There has been a huge amount of coverage of conferences so far this year, the G20 foremost among them. There was another conference that took place last week that was important to anyone interested in climate change policy but you would be forgiven for missing it. The Western press, in a fit of parochialism, ignored a meeting that could have far-reaching consequences for climate change policy, namely the World Ocean Conference held in Manado, Indonesia (read my previous post about the lead-up to the conference here).

Initiated by the Government of Indonesia, it brought together representatives from 80 developing and developed countries to discuss the role of the oceans in climate change. Among the topics discussed and pledges made:

• The current lack of knowledge about what role oceans can play in mitigating climate change. In this context the US announced plans to give a grant of 0,000 to Indonesia to support ocean exploration;
• To acknowledge that coastal communities are going to be adversely affected by climate change and that adaptation needs to start now. It was suggested that funding for adaptation and mitigation would go through the Global Environment Facility (GEF);
• The signing of the Coral Triangle Initiative between Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Malaysia, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines to protect the coral reefs in their respective countries. The importance of coral protection should not be underestimated – the WWF estimates that around 100 million people’s livelihoods depend on these coastal environments, environments that are under threat from climate change.

Changing the rules of the game

Perhaps the most significant development from a climate change policy perspective however was the creation of a ‘roadmap’ to get the Manado Ocean Declaration (MOD) tabled in Bonn in June with a view to being incorporated into the Copenhagen negotiations. Indonesia, by taking the lead, has gained an enormous amount of prestige and by potentially adding oceans to the agenda, Indonesia stands to gain financially: not only will Indonesia gain from the REDD scheme but also by being the world’s largest archipelago, any financial deal that involves ocean as carbon sinks would benefit Indonesia enormously.

It is pleasing to see Indonesia take the lead in an issue which has been dangerously neglected. While the motivation maybe merely another source of revenue for the government of Indonesia, this conference can only be good for promoting climate change policies within Indonesia. There are a number of struggles ahead of course: it is by no means certain that the MOD will become part of the Copenhagen negotiations, and even then practical issues like the lack of scientific knowledge about the role of oceans as carbon sinks, could prevent them from becoming part of the post-Kyoto deal. Even so, this conference has helped raise awareness of this issue. Well in some places it has.

India’s Ganges River (also known as Ganga) has always had a revered spot among Indians for its cultural and religious importance. It supports nearly 400 million lives as it flows from the Himalayas and undoubtedly one of the world’s most prominent rivers.

Recently, a disconcerting report has highlighted that the river is highly vulnerable to climate change. Citing altering rainfall patterns and increasing likelihood of evapotranspiration rates due to climate change, the study notes that the Ganges are likely to reduce in flow and quantity. The basin is situated in highly populated urban and rural regions that dependent on the water source for daily livelihood activities ranging from baths to irrigation for farming. The study is quick to also point that some of the reduction in flow can be attributed to current dam projects and problems of increased irrigation, pollution, and sedimentation. Given such prospects, there are valid concerns over India’s ambitious National River Linking Project that is set to link India’s rivers across the nation in attempt to relieve water scarcity by physically transferring water from water-abundant regions within the country.  Would it be wise to invest in this project given the possibility of rivers running dry? For Indian states experiencing water scarcity pressures, such as those in the South, the proposal is welcomed given the yearly dry up of rivers. Still ongoing debates over the project’s value, potential continue.

In addition, pollution of Indian rivers is rampant. Despite being given a ‘National River’ status and initiating a basin-wide authority, natives in the region are still concerned  that the river’s flow has been altered due to numerous hydro electric projects and over pollution. Criticism has been piled on the state government for not doing enough to monitor and regulate the river. Development goals have often superseded and/or clouded the state’s abilities to regulate waterways in a unified and unbiased manner.

Without a doubt, the Ganges Basin Authority established this past February has a tough task ahead. Pollution control needs to be a top priority and measurable goals to be reached in set timeframes established. As some have noted, this governing structure is relatively new for the Indian Government which has often delegated water management duties to state level governments rather than basin-wide approaches, yet if there is positive outcomes in this current initiative, the Ganges may serve to be a model case for other rivers throughout India.

