Why a shift away from fossil fuels is crucial

The climate pact signed by over 200 countries in Paris in the second week of December, setting a new goal to reach net zero emissions in the second half of the century, has hastened the transition away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy. Given the toll that burning coal and oil takes on climate and health of humans, a possible end of the fossil era is too good to be true.

However, for billions of people battered by air pollution caused by burning of fossil fuels—especially those in cities like Beijing, Delhi and Tehran that are choking with dirty emissions—it is likely to a long wait before the fossil fuel reduction targets are achieved.

Over the past 200 years, humans have made a huge effect on the carbon cycle. One of the biggest changes to the carbon cycle has occurred as a result of the widespread use of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide that adds carbon that has been out of circulation for millions of years directly to the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries, concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has hugely increased—in 1800, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, but now it has crossed 400 parts per million (‘parts per million’ points to the number of carbon dioxide particles out of every million molecules of air). Scientists believe that if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 will need to be reduced from current levels to at least 350 ppm. The statistics are alarming: More than 4,000 Chinese die daily from air pollution.

In recent times use of vehicles run by fossil fuels have been reduced in many cities in Iran and Italy—besides the Delhi government’s decision to allow vehicles with alternative numbers to enter the city going ahead to reduce the number of vehicles by half—in efforts to clean up the toxic air. According to WHO, bad air causes premature deaths of more than 7 million people every year. India, whose rapidly growing population is hugely dependent on coal, is likely to have severe repercussions. A recent study found that 660 million Indians lose an average of 3.2 years of life due to exposure to air pollution. Experts warn that the tragedy that is unfolding is threatening to escalate going ahead.

The murky picture that is emerging as a result of reliance of fossil fuels has led to renewed focus on a shift towards alternative energy sources to run vehicles and in turn to enhanced development of electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicles run by hydrogen fuel cells (HFCVs).

The ongoing talks between Google and automaker Ford Motor Co to help build the Internet search company's autonomous cars is seen as part of the emerging initiatives to move towards vehicles that reduce emissions.

Electric vehicles are cleaner than petroleum-fueled vehicles and seen as a partial solution to global warming. Using low carbon power electric car emissions are about a quarter of an inefficient gasoline car and half that of a top hybrid.

The recent launch of Tesla's long-awaited Model X electric car has created a lot of buzz. But given its huge pricing—$130,000 per car— it will be long wait for most environment-conscious car enthusiasts before seeing a palpable shift from fossil fuel-powered cars to EVs.
However, since the release of the all-electric Nissan Leaf in 2011, an increasing number of automakers have jumped on the battery-electric or plug-in hybrid bandwagon. Between 2016 and 2020, 24 new electric car models are expected to be launched in the US alone. Also, competition for the luxury Tesla Model S—which has about a 265-mile range between charges and costs between $70,000 and $105,000—has been mounting from mainstream car makers—Audi, Porsche and Mercedes are investing heavily on electric cars.

As competition grows tougher, price of EVs is expected to fall. In fact, besides battery cost, costs of motors and controllers have started dropping significantly. Taking a leaf from what happened to price of computers and smartphones, experts say as more electric cars are made, the sticker price of EVs will be equal to that of a similar-sized gasoline car within 10 years. Along with EVs, HFCVs are also gaining acceptance and momentum. Global automobile major Toyota is betting big on hydrogen fuel cell cars and is aiming to encourage an ecosystem of fuel cell suppliers and hydrogen fueling stations to enhance its plans to focus more on manufacture of HFCVs.

However, the fact that HFCVs are more expensive—even if fuel-cells become cheaper and hydrogen production reach a critical mass, it will still be at least three times more expensive to power an HFCV car than an EV—will prove to be a drag on mass production of HFCVs in the near future. However, as the perils of continued use of fossil fuels become more evident, countries across the globe are encouraging production of EVs and HFCVs, through tax cuts and subsidies, hoping vehicles driven by non-fossil fuels will help humanity combat climate change.

Why US, China and EU together can save planet Earth

Copenhagen summit on climate control in 2009 came a cropper after the US, China, the EU and other countries failed to sign a legally binding pact, enforcing themselves to agree to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose validity ended in 2012. Six years later, countries from across the globe are meeting again in Paris in December this year for the UN climate summit to formulate a legally binding agreement that set specific time frame for top polluting countries to cut carbon emissions. While country heads miserably failed to show responsible leadership traits at Copenhagen, leaders of the world’s biggest economies will get another opportunity to initiate responsible action and the change the course of history which can otherwise turn catastrophic in the near future as global warming has already transitioned from a rhetoric of doomsday mongering environmentalists to a real life-or-death question for the humanity.

