Source: eschipul (Flickr)

The disappointment of Copenhagen, hardly eased by Cancun, has prompted the question: ‘Now what?’ One possible answer lies in The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, jointly written by a group of academics in February 2010.

The recommendations of The Hartwell Paper emerge from the revision of some basic climate concepts.

Firstly, the authors resist the conception of climate change as One Big Problem. The conception that they prefer is of climate change as ‘a persistent condition that … can only be partially managed more—or less—well.’

Secondly, the authors resist the notion that climate change demands One Big Solution—namely, the reduction of carbon emissions through a globally binding agreement. Not only does this conception overlook the peculiarities of other greenhouse gases, they argue, it also treats issues such as clean energy, environmental protection and developmental justice as only incidental benefits, goods that hitch a ride on a ratified treaty.

The authors invert this conception, putting these ‘subsidiary’ issues at the forefront of climate policy. Here, the reduction of carbon emissions is regarded, rather, as a happy upshot of winning more manageable battles—specifically, adequate energy provision, sustainable development, and the mitigation of risks associated with climate change. Importantly, this strategy reflects a sensitivity to the political—to the short-sighted nature of democratic will and the practical importance of real-world progress.

The Hartwell Paper intends to provide a comprehensive alternative to the top-down models of Kyoto model and the cap-and-trade schemes (although for some doubts, read here). One attraction of the Hartwell approach, however, is that it can be implemented in parallel to large-scale negotiations. While diplomats strive for the king hit of a globally binding agreement, governments, councils, businesses and citizens could work simultaneously on a patchwork of more modest, more tangible issues, all of which contribute indirectly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, how might this approach apply to the New Zealand context?

As it stands, New Zealand already has a top-down strategy in place, its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Given political inertia, this won’t be upturned any time soon, in spite of the ETS’s questionable effectiveness, so any new strategy will have to occur alongside existing policy. To some extent, however, the sorts of initiatives The Hartwell Paper approves of are already on the national agenda—either as current initiatives or ongoing ambitions.

Take, for instance, the country’s air quality strategy. This has encouraged a shift from open fires to log burners in domestic homes, and limited particulate emissions from industry and transport. While principally driven by local health concerns, the net effect is to reduce emissions of soot or black carbon, an emission thought to have about 600 times the warming effects per equivalent ton of carbon.

Similarly, insulation schemes have been in place since 1996. The current Heat Smart scheme plans to retrofit 188,500 poorly insulated homes throughout the four years since 2009. The policy is justified by appeals to health and reduced electricity costs, yet the consequent increase in energy efficiency could reduce the demand for electricity—Jevon’s paradox notwithstanding—about one-third of which is produced by non-renewable resources.

A salient topic yet to be resolved is water quality. New Zealand’s dairying boom has accelerated the degradation of waterways, particularly due to the run-off of nitrates, an issue that jars with the nation’s recreational and environmental values. Any success in addressing this problem—through nitrate inhibitors, new breeds of grass, revegetated waterway edges, or land use limitations—could reduce agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide which account for one-sixth of New Zealand’s total emissions.

Finally, The Hartwell Paper recommends public investment into research and development of clean energy technologies. New Zealand politicians have long paid lip service to technology and innovation, although to little consequence, the nation’s R&D investment being about half the OECD average. The much-touted ‘knowledge wave’ is a ride New Zealand is still to catch, despite its natural advantage as a top performer in education. The centre-right National Government has recently reiterated its desire for innovation and technology to drive the economic recovery; investment into clean energy R&D could satisfy this goal as well as fulfilling environmental obligations.

Which leads to one final strength of the Hartwell approach: its hospitality to a range of political ideologies. In New Zealand, where major parties agree on the existence of the problem, less so the appropriate response, it is important that climate politics are not ideologically exclusive. A singular top-down response, heavily reliant on state intervention, grates upon certain political mentalities, irrespective of their stance on climate science. In a worst case scenario, discontent with policy style can explode into outright denial of the problem—as appears to have occurred in the United States. A decentralized approach enables political parties to advance environmental goals in a way that is ideologically appropriate, pursuing policies and objectives that are near and dear to the hearts of their electorate.