Nearly a year after India’s climate change plan was revealed, Indian cities are waking up to incorporating climate change action into their policies. The capital, Delhi, has recently unveiled its own climate change action plan that incorporates six out of eight of the nation’s CC missions.  Parts of this initiative are a number of transport related projects. Delhi plans to convert 10,000 of the city’s buses to CNG (compressed natural gas) and create a public transport fund that would be funded partly through revenues from tax. Delhi already has an Air Ambience Fund that is funded by a fee on diesel. Another project is introducing a congestion charge much like the one London has in place.

In the past, Delhi has succeeded to a fair extent at incorporating environmental action into their transport and developmental projects. The Delhi Metro earned praise for being environmentally friendly but other cities haven’t fared as well. The Bangalore City Metro has turned into a full blown confrontation between citizens and environmentalists who decry the excessive felling of trees versus the metro bureaucrats at the other end.

Nevertheless, some other cities are encouraging environmental programs. Pune, in the west of the country has launched a 10,000,000 Rupee (1 Crore) environmental awareness scheme and the JNNURM scheme is funding (among other urban revival and environmental projects all over the country) waste management projects in Kanpur.

Apart from the large metropoles, it’s clear that environmental initiatives need to move towards the smaller cities as well. These are cities that are rapidly growing and developing and urgently need to integrate environmentalism into their plans before its too late. It is here that environmentalism has to filter down beyond the large cities to the smaller, regional urban conglomerations. It’s here that illegal mining causes damage, its in the smaller states far from the country’s economic or political hubs that the effects of climate change are perhaps being silently felt. The Financial Times recently examined the impact of the Tata Nano on the Indian market.  It turns out that in order for the car to succeed, it will have to target the smaller towns (“tier II and tier III towns”). The article points out that “By bringing down the cost of ownership to less than three times that of a two-wheeler, it captures the aspirational, but cost sensitive market in tier II and III towns.” But there’s hope, environmentalism is slowly becoming part of the developmental agenda. Surat, a town in Gujarat is creating a green construction code which the municipality hopes will encourage more green buildings. And as part of the Sustainable Urban Transport Project, people in smaller fast developing towns are getting together to debate the environmental benefits or hazards of developmental projects in their area.

In addition to conflicts over resources, border disputes, and civil war, the South Asia region is also predicted to be one of the most vulnerable areas in climate change models. Without a doubt, it is a neighborhood where tensions and stakes are high.  Such issues are high on the agenda for the Government of India as a matter of national security and regional stability.  For example, water wars could be the next issue of contention between India and Pakistan. Alternatively, there has been a growing concern over some of the most dire climate change models which predict that certain predictions may cause a dangerous rise in ‘environmental refugees‘- people who are displaced due to climate-related impacts such as rising sea levels.

The country of Bangladesh (India’s eastern border neighbor) and the island nation of the Maldives (off the west coast of India) are said to be at high risk of producing some of the largest numbers of such refugees. As a low lying nation, Bangladesh is particularly at risk to rising sea levels given its proximity to the Himalayan region (facing threats of glacial melting) and long coastal border with the Indian Ocean. A Greenpeace report broadly estimates that more than 120 billion people in India and Bangladesh will be homeless due to climate change. Others report that 22 million Bangladeshis could be displaced by 2050.

Scare Tactics?

The environmental refugee debate comes with its share of skeptics. With the uncertainty over climate change models and ‘impacts,’ estimates of possible refugees is debatable. I think is that there is reason to be cautious in whole-heartedly accepting these numbers (and labels) as there are so many ‘ifs, ands, ors, and buts’.  For example, Nepal, India’s northern border neighbor, experienced an exceptionally dry winter that some say was caused by the mixture of increased slash-burn agriculture tactics and climate change patterns- yet lack of data and inconsistencies limits conclusive statements.

In addition, while these suggestions may attract political attention and promote climate change policies under the label of ‘national security’ concerns, it can also produce unintended tensions between countries and encourage protectionist attitudes. In doing so, those that may be most affected are the ones that will be the most hurt.  

What can be done?

The capacity  of all governments in the region to cope with climate-related displacements or increased refugee populations is limited, yet there are some positives. Under the banner ‘the right to survive,’ Bangladesh has advocated for stronger support and funds from the international community. It also produced its own national plan for tackling climate change in 2008 with a heavy focus on adaptation and mitigation strategies. Positive partnerships in other issues between India and Bangladesh also exist as initial stepping stones- such as a recently renewed treaty on transboundary water navigation between the two countries to strengthen trade.  The island nation of Maldives has also been active in the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded ‘Global Island Partnership,’ which has also advocated for stronger international support and funds. Possible resettlement of island nations’ populations remains to be a contentious topic among policy makers.

Those who are discussing the issue have suggested that the international community look into developing a legal framework to formally protect climate refugees in the future- opening up communication among normally defensive stakeholders. Additionally, building adaptive capacity continues to be a key strategy alongside broader climate change goals.  In essence, the issue requires a ‘plan for the worst, hope for the best’ attitude. While currently hidden between the lines of climate change policies, the issue of climate change refugees will become more prominent.

An Indian voter with his voter id. Courtesy Flickr/KKalyan

‘We will protect India’s natural environment and take steps to rejuvenate it.’  (Congress party election manifesto).

 ’One earth, green earth: Creating the right environment.’  (BJP party election manifesto)

Consensus in election manifestos is the last thing one would expect during the national elections in India. But as it turns out, India’s leading political parties – from the far right all the way to the left seem to have very similar views on the environment and climate change this election season. 

Three political party election manifestos are examined in this post: the ruling coalition leader, the Indian National Congress; the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A few common general areas of focus emerge from the manifestos.

Firstly, climate change: building upon last year’s work, the Congress party emphasizes the national action plan as their strong point. Their manifesto reads “It is an acknowledgment of our responsibility to take credible actions within the overall framework of meeting the development aspirations of our people for higher economic growth and a higher standard of living. This action plan will be implemented in letter and spirit.”

Let’s not forget that the missions announced in the action plan highlight the importance of technology transfer and sustainable technology as key drivers of climate change action in India.  The BJP’s manifesto follows on a similar vein but is a little more specific. Arguing that “mitigating the threat by building a low carbon economy is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” BJP candidates “look at ‘Climate Change’ in the context of the promises made by the international community for technology transfer and additional financing since Rio, which have remained unfulfilled.” The CPI-M too, endorses sustainable technology by calling for “steps to control emission of greenhouse gases through energy efficient technologies and effective regulation; Promoting solar and other non-conventional energy sources”. The CPI-M’s manifesto differs from the rest in that in addition to the common themes, it calls for transparency in the EIA process as well.

The similarities don’t end there. On the subject of water management, the policies are effectively unanimous: strengthening the nation’s water management capacities, cleaning up rivers (the Congress has named the Ganges as a ‘national river’ in order to prioritise it’s sustainable usage, the BJP has pledged to clean all rivers and the CPI-M promises to regulate riverine pollution) and protecting the coastal areas emerge as priorities for all three parties. Biodiversity management and conservation are also common preoccupations that find mention in the manifestos.

 So why is it that these three parties that have such disparate policies on other issues can come together on questions of climate change? Perhaps one reason is that there is very little awareness at the political helm on the subject that would otherwise push these parties to take differing views. This week, the Times of India produced a series of polls on the environment as part of their election coverage. Their statistics note that 81% blame political ignorance and interference for the state of the environment; 46% feeling that politicos are “clueless about the extent of the damage or significance of the problem” and 35% feel that our leaders have “colluded with timber mafia, poachers; added to the problem”. Moreover, neither the Congress-led UPA incumbent coalition nor the BJP led NDA coalition addressed the problem very well; 36% thought the BJP was better than the Congress in this regard, while 26% though the opposite. A little over a third of those asked felt neither party fared well.

Secondly, climate change policy tends to get frequently coupled with other policies (as is the case in the BJP manifesto, where environmental concerns are coupled with national security and development) such as national and energy security, self-sufficiency, investment and development that may require different priorities. As such political parties lack a long term sustainable vision in this regard. It is easier to lie low on environmental issues as they aren’t really hot election topics. 

As I’ve mentioned before, beyond issues of pollution, wildlife conservation and ecology, environmental awareness in India has been fairly limited. Forget about the politicos – beyond specific fora, there is very little debate or awareness on the subject in the public domain. Nevertheless, lest there be too much negativity in this post, environmental issues, whether in the garb of rapid developmental externalities or as cost saving concerns, are creeping into the political mainstream. The national action plan drawn out by the Congress stood apart from previous environmental action as it came at a time when there was a lot of international pressure on India to take a stand on the issue, and awareness on climate change was slowly filtering into the minds of young urban Indians (Indeed, the inclusion of the environment in this election’s manifestos has been seen by many as a way of attracting India’s youth). Perhaps there was also a desire to cash in on the investment potential. 

