In the shadow of the centuries-old fort of Pratapgarh, lies this village Guwada gujran which seems to be stuck in time. It's never known electricity.
Nights here would be spent in darkness or in the light of kerosene lamps and their toxic fumes.
But in the last two months, solar power lamps have changed the lives of the hundred-odd families in this village.
Guwada Gujran is one of the first villages taken up by TERI's Lighting a Billion Lives initiative - thanks to the money raised during the NDTV TOYOTA Greenathon, a 24 hour telethon for the environment held in February this year.
Giriraj Prasad, an entrepreneur, had heard about TERI's solar lamps from neighbouring villages where the project was implemented and had asked the NGO to come to his village as well. As the only person from Guwada attending college, he wants a better deal for the next generation.
"Children don't manage to study in the day as they have to work in the fields. People here don't understand what studying is. They think just going to school is enough. Now children can study a lot better," says Giriraj.
The lamps cost just 2 rupees a night to hire - much cheaper than kerosene.
Earlier Suman and Suresh would not be able to study at night as it was just too expensive for their families. But now, that's no longer a problem.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Greenathon impact: Lighting up 50 villages
The NDTV Toyota Greenathon is lighting up lives. Villages that would be plunged into darkness at nightfall are now riding on solar power which has replaced expensive and toxic kerosene lamps.
Guwada Gujran in Rajasthan is one of the first three villages to get solar power after the Greenathon through TERI's Light a Billion Lives initiative. And here's a look at the other villages that will soon be solar powered. Thanks to the Greenathon.
Fifty villages will soon benefit from solar technology. While most of them are in north India, villages in the south are also being identified.
NDTV's campaign raised 2 crore rupees in February and now work is on to spread the light. Lighting up each village takes about two months. Village communities, local NGOs and companies that make the solar lamps are all working together.
"The way the whole program works, there are three important stakeholders, bottom up - the community - someone needs to come forward and become the charging station operator. Second is the NGO partner because TERI is not present everywhere. And the third important stakeholder is the industry partner."
It's a slow process; but it is one that will surely light up lives for years to com
Guwada Gujran in Rajasthan is one of the first three villages to get solar power after the Greenathon through TERI's Light a Billion Lives initiative. And here's a look at the other villages that will soon be solar powered. Thanks to the Greenathon.
Fifty villages will soon benefit from solar technology. While most of them are in north India, villages in the south are also being identified.
NDTV's campaign raised 2 crore rupees in February and now work is on to spread the light. Lighting up each village takes about two months. Village communities, local NGOs and companies that make the solar lamps are all working together.
"The way the whole program works, there are three important stakeholders, bottom up - the community - someone needs to come forward and become the charging station operator. Second is the NGO partner because TERI is not present everywhere. And the third important stakeholder is the industry partner."
It's a slow process; but it is one that will surely light up lives for years to com
How Much Should Poor Countries be paid to fight climatic changes
What will it take to get developing nations to sign up to a global climate agreement?
A critical part of the answer, it seems,A critical part of the answer, it seems, is cold, hard cash.
Wealthy nations are considering just how much poor countries should be paid to help combat global warming.
Countries in poorer parts of the world like China and India are demanding that wealthier regions like the European Union and North America finance their efforts at developing clean energy technologies and help them adapt to the effects of climate change caused largely by accumulated emissions from the industrialized West.
Money to finance these efforts is seen as a precondition for reaching an agreement at United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December, when nations gather to hammer out a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
European finance ministers meeting over lunch in Luxembourg on Tuesday are expected to discuss the thorny question of what would represent a fair amount, according to diplomats.
Even though the Copenhagen summit is just six months away, there are few signs that European Union ministers are in a position to reach an agreement this week. Poland, for example, opposes using the principle of past responsibility for emissions to calculate the amount richer countries should pay poorer countries.
Indeed, some of the numbers on the table are substantial. In one of the possibilities that is expected to be discussed by European ministers on Tuesday, more affluent countries would pay developing countries more than $140 billion each year.
Does giving such amounts of money seem a fair deal for helping poorer nations transform their energy systems — a critical step, experts say, in keeping global climate change at bay? And if so, what conditions should be put on countries like China and India that receive disbursements of climate funds? Let us know your thoughts. is cold, hard cash.
A critical part of the answer, it seems,A critical part of the answer, it seems, is cold, hard cash.
Wealthy nations are considering just how much poor countries should be paid to help combat global warming.
Countries in poorer parts of the world like China and India are demanding that wealthier regions like the European Union and North America finance their efforts at developing clean energy technologies and help them adapt to the effects of climate change caused largely by accumulated emissions from the industrialized West.
Money to finance these efforts is seen as a precondition for reaching an agreement at United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December, when nations gather to hammer out a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
European finance ministers meeting over lunch in Luxembourg on Tuesday are expected to discuss the thorny question of what would represent a fair amount, according to diplomats.