So, for those disappointed with the grand plans of Kyoto and cap-and-trade, it might just be fruitful to divert one’s energies into more oblique strategies—both those mentioned and those yet to be put forward. The major question left begging is this: Can such small steps ever add up to a great leap forward?

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.

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.

Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan, has recently produced a report highlighting a significant failure on the part of the Government of Canada in ensuring that public money spent on environmental initiatives are actually achieving results.

As a member of the Government of Canada’s Office of the Auditor General, the Commissioner is tasked with the responsibility of reporting on the effectiveness of public environment and sustainable development programs and policies.  The Commissioner is also responsible for reporting to Parliament at least once every two years (until 2012) on Canada’s progress towards meeting its Kyoto Protocol obligations.

In his annual report for 2008, Vaughan heavily criticized the government for spending billions of dollars without putting in place mechanisms to measure the impact of ‘green’ expenditures.  He also charged that Canada is not on a path towards sustainable development and that the government cannot demonstrate that environmental programs are achieving intended results.

The report is particularly critical of two measures introduced as part of the widely criticised ‘Turning the Corner’ Climate Change Plan released in 2007.  The first suspect program described by the Commissioner is the Public Transit Tax Credit, which was originally projected to result in annual reductions of 220,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.  Environment Canada lowered the estimated reductions resultant from this program one year later in 2008 to 30,000 tonnes per year, suggesting that the costly $635 million program will have a negligible impact on Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.  The Commissioner concluded in his report that this program is the result of ‘flawed’ analysis on the part of Environment Canada – but it also seems possible that political motivations during previous election cycles played a role in the formulation of the tax credit.

In the report, the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner also highlighted the failure of the $1.519 billion Clean Air & Climate Change Trust Fund in producing ‘real, measurable, and verifiable results’.  Vaughan noted that the fund (intended as a mechanism to transfer monies to the provinces for climate change programs) included no conditions to allow for the monitoring of the use of the funds with the consequence that any potential emissions reductions from the program were unquantifiable.  At issue is a fundamental challenge with implementing national policy in Canada, the constant struggle between the federal government and the provinces.  The decentralised nature of political power in Canada often makes national action on the part of federal government difficult.  Very frequently there is no legal obligation for the provinces to spend money transferred to them for the purposes announced by the federal government – in this case, greenhouse gas emissions reductions.   The Trust Fund program was projected to account for 26% of Canada’s emissions reductions during the 2008-2012 time period, but given the lack of analysis regarding expected cuts and non-ability to measure results it seems unlikely that emissions reductions attributable to this program will materialise.  The Commissioner particularly took exception with the government’s repeated claims during 2007 and 2008 that specific GHG cuts were expected from this program when it was fully aware that the government did not have the capacity to quantify any such potential reductions. 

This is not the first time that the Auditor General’s office has sounded alarm bells about climate policy in Canada.  Former Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Johanne Gelinas, released a report filled with strong criticism of Canada’s federal government inaction on climate change in 2006.  One might wonder what the 2009 report will look like given Canada’s track record on Kyoto obligations leading up to Copenhagen at the end of this year.

The Baglihar Dam on the Chenab (photo credit:Reuters)

It’s an election year and India’s opposition party has begun setting its agenda on green issues. The National Democratic Alliance’s LK Advani yesterday pledged to make access to drinking water a fundamental right and water conservation a fundamental duty for all Indians. Moreover, key elements of Mr Advani’s campaign will be fighting terrorism and climate change, because “the “destruction of environment” was another form of terrorism.” Nevertheless, going beyond rhetoric and election soundbites, India needs to properly integrate its water resources and set up better regulatory mechanisms that monitor water use efficiency.

Water: the story so far

The question of water security in India is not new, nor is restricted to within India’s borders. But India’s exploding energy needs are pushing the need for water security to the fore. Water management is vital to maintaining India’s growth rate as well as one of India’s biggest obstacles. The government notes that “in order to fuel a sustained 8% annual growth […] basic capacities in the energy sector and related physical infrastructure such as rail, ports, road and water grow by factors of 3 to 7 times by 2031-2032.”