There are some positive signs that world leaders are likely to exhibit more shades of prudence this time. The US and China, the world’s biggest polluters, began tackling climate change together when they announced an agreement last November to curb carbon emissions. While the US promised to double the speed at which it will reduce carbon emissions, aiming for a 26-to-28 per cent reduction by 2025 from 2005 levels, China agreed to peak emissions by around 2030. Also, recently, China and India issued a joint statement on climate change, promising to submit plans carbon targets before the Paris conference.

These gestures assume significance as such joint statements were unthinkable six years ago. Now climate science is forcing country heads to look at global warming more seriously.
So what is the science behind environmentalists’ alarm signals on global warming?
Since the beginning of human civilisation, the atmosphere contained about 275 ppm of carbon dioxide, one of the most heat trapping gases (ppm stands for ‘parts per million’, which is a way of measuring the ratio of carbon dioxide molecules to other molecules in the atmosphere). A few hundred years ago, as humans began to burn coal, gas, and oil to produce energy and goods, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise. Most human activities like cooking food, heating homes and turning the lights on rely on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases and in the process humans are releasing into the atmosphere millions of years worth of carbon, once stored beneath the earth as fossil fuel.

The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere currently stand at 400 ppm and humans are adding 2 ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.

Climatologists say if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere needs to be reduced from 400 ppm currently to 350 ppm—the carbon dioxide level scientists say is ‘safe’ for humanity survival on planet Earth. If we don’t rapidly turn the maddening carbon dioxide addition around and return to below 350 ppm level, we risk triggering tipping points and irreversible impacts that could send climate change spinning truly beyond our control, climatologists warn.

China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, Japan are topping the list of countries with maximum CO2 emissions; while China's CO2 emissions were estimated around 10 billion tonnes in 2012, that of the US was more than 5 billion tonnes and EU more than 4 billion tones. India’s contribution was roughly one-third of China's and half of the US’.        

Between 1850 and 2012, the US and Europe produced 45 per cent of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, compared to 18 per cent from China and India, according Climate Analytics, a non-profit organisation. However, it is estimated that by 2020, China alone will produce 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the US 13 per cent and the EU 8 per cent and India 7 per cent.
So mathematically China, the US, the EU along with India can play a large part in shaping the future of the planet by reducing carbon emissions.

While the US’ emissions are less than China’s, its per-capita emissions are three times that of China and 10 times India’s. Therefore, if the US wants to persuade China, the EU and India to reduce CO2 emissions, it must lead the way by switching to low-carbon energy sources.

India (along with China) fears that radical action on greenhouse gas emissions will hamper economic growth at a time when poverty reduction remains a key priority. However, considering the larger threats that climate change poses—for instance, enhanced melting of
Himalayan glaciers and increased coastal flooding due to warming; rising temperatures making water security a crucial concern with significant ramifications on already strained India-Pakistan relations, etc—it makes sense for India too to join the growing ‘save Earth’ chorus.

However, what India can do would make sense only when the top three polluting countries—China, the US, the EU—make a determined effort to set an example by snip their carbon footprint.
So will these countries show responsibility at the upcoming UN climate change summit in Paris—which could be the world’s last big opportunity to regain sanity and stop abusing planet Earth’s delicate atmosphere—to take lead and positively change the course of human history from a possible catastrophic end to sustenance and balance?
The world is watching.

Climate change: Obama and the art of creating a legacy

In June when President Barack Obama used his executive power—bypassing the Congress—to order a regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to cut carbon emissions, his admires hailed it as an aberration. However, giving credence to his foes’ accusation that he has been devising ways to work around congressional opposition against a clutch of controversial issues, now his administration is reportedly working on an international pact that will seek countries to reduce fossil fuel emissions. The pact, which is aimed to be signed at a United Nations summit next year, is expected to again bypass ratification by the Congress that involves a two-thirds vote from the Senate, setting the stage for another showdown between the President and the Congress.

Obama is free to sign such pacts with his foreign counterparts but those agreements will neither change the behavior of Americans nor lead to a fall in carbon emissions by the country unless the Congress passes a related law.

So why is Obama pressing for something that is unlikely to be made into a law? First, as his stint at White House is winding down, Obama wants to leave a legacy as a president who has made an earnest attempt to do what he could to address climate change, arguably the most imminent threat that is challenging the very survival of humans and other species on Planet Earth. Based on the perception that climate change cannot be addressed without collective initiatives by countries across the globe, he is aiming to forge a ‘political agreement’ that will encourage other countries, mainly China, to follow suit. Second, the failure of world leaders in Copenhagen in 2009 to forge a new legally binding treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol is fresh in the memory of Obama administration’s climate change negotiators and they don’t want to take chances going ahead. As the chances for a legally binding pact to force reduction of carbon emissions are fairly remote, they feel that this is the only ‘realistic’ way.