Even though the Copenhagen summit is just six months away, there are few signs that European Union ministers are in a position to reach an agreement this week. Poland, for example, opposes using the principle of past responsibility for emissions to calculate the amount richer countries should pay poorer countries.
Indeed, some of the numbers on the table are substantial. In one of the possibilities that is expected to be discussed by European ministers on Tuesday, more affluent countries would pay developing countries more than $140 billion each year.
Does giving such amounts of money seem a fair deal for helping poorer nations transform their energy systems — a critical step, experts say, in keeping global climate change at bay? And if so, what conditions should be put on countries like China and India that receive disbursements of climate funds? Let us know your thoughts. is cold, hard cash.
Forest fires vs. forest carbon
Should forests be thinned to reduce fires, or should they be tended to store the maximum amount of carbon in their trees to prevent global warming?
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
Climate impasse at G-8 summit leaves nations mired
Developing nations led by China and India refused Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, balking at reluctance by leaders of the world's biggest economies to move more quickly on their own. Inability to bridge the gap between rising carbon-emitting countries such as China and the longtime polluters within the G-8 underscores the steep challenges involved in attempting to strike a comprehensive bargain to contain global warming.
The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.
But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly -- at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.And neither the broad promises of future action nor the relatively modest financial incentives were likely to break the standoff between the most advanced economies and the emerging powerhouses. Countries such as China, India and Brazil are unwilling to take the first steps to cut emissions that could choke off economic growth, instead demanding that wealthier nations take the lead."China's not going to do anything until the developed countries send a signal that they're going to do something," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University and a longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The standoff at the summit perpetuates a divide that must be bridged this year if there is to be a global agreement on curbing emissions.The United Nations is convening a meeting in Copenhagen in December aimed at forging a binding consensus on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But unless China and other developing nations can be persuaded to sign on to an accord, Obama may find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to convince Congress to go along.The stalemate on the international stage mirrors Obama's problem at home. Though the House approved a major climate bill last month, Republicans and other critics have unleashed a hailstorm of criticism. They argue that emissions limits by the United States and other advanced economies alone would have relatively little effect on global warming, while potentially harming the domestic economy.Obama's climate bill, which narrowly passed the House, could send a strong signal if it becomes law, said Dirk Forrister, who was chairman of the White House climate change task force under President Clinton and now is managing director of the financial firm Natsource LLC.But, he said, "the U.S. Senate will not go along with anything unless it sees some pretty serious action from developing countries." That, analysts say, sums up Obama's conundrum as he tries to push for a meaningful climate agreement during formal treaty negotiations in Denmark this winter. "It looks like it's going to be a pretty tough fight [in Copenhagen], based on what happened in these meetings in Italy," Forrister said.U.S. leaders hinted that a broad coalition of developing and developed nations could announce agreement today to team up on research on renewable energy and technology to scrub and store greenhouse emissions from coal. Michael Froman, Obama's point man at the summit and lead staff negotiator, argued that the major industrial nations' joint statement favoring an 80% reduction in their emissions by 2050 represented "significant cooperation" -- even though it came up short of the draft language that the White House had supported.The G-8 targets roughly followed those in Obama's domestic climate bill.The G-8 countries also set a global goal of 50% emissions reductions by mid-century, and declared that they recognized "the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above preindustrial levels ought not to exceed" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).They did not announce any specific plans to cut emissions or adopt any short- or mid-term reduction targets. The United States pushed, and failed, to get developing nations to join in the reduction pledge. "In any negotiation, you put in a number of points," Froman said
Sometimes they make it in and sometimes they don't." The statement that did not come -- the one that would have included China, Brazil and other developing countries -- is the one that matters, he acknowledged.
But both Froman and chief Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern argued that there was plenty of room to work out an agreement before the Copenhagen summit."It's a negotiation. Countries may make concessions further down the road," Stern said in an interview. Obama will chair a meeting of the world's largest emitters, including both developing and developed nations, today in Italy.
Analysts said the Obama administration could strengthen its hand in future negotiations with another victory or two at home -- Senate approval of a climate bill and, even better, passage by Congress of a conference version of the bill that Obama could sign into law before the Copenhagen talks."His most powerful weapon is a piece of signed legislation," said Melinda L. Kimble, senior vice president of the United Nations Foundation and a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration. "If he has that in his pocket," she added, "everything else he has is icing on the cake."
The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.