India’s water situation looks bleak. India’s industrial zones are located in water stressed zones. Poor water storage capacities and heavy subsidies given to the agricultural sector have resulted in excessive water wastage and over exploitation of ground water. Furthermore, India is still very dependent on the weather, melting glaciers and patchy monsoons spelling doom for the economy. Rampant urban growth has caused the sudden depletion of wetland areas in many parts: for example, of the 261 lakes in and around Bangalore city in 1961, only 34 remain.

Politicizing water

With such urgent water needs, it is no wonder that water has become politicised at every level – from the city to the state right up to the national and even international level.

Take, for example, the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite great untapped hydro-electric potential, J&K suffers from severe power shortages. Projects on Jammu and Kashmir’s primary rivers are restricted by the Indus Waters Treaty which split the rights to the Indus and its tributaries between India and Pakistan equitably.

Two days ago, a tender was awarded for the construction of the 330 MW Kishan Ganga Hydroelectric power project in which will be built on an Indian tributary (the Kishan Ganga) of the Jhelum River. Recalling Pakistan’s strong reservations on the Baglihar Dam project on the Indian side of the Chenab River in 2005 (the dispute went to the World Bank for neutral adjudication) and the Tulbul project which was abandoned in the 1980s due to Pakistan’s objections, India is pushing to complete its project before it falls prey to this political minefield. But this is where the dispute gets interesting. Pakistan has announced a similar project on the Pakistani side of the Jhelum because according to the treaty, the country that completes the project first will win the rights to the river. And so, despite costing 68% more than foreseen, India has pulled out all the stops to get the project finished first.

Nationally, the incumbent coalition is reluctant to implement a project meant to interlink India’s major rivers that was initiated by the opposition. Indian states are notorious for fighting over water rights (remember the Cauvery river water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu that dragged on for over a decade?) forcing the central government to arbitrate settlements on a number of occasions. Most of the major metropolitan areas, are also increasingly facing acute water shortages. Mismanagement of resources, unbalanced growth and inequitable distribution, soaring demands and corruption are just a few reasons behind these recurring issues. Water is surely a political issue, but it keeps falling prey to unnecessary politicisation which results in the common man losing out.

Going beyond rhetoric

India needs to properly integrate its water resources and set up better regulatory mechanisms that monitor water use efficiency. To fully develop its hydropower capacities, it will have to resolve a number of issues: water rights, displacement of people due to water projects, environmental consequences of hydropower projects. Additionally, India will have to greatly increase its water storage capacities, keeping in mind the fact that although storage schemes may make economic sense, they are often politically volatile.

In terms of renewable energy alternatives such as ethanol or biodiesel, India will have to devise alternate methods of production that are not water intensive. Finally, although India has decided to set up a National Water Mission as part of its climate change initiative, water is essentially still a state issue and so states need to step up. Environmental audits need to be taken seriously. Only in states like Himachal Pradesh, where the environment is crucial to their very survival is a climate change policy being drawn out.

This is a big year for India: the national elections are coming up, various green energy summits are being hosted and the private sector is gearing up as well. We’ll just have to see if India’s water woes are addressed, or will they once again become a rarely kept election promise.

For those not acquainted with the Bush Administration’s latest pastime I should probably introduce the concept of the ‘midnight ruling’.  Late in a presidency, an administration will often issue rulings that are unpopular but uphold the President’s worldview.  President Bush’s recent midnight rulings have predominantly been concerned with environmental deregulation.  The latest of these concerns the carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants.

As I reported earlier, a decision to disregard a Utah coal power plant’s carbon emissions when considering its environmental impact was overturned last Novermber.  However, on Thursday Stephen L. Johnson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), went on the record to reject November’s overturning, “the current concerns over global climate change should not drive [the] EPA into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls.”

California Senator Boxer soon issued a statement responding,

This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade administrator…  Mr. Johnson’s latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions.

Boxer also wrote a letter (available here) to the Attorney General asking him to “intervene immediately” with Johnson’s “blatantly illegