On Nano, global warming, India and China

Srinivas Bharadwaj, writing in rediff recently, made some great points about the “trashing” of Nano by some in the western media (“Why some US scribes slammed Tata Nano“, Jan 14 ’08)

Tata�Nano� Excerpts:

“…Tata Nano is the Model-T of India. It represents…a freedom no different from what Ford brought to the American consumer about a 100 years ago. And yet, it is already being challenged, not so much on price or on technology. It is considered a polluter, a source of global warming, in short, a threat to humanity.

Among its notable critics (is)…author and NYT columnist Thomas Friedman (who)…was quick to call the Nano, a ‘cheap copy of our worst habits.’..

Newsweek, in an article headlined ‘A Billion New Tailpipes’…quotes a Yale environmentalist, Daniel Esty, as saying: “This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions.”

The reasons why American journalism is against the Tata Nano are obvious. The Nano was ‘not invented here (in the United States).’

…Esty, who was quick to praise the Prius (in Green to Gold) to the skies and promote aircraft manufacturer GE, oil-giant BP, does not use the same yardstick that the second law of thermodynamics does.

The Prius gives about the same mileage as the Nano and seats just as many. Yet, at over $25,000, the Prius is the rich man’s answer to the environment. I believe that for the rest, there is the Nano.

In the years to come, the Nano might come in a flex-fuel version, or might use ethanol or electric cells. . . but you have to give Tata time to gain marketshare AND innovate at the low price point. Which is why I must ask: “Why the double fuel-efficiency standards, Mr Esty?”

I came across another article last week which highlighted the progress India has made towards more sustainable development. Sadly, like the Nano, the good points rarely get talked about, while inaccurate statements are emphasised and highlighted. Below are some excerpts from “EYE ON THE TIGERS“,�by Ashutosh Sheshabalaya (JAn-Feb ’08). I recommend everyone�to read this in full.

“…one of the most sterile facets of the global warming debate is to refer to China and India, rather than to Chinese and Indians. China and India may be among the world�s biggest CO2 emitters…(but)…out of the world�s 235-plus countries, China and India�s populations outnumber the bottom 220 put together.� And their per-head/per-body contribution to global warming is vastly lower than that of the West.

…In the typical Indian�s case� – commercial energy use is, crucially, also far below the global average.� In 2005, world electricity consumption was 2,400 kilowatt hours (kWh) per person. India�s was just 432 kWh, four times less than China�s 1,662 kWh.� Oil use, too, exemplifies such trends.

An Indian�s consumption of crude, at 0.8 barrels per year, pales against the world�s 4.5 barrels, and is less than half China�s 1.8. There is little point throwing more dazzling, vulgar beams of light by juxtaposing such figures against the Western world, lit up end-to-end for the Christmas and New Year festivities.

Still, what is clear is that the difference between India and China is at least as significant as that between China and the world….

Firstly, differentiate between India and China. Both may be rising industrial powers, but China�s economic growth-at-any-cost is rather different from that of India, and this difference goes far beyond the numbers referred to above.
Although similarly determined to remove poverty, democratic India also boasts deeply ingrained soft systems which have begun priming its voters for the trade-offs between economic growth and their longer-term costs.

It was India – not China, or the West � which established the first Ministry for Renewable Energy. That was in the early 1990s. Since then, India�s Supreme Court – widely considered among the world�s most activist judiciaries – has set the country�s green agenda, from forcing metalworking and chemical plant closures to driving one of the world�s most ambitious environmental projects to date, namely the conversion of the New Delhi public transportation system to compressed natural gas. There are hundreds of other such examples.

The rest of the Indian system, too, has responded, at least as far as possible in what remains one of the world�s poorest countries.� Rural India now hosts 30 million high-efficiency �smokeless� stoves, with a conversion efficiency four times higher than their predecessors. Indian biomass gasifiers � a key renewable energy technology – are exported across the world, even to squeaky-clean Switzerland. More broadly, even modern, industrialising India has chipped in. The country�s energy intensity has fallen from 0.3 kgs of oil equivalent per dollar GDP in 1972 to 0.19 kgs in 2003 � equal to Germany.

Against this, the near-comprehensive lack of awareness about such efforts outside India remains striking. So too does the innate assumption that clean air and climate change are concerns of enlightened shock troops from the West battling recalcitrant polluters in ChIndia�s wastelands.

On November 23, without a by-your-leave, the New York Times announced that the US was �the world�s third largest wind (producing) country, after Germany and Spain.�

It also cited the Chief Executive of the European Wind Energy Association about a �second wave� of �new countries with significant wind capacity� � among them, �Britain, Canada, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands. � No numbers anywhere, nor a single mention of India. As it happens, figures from the Global Wind Energy Council show India in fourth position, with 7,093 MW of installed windpower capacity in July 2007, three times that of Britain, Canada, Italy or Japan, and double� that of China.

This is not to say that continuing industrialisation in India will not add to the world�s environmental woes. But pretending that India, and the 800 million Indians below the Davos line are doing nothing about it robs the debate of seriousness, and provides little incentive for meaningful cooperation with the West.”