But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly -- at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.And neither the broad promises of future action nor the relatively modest financial incentives were likely to break the standoff between the most advanced economies and the emerging powerhouses. Countries such as China, India and Brazil are unwilling to take the first steps to cut emissions that could choke off economic growth, instead demanding that wealthier nations take the lead."China's not going to do anything until the developed countries send a signal that they're going to do something," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University and a longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The standoff at the summit perpetuates a divide that must be bridged this year if there is to be a global agreement on curbing emissions.The United Nations is convening a meeting in Copenhagen in December aimed at forging a binding consensus on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But unless China and other developing nations can be persuaded to sign on to an accord, Obama may find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to convince Congress to go along.The stalemate on the international stage mirrors Obama's problem at home. Though the House approved a major climate bill last month, Republicans and other critics have unleashed a hailstorm of criticism. They argue that emissions limits by the United States and other advanced economies alone would have relatively little effect on global warming, while potentially harming the domestic economy.Obama's climate bill, which narrowly passed the House, could send a strong signal if it becomes law, said Dirk Forrister, who was chairman of the White House climate change task force under President Clinton and now is managing director of the financial firm Natsource LLC.But, he said, "the U.S. Senate will not go along with anything unless it sees some pretty serious action from developing countries." That, analysts say, sums up Obama's conundrum as he tries to push for a meaningful climate agreement during formal treaty negotiations in Denmark this winter. "It looks like it's going to be a pretty tough fight [in Copenhagen], based on what happened in these meetings in Italy," Forrister said.U.S. leaders hinted that a broad coalition of developing and developed nations could announce agreement today to team up on research on renewable energy and technology to scrub and store greenhouse emissions from coal. Michael Froman, Obama's point man at the summit and lead staff negotiator, argued that the major industrial nations' joint statement favoring an 80% reduction in their emissions by 2050 represented "significant cooperation" -- even though it came up short of the draft language that the White House had supported.The G-8 targets roughly followed those in Obama's domestic climate bill.The G-8 countries also set a global goal of 50% emissions reductions by mid-century, and declared that they recognized "the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above preindustrial levels ought not to exceed" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).They did not announce any specific plans to cut emissions or adopt any short- or mid-term reduction targets. The United States pushed, and failed, to get developing nations to join in the reduction pledge. "In any negotiation, you put in a number of points," Froman said
Sometimes they make it in and sometimes they don't." The statement that did not come -- the one that would have included China, Brazil and other developing countries -- is the one that matters, he acknowledged.
But both Froman and chief Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern argued that there was plenty of room to work out an agreement before the Copenhagen summit."It's a negotiation. Countries may make concessions further down the road," Stern said in an interview. Obama will chair a meeting of the world's largest emitters, including both developing and developed nations, today in Italy.
Analysts said the Obama administration could strengthen its hand in future negotiations with another victory or two at home -- Senate approval of a climate bill and, even better, passage by Congress of a conference version of the bill that Obama could sign into law before the Copenhagen talks."His most powerful weapon is a piece of signed legislation," said Melinda L. Kimble, senior vice president of the United Nations Foundation and a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration. "If he has that in his pocket," she added, "everything else he has is icing on the cake."
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Akshay Kumar brand ambassador of IIFA's 'green movement'
Bollywood star Akshay Kumar has been named the brand ambassador of International Indian Film Academy's (IIFA) Green Global Foundation, which champions the issue of global warming through various international events.
'Being the brand ambassador for the Green Globe Foundation is a great honour for me as it gives me an opportunity to highlight the fight against global warming,' the actor said in Mumbai Monday.
In an attempt to strengthen its commitment towards fighting the issue of climate change, IIFA launched the Green Global Foundation this year.
The foundation is the initiative of IIFA and Wizcraft International Entertainment.
United Nations Environmental Programme and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), headed by R.K. Pachauri, are the partners of the foundation.
In a symbolic gesture towards the climate change issue, instead of the usual red carpet reception to the celebrities, the IIFA had a green carpet reception at the IIFA Weekend in Bangkok this year.
As a symbol of their support to the movement against global warming, IIFA brand ambassador Amitabh Bachchan and Thailand Minister for Tourism and Sports Khun Weerasak Kowsurat planted a sapling at the inauguration venue of the event.
'Being the brand ambassador for the Green Globe Foundation is a great honour for me as it gives me an opportunity to highlight the fight against global warming,' the actor said in Mumbai Monday.
In an attempt to strengthen its commitment towards fighting the issue of climate change, IIFA launched the Green Global Foundation this year.
The foundation is the initiative of IIFA and Wizcraft International Entertainment.
United Nations Environmental Programme and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), headed by R.K. Pachauri, are the partners of the foundation.
In a symbolic gesture towards the climate change issue, instead of the usual red carpet reception to the celebrities, the IIFA had a green carpet reception at the IIFA Weekend in Bangkok this year.
As a symbol of their support to the movement against global warming, IIFA brand ambassador Amitabh Bachchan and Thailand Minister for Tourism and Sports Khun Weerasak Kowsurat planted a sapling at the inauguration venue of the event.