Will Obama succeed in pushing this pact through? Technically yes. Section 115 of the Clean Air Act—which states that if air pollutants emitted within US states are found to “cause or contribute” to the endangerment of public health or welfare in another country, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can require the governors of those states to reduce the emissions of  the harmful chemicals—alone is more than enough for the safe passage of the pact. Also, there ample precedents that point to the fact that Obama will not only be able to push through what he wants without sweating much but this may even be hailed as his best strategic move on the world stage by a future generation of fans in different countries.

In 1975, Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords that required the US and European countries to recognise the territorial boundaries of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc to respect human rights. The accords elicited hostile reactions back at home at the time, but historians believe that they reduced Cold War tensions and offered some space for dissidents in communist states to express their views and get away with them. The Roosevelt (1933) and the Carter (1981) administrations too went ahead circumventing the Congress for settling claims with the Soviet Union and Iran, respectively, and eventually won backing by the courts for doing so.

As scientists warn that the earth has started experiencing the effects of human-caused global warming—devastating storms, rising sea levels, stronger wildfires and severe droughts—and the UN is running out of its chances to help thwart catastrophic climate-change related repercussions, Obama is likely to be exonerated for bypassing the Congress for what he can claim to be a larger common good. 

Why rising mounts of e-waste jeopardise India’s technology-driven growth

Bangalore did not earn the sobriquet of India’s Silicon Valley overnight. The city, which began its transformation from a lush farmland to the country’s IT destination in early 1980s when the then chief minister Gundu Rao allowed Texas Instruments to set up an overseas development centre near HAL Airport in the suburb, is now home to close to 40 per cent of the country’s 1 million IT professionals. It is also housing more than 3,000 software firms and close to 50 hardware companies and the leading ones among these alone generate annual revenues of close to $20 billion, a sizable portion of the $85 billion the country earns yearly by exporting software, technology related services.  

While the Bangalore’s meteoric growth as a hot IT hub is amply celebrated by media, corporate, civic society and the government, the unprecedented damages is has caused to the environment and health of those who reside in the city is not even talked about. For instance, the city produces close to 20,000 tonnes of e-waste per year; this figure is rising 20 per cent per year and the amount of computer waste across the country is likely to increase by nearly 500 per cent by 2020, according to a recent report by the Association of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham).

E-waste or electronic waste is broadly contributed by electrical or electronic devices which are destined for disposal, reuse, resale or recycling. These include cathode ray tubes or CRTs that are used in TVs, computer monitors, ATM and video cameras; printed circuit boards (thin plates on which chips and other electronic components are placed); chips and other gold plated components; plastics from printers, keyboards and monitors and computer wires.

Electronic scrap components such as CRTs contain contaminants such as lead, cadmium, beryllium, or brominated flame retardants which can cause severe health problems to those who come in contact with them.

In developing countries e-waste is processed informally mostly in the unorganised sector without the help of machines and technology which exasperate the threat posed by it. In third-world countries, this waste is simply dumped at landfills and incinerators (apparatus for burning waste material, especially industrial waste, at high temperatures until it is reduced to ash). Materials such as heavy metals are leaked from such landfills, polluting soil and water bodies and thus posing serious threat to those living nearby. Heavy metals such as lead and barium get leached to the ground water, leadin to the release of toxic phosphor. Other hazardous materials like brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium and mercury also get discharged into rivers which carry them to far-off places and other water bodies. Brominated dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons result in emissions of toxic fumes which cause breathing problems which over a period of time result in serious respiratory diseases. Hydrocarbons, heavy metals and brominated substances discharged directly into rivers also acidify fish and flora while tin and lead contaminate surface and groundwater, triggering significant risk to workers and communities living close to the locations where waste is disposed.

E-waste is increasingly becoming a major health and environmental hazard to not just India but countries across the globe including the so-called rich nations. For instance,  an estimated 50 million tonnes of e-waste is produced each year in the US alone; while the US discards 30 million computers each year, 100 million phones are disposed of in Europe each year. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, even in the developed world only over 20 per cent of e-waste is recycled and the rest go to landfills and incinerators. While an attempt is made by rich nations to involve private firms which are trying to come up with innovative technologies to manage disposal of e-waste, India is yet to catch up.

Villagers living around the landfill site at Mandur, 25 kms from Bangalore, have been bearing the brunt of the IT city's garbage, including e-waste, for years. They have been protesting against dumping of garbage which has created huge mounds, leading to respiratory diseases. Over the last couple of years attempts of villagers at Mandur and other landfill sites around Bangalore to block trucks carrying waste led to disruption of waste-management in the city (civic activities say now Bangalore’s nickname should be ‘garbage city’ not ‘garden city’).  Several deaths of villagers at Mandur and other landfill sites over the years supposedly caused by exposure to polluted air and water point to the huge threat posed by unorganised disposal of garbage, a significant part of which is increasingly becoming e-waste in most Indian cities, and how it can impede society’s health and broader economic growth too.