So where next? According to the poll, 63% of the people questioned call for better administration on environmental issues. One hopes this burgeoning public and political awareness will bring increasing scrutiny on the environmental performance of which ever government wins at the polls. The Congress’ action plan came out a year ago and we are yet to see any remarkable action. If they win, will their environmental policies develop or will they remain platitudes? Will a BJP led government stick to its promises? At the very least, hopefully an inclusive debate on the subject with a long term national perspective will ensue.  

The G20 leaders standing for their

The G20 Summit in London has now concluded, with US President Obama filling the main press briefing room for an hour-long press session.  The main points of the summit for international and national climate policy are summarised below:

1. Overall: In the substantive elements of the summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change.  In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.  As Climatico’s Simon Billett asked UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, there is little evidence that this summit has been more than an agreement to agree in later meetings.
2. Forestry: UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said that forestry was a fundamental element of the global climate programme.  Italy has agreed to hold specific discussions on it at the G8 in July 2009.  There was agreement from France, Australia, Italy, Germany, US on the need for a global forestry deal.  Forestry was a major point of discussion in the corridors between delegations.
3. USA Climate Policy: It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will require cuts from China and India for a ‘comprehensive’ COP15 deal.  Obama said that “further discussions” needed with China, and that the US recognises its role as leader of clean energy and tech for China and India.  Obama: “We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”.
4. Green Growth: The summit has done little to define green growth or encourage the use of best practice measures between G20 countries.  While para. 27 and 28 of the final communiqué do reaffirm the commitment to low carbon growth, the summit has done almost nothing to further definitions of what this might mean or how it should be achieved.

Geithner, Obama, and Brown

As expected, the global economy took center stage at the G20 Summit held yesterday in London. Amidst the world economic crisis, G20 leaders met to discuss and put forth a global plan for recovery. Included amongst the six pledges made by the leaders of the Group of Twenty was a pledge for a green and sustainable recovery. However, despite this pledge and the hopes of many demonstrators, the public, and officials, climate change and plans for a green recovery featured little in the day’s discussions.

Over the weekend, the official G20 communiqué leaked to the press and included only vague language on the topic of climate change. According to paragraphs 27 and 28 in the official communiqué:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The vague language of the communiqué led to speculation that a “green stimulus” package might be less than concrete. This sentiment continued in the days leading up to the Summit.

Therefore, the day began with slightly lowered expectations for the one-day summit. Much of the morning for reporters was spent researching, writing, and watching leaders get their pictures taken. Anticipation and excitement began to grow as delegates sat down for their plenary session in the morning. However, not until close to 2:00 PM did green issues appear on the agenda with a press conference held by the UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband.

In the early afternoon, Miliband surprised reporters with a short press conference to brief them on the progress of climate change discussions and answer questions. Miliband stated that he was confident that the G20 Summit would provide forward movement towards Copenhagen in December. The discussions would serve to facilitate the process toward Copenhagen and would be used to make a statement to China and other developing countries that the United States, UK, and EU countries were committed to tackling climate change.

Climatico’s Simon Billett asked Miliband whether this talk of “first steps” was anything more than “agreeing to agree?” In response, Miliband stated that while the G20 summit was “essentially an economic summit,” among the G20 participants existed the understanding of the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.” Furthermore, Miliband said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia are more likely to attach importance to renewables despite prior hesitation. “This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery…The notion of low-carbon as a way out of recession has gone from being marginal to being mainstream.”

Miliband went on to say that forestry is a fundamental element in the climate program and will be discussed in Italy at the G8 meeting in July. Billett noted that forestry proved a major topic of conversation within the corridors of the Summit. Furthermore, private discussions between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd regarding the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal adds to the speculation that forestry will be a topic to watch in the months to come.

Despite Miliband’s press conference, the topic of climate change once again became quiet over much of the afternoon. During his speech, French President Nicholas Sarkozy failed to reference any discussion on the topic of the environment. And, despite Miliband’s enthusiasm, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown only restated that the G20 was committed to meet again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama brought climate change back onto the floor during his press conference late in the day. Obama’s trip to London included several bilateral meetings with the leaders in attendance outside of the context of the G20. In response to a reporter’s question from the Times of India, Obama addressed a bilateral meeting he had with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Amongst other points of discussion, Obama and Singh touched on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Obama alluded to future discussions on the topic of climate change with China. In addition, he recognized the challenges that lie ahead for the topic amidst the current economic crisis. “In some ways, our…European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it’s not easy. It’s even harder during times of economic downturn.” He went on to add, “We’re going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.”