25 years of Appiko, a green movement to save trees in Karnataka
The 25 years of Appiko or, hug the tree Green Movement on the Sahyadri Mountain ranges in the western ghats of Karnataka has created a tremendous impact here.This movement started in Gubbi Gadde, a small village near Sirsi in the (north) Uttara Kannada district, has forced the forest department to change the forest policy on felling of trees.Besides affecting the forest policy, it also spread to other parts and saved forests.On Sep.8, 1983, Pandurang Hegde, the fiery activist, started the Appiko (to hug) movement. He derived inspiration from Sunderlal Bahuganas Chipko movement in Uttar Pradesh, in which villagers used to hug trees to save them from being felled by the State, which then had no laws against felling of timber inside protected areas.Appiko movement was started against monoculture (the agricultural practice of producing or growing one single crop over a wide area) in the western ghats. Today, it has become a part of the lives of people. Their non-violent protest movement has compelled the forest department to amend the policy against felling of forests in eco-sensitive region. There has been a silent revolution in the Western Ghats.
Panduranga Hegde, the founder of Appiko Movement says that this movement has become a part of the culture in the western ghats and has saved the very sensitive eco sphere.This movement, started to protest against felling of trees, monoculture, forest policy and deforestation, has succeeded in changing the forest policy. This first ever peoples green movement in south India to save our natural resources has become a model of sustainable development, said Panduranga Hedge, the founder of Appiko movement.The activists used local folklore to reach out to the masses. Another activist and farmer Mahabaleshwara Hegde of Gubbi gadde village finds this movement a part of the lives of people in this area. The Gandhi of environmental movement, Sundarlal Bahuguna, has not only inspired the movement but visits here regularly to guide the people, Hedge added.Mahabaleshwara Hegde, said: The river Kali meanders through the valley linking the past and the present. The song of Apppiko reverberates in the hills. The 25-year-old movement, reminds the people of the need to conserve sensitive eco sphere. In 1983, the villagers in Sirsi taluka of North Kanara district launched an embrace the trees campaign.In 1950, forests covered more than 81 percent of the geographical area in Uttara Kannada (or North Kanara) district. But being declared a backward district, the area was selected for major industries– a pulp and paper mill, a plywood factory and a chain of hydroelectric dams constructed to harness the rivers. By 1980, forest in the district was believed to have shrunk to 25 per cent.Locals, especially the poor, were displaced by dams.
Environmentalists blamed monoculture for drying up water sources, affecting forest-dwellers.Started in Sirsi.The Appiko movement spread across the western Ghats, including in places outside Karnataka. By linking up, campaigners managed to build awareness to conserve the sensitive environment in this region.Appiko is seen by some as a kind of echo of the more prominent Chipko movement of north India.The western Ghat biodiversity include 120,000 living species, 4,500 flowering plants, 500 species of birds, 120 species of mammals, 160 species of reptiles, 70 species of frogs, 800 species of fish and 1493 species of medicinal plants
Panduranga Hegde, the founder of Appiko Movement says that this movement has become a part of the culture in the western ghats and has saved the very sensitive eco sphere.This movement, started to protest against felling of trees, monoculture, forest policy and deforestation, has succeeded in changing the forest policy. This first ever peoples green movement in south India to save our natural resources has become a model of sustainable development, said Panduranga Hedge, the founder of Appiko movement.The activists used local folklore to reach out to the masses. Another activist and farmer Mahabaleshwara Hegde of Gubbi gadde village finds this movement a part of the lives of people in this area. The Gandhi of environmental movement, Sundarlal Bahuguna, has not only inspired the movement but visits here regularly to guide the people, Hedge added.Mahabaleshwara Hegde, said: The river Kali meanders through the valley linking the past and the present. The song of Apppiko reverberates in the hills. The 25-year-old movement, reminds the people of the need to conserve sensitive eco sphere. In 1983, the villagers in Sirsi taluka of North Kanara district launched an embrace the trees campaign.In 1950, forests covered more than 81 percent of the geographical area in Uttara Kannada (or North Kanara) district. But being declared a backward district, the area was selected for major industries– a pulp and paper mill, a plywood factory and a chain of hydroelectric dams constructed to harness the rivers. By 1980, forest in the district was believed to have shrunk to 25 per cent.Locals, especially the poor, were displaced by dams.
Environmentalists blamed monoculture for drying up water sources, affecting forest-dwellers.Started in Sirsi.The Appiko movement spread across the western Ghats, including in places outside Karnataka. By linking up, campaigners managed to build awareness to conserve the sensitive environment in this region.Appiko is seen by some as a kind of echo of the more prominent Chipko movement of north India.The western Ghat biodiversity include 120,000 living species, 4,500 flowering plants, 500 species of birds, 120 species of mammals, 160 species of reptiles, 70 species of frogs, 800 species of fish and 1493 species of medicinal plants
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)