Well said.

We need more and more people to become aware of these facts…Please pass on this article link to friends and acquaintances…

(somewhat) Related Post: AIDS� first casualty in India:�Truth

.

��

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Prakash says:

    As usual, double standards when it comes to developing countries. Can they compare per capita emissions in the west and in India? Uh oh, that will look bad, would n’t it?

  2. B Shantanu says:

    Some excerpts from India tops 17-nation list on best sustainable behaviour: survey:
    India topped a list of 17-nation on best sustainable behaviour, with consumers in the US last on the list, according to a new survey.

    The global analysis by the National Geographic Society found that Indian consumers were the most conscious about their environment footprint and were more guilty about their impact despite having the best sustainable behaviour.

    Ironically, people in developing countries like India, China and Brazil — in that order — were making the most sustainable choices, while consumers in the rich nations had the least sustainable lifestyles.
    …”Yet 45 per cent of Indian and 42 per cent of Chinese consumers feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment – first and second among those surveyed and two times higher than Americans,” it said.
    ..
    In contrast only 21 per cent of US consumers are guilty about the impact they have on the environment.
    …She said concern about air and water pollution is highest among Chinese, Mexican, Brazilian and Argentinean consumers as well as in Russia and India

  3. B Shantanu says:

    Excerpts from NYT Cartoon on India is Jumbo Mistake:

    …For weeks prior to the climate summit in Paris and most certainly since the summit began, the Western media has been busy portraying India as a problem. The BBC did an article on how coal and coal production, if not regulated, will derail any climate change gains. NYT ran a big article on how PM Modi could make or break Obama’s climate legacy. The United States has been portraying itself as the country that created this summit and has taken credit for bringing together all nations for the discussion.

    There are so many problems with that position that it is hard to begin to explain. Let’s first look at historic responsibilities. Since industrial times, the United States is responsible for 28% of the carbon that is in the atmosphere right now, according to this report. This enabled them to really grow as an economy, to become one of the most powerful countries in the world. India has been responsible for less than 3% of that historic carbon and rightly feels that common but differentiated principles must apply when it comes to dealing with emission cuts for climate change. It seems only fair that the country that has the biggest historic carbon footprint pays more.

    Secondly, even today the United States consumes 19 times more electricity that India, produces nine times more of its power from coal than India; the US per capita consumption of coal is 12 times more than India’s.

    Thirdly, the United States has always been the actual blocker at climate summit, by not even ratifying the Kyoto Protocol which was introduced in COP 3 in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol failed largely because the United States backed out. All the way back in 1997 they objected to the common but differentiated principles when it came to paying for climate change. At the time, India and China had insisted that developed nations do more. Since then, China has emerged as the world’s largest emitter, India is the 4th largest. But even here the numbers speak for themselves. While India is fourth on the list, it is only at 6%. China is at 26% and the United States is at 14.4%. India also has 300 million people who live with no electricity.

    That India has asked the developed world to quit the carbon space to allow developing nations to grow is entirely fair in the light of these facts. The developed world has also reneged on promises made at previous climate summits to pay a 100 billion dollars annually upto 2020 into a green climate fund for developing nations to help them adapt and to put in place systems for technological transfers to help them switch to renewables at a cheaper rate. The money, many of the developing nations, say should not be seen as aid, but as reparation for historical damages from the carbon already in the atmosphere that has caused the world to warm by 1 degree.

    Even in the intended nationally determined contributions, or the commitments made by different countries to the summit, the United States has shown no ambitious steps.

    They have said they will cut emission to 28% pre-2005 levels by 2030, while India has committed to 35%. The US talks about being on track to get to carbon neutrality by 2080, but their lateral move over the years from coal has been to natural gas and not renewables in any big way. India has committed to switching to 40% renewables by 2030. Even if it is ambitious, at least we are making strides.

    …While the United States is 8 times the size of India, they have in their race to develop, lost most of their bio diversity. India is one of the 17 mega-diverse countries in the world.

    There is no doubt that India needs to do as much as it can, if not for the world, just for its own people. 13 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in India. Our cities are reeling with bad environment and urban decisions. We have seen extreme weather events affect millions of people across the country. Things are only going to get worse. However, to have the United States pointing fingers is the height of hypocrisy.

  4. B Shantanu says:

    Some excerpts from:
    Enough Sermons on Climate, It’s Time for ‘Just’ Action by Samir Saran, 31st March 2021:

    Third, and, perhaps, the most ‘just’ proposition the Secretary-General could make, would be a moral directive to all Western nations to shut down coal plants and fossil fuel- based enterprises immediately and entirely abandon carbon-fuelled energy for any purpose.

    Rich countries have failed to reduce their share of fossil fuel emissions. CSEP’s Rahul Tongia has calculated that the top emitting countries in terms of per capita emissions (nations above the global average emissions) still account for about 80 per cent of global Fossil CO2. He further explains that the absolute emissions of these countries are rising even when measured in 2019. ..