Obama’s speech wrapped up the events of the day. However, despite a long day of meetings and press conferences at the G20 Summit, action towards green growth remained largely undefined. As to be expected, the world economic crisis was the star of the show and, therefore, plans to repair the global economy held the spotlight. Yet, often this subject turned to the discussion of bank regulation and executive pay rather than outlining plans for green growth. Despite all of this, environmentalists can rest assured that the international dialogue on climate change has begun to move forward. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Obama’s press conference, the United States appears onboard for further discussions and acknowledges its role as a leader and partner in reaching a climate change deal come December. Between Obama’s acknowledgement that the US must lead by example and Miliband’s enthusiasm for momentum, hopefully the G20 will prove a success for environmentalists, after all, by bringing in greater participation, particularly by China and India, at Copenhagen later this year. We shall have to wait and see.

At the G20 Summit, Indian officials will be discussing with various global leaders about the most pressing problems of in the past few months: the economy, terrorism, and climate change. However, as has been highlighted in previous Climatico blogs, while there is definite discussion on India’s climate change goals and plans- particularly given international events- the upcoming elections has left this current period on India’s domestic front somewhat dull in pushing forward climate change plans. It is unfortunate (but reality!) that the election transition comes at a time when Indian officials are beginning to negotiate, articulate, and create international climate change agreements. Especially, since India’s national action plan on climate change relies heavily on international partnerships for technology transfer, adaptation funding, and building ‘green’ economy capacity. It would be unfair to say that some of the actions taken by Indian officials at upcoming international summits will be moot, as climate change discussions within India are prevalent and span across so many sectors that it will definitely be an issue for the new government. However, there is level of disconnect whether these international agendas are reflective and responsive of India’s populous now and come two to three months from now.

Disconnect between national and international contexts?

On a recent U.S. tour, to increased partnership on renewable energy, including controversial civil nuclear powerdeal, Shyam Saran, India’s Special Envoy on Climate Change was in Washington, D.C. last week to articulate its views and aims in upcoming international climate change talks where much of the world is awaiting to hear the United States role and actions.

The U.S. Government has made clear its desire to include and engage with India on climate change goals with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that India and the US have numerous areas where their partnership can be strengthened. Meeting with various US political figures and organizations, Mr. Saran highlighted that US-India cooperation on climate change will continue to aim at finance and technology initiatives. Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy on climate change, was “immensely impressed” with the Government of India’s national-level actions towards climate change.

However on the domestic front, are these international agendas reflective of India’s populous? Deepa Gupta’s blog , highlighting the India’s Climate Youth Movement, noted that India’s “informal sector is one of the greener sectors in India and the world” given its level of reusing and recycling in day to day activities. However, sheer volume in Indian cities can make this point irrelevant. For example, sewage waste and water pollution continue to be major problems in urban areas. Yet, in Mumbai, India’s largest slum, Dharavi, is home to approximately 100 recycling plants that produce plastic goods- from roadways to handbags.

Photo credit: Flickr/gruntzooki

On a promising note, Mr. Saran noted that India is looking into this, stating: “Recycling, zero-discharge chemical plants, water-positive processes and waste-to-power technologies are all going to play important roles in the future.” Furthermore, in India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, power generated waste technology research and development is noted as a key initiative under the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat.

At this current juncture, there seems to be a lot of proposals and mission statements being presented by Indian officials who must communicate India’s efforts to address climate change issues to a diverse international audience yet there is a different level of communication between political parties and Indian citizens on the domestic front as campaign agendas take over. Arguably, climate change isn’t the only issue being discussed on the international arena nor is it the core issue in political elections but it has become an important issue in many ways. Already, in Karnataka, city government officials have been revisiting their climate change strategies to be responsive of changing factors including rise in car ownership and solar power development. It will be important to evaluate whether these two arenas converge following the elections and that international agreements are responsive of domestic opinions and perspectives.

