take action on climate change is for senators to pass these laws that will for the first time reduce Australia's carbon pollution."
A leaked United Nation analysis, dated June 6, says that on conservative estimates, rich countries need to embrace 25 to 40 per cent cuts in emissions by 2020, below 1990 levels, to give the world a chance of avoiding a two degree temperate rise.
Labor is promising carbon cuts of 25 per cent by 2020 if an ambitious climate change agreement is reached at the UN climate change talks at Copenhagen in December.
Australian National University earth sciences visiting fellow Andrew Glikson told the Canberra rally the government's flagged emissions targets were inadequate.
"Government listens to economists, they listen to corporations, they listen to lawyers. There are no scientists at that level," Dr Glikson said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)