Photo courtesy js42/Flickr

Renewable energy has been in the Indian news a lot lately. Firstly, India is gearing up for a partnership in renewable energy with the United States: an American trade mission exploring possible tie-ups in solar energy has come to India at a time when India is fleshing out its national solar mission (which was announced in the climate change action plan last year).

As far as public awareness on energy conservation is concerned, there seems to be a new push towards fostering awareness. The government has been running a series of environmentally themed ads (although the approach is one of cutting costs and economising) on conserving energy (saving cooking gas, petrol and switching to ecofriendly lighting). Let’s also not forget that today a number of mostly urban Indians will observe Earth Hour and turn off their lights for an hour this evening.

Thirdly, Greenpeace’s recent report on energy efficiency notes that given the right political will, India could potentially source 35% of its electricity requirements from renewable energy. Arguing that economic development need not be compromised, it calls for an “energy revolution” that will push for encouraging innovation, removing subsidies that support fossil fuels, reforming the energy sectors and introducing better regulation and laws. The press release adds that “there is a huge opportunity in going green now given the fact that India is still developing its energy infrastructure and has the human and intellectual capital to be world leaders on this front”.

Clearly, the political will required to push such policies through is very important. India has been pretty slow in formulating an environmental agenda and acting upon it in the past (indeed, as mentioned above, the climate change action plan was mostly silent on policies and most of the missions announced in the action plan are yet to be articulated). The recently released election manifestos of the main political parties don’t really mention any environmental or climate change initiative because elections in India are fought on a very different set of issues. And of course, India doesn’t have a green party. A report published by FICCI (the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) evaluates the incumbent government’s environmental performance noting that it has fallen short in a number of areas: inefficient CDM processing procedures, weak EIA monitoring measures and insufficient biodiversity and conservation initiatives.

Nevertheless, energy security is perhaps the most important feature of India’s climate change policy so far. The economic ramifications are perceived to be just as important as (if not more than) the environmental ones and the renewable energy market is poised to expand considerably. Given also the fact that the infrastructure and networks are still being set up in India the pursuit of energy self sufficiency is a priority and will continue to be so, irrespective of political and electoral outcomes.

Photo credit: Flickr/sujathafan

On Monday, the highly publicized Tata Motors Nano  automobile was launched in Mumbai. Since 2003 the Tata Motors Nano has been the source of much attention from diverse stakeholders:  garnering labels such as the “The People’s Car,” center of a heated protest over land and labor in India, hailed as engineering and development progress, and criticized by environmentalists. I have given voice to all of these arguments in the course of tracking the Nano phenomenon. Given the much awaited launch, I am still, like many others, unable to make a definitive opinion on the likely impact of the Tata Motors Nano in India and the world.

Various blogs and articles have laid out the key arguments surrounding the Tata Motors Nano:

- Those worried with the Tata Motors Nano launch are concerned with the car’s negative social and environmental impacts:

• More cars on the roads = more emissions.
• The Centre for Science and Environment  strongly voices its concern over promoting private car ownership will reduce the demand for efficient mass transits.
• Land issues: In 2008, in the state of West Bengal, Tata Motors faced significant hurdles after land acquisition protests emerged at its Singur plant. However, the Tata Motors Nano plant was relocated to Gujarat to continue production goals.

- Supporters of the Nano argue that the car projects positive ‘green’ and development progress:

•  Despite concerns of increased car ownership, emissions are much lower  than some
  

  Photo credit: Flickr/Carol Mitchell

  European cars (120grams Co2 per kilometer).

•  The promotion of Tata Motors Nano on the roads provides a safer alternative to India’s 2-wheelers and rickshaws.
•  Somealso argue that the Tata Motors Nano’s worldwide recognition has led India to rise as a leader in innovation and technologycircles. Subsequently, the Tata Motors Nano is likely to support the technology research and development arena that has been the focus on international climate change negotiations.

For better or for worse the Tata Motors Nano is here to stay though amidst uncertainties. Current production forecasts suggest that the Nano will exceed demand in the coming months, despite economic concerns, fluctuating oil prices, and climate change debates. Those interested in purchasing the Tata Motors Nano will have to fill out an application form  and a price tagof Rs. 100,000 ($2000 USD). Still affordable in many ways, the uncertainties around the Nano’s future also include whether Tata Motors can maintain its affordability while production costs increase. The debates are likely to continue, as the Nano becomes more visible on India’s roads. Will it gain further supporters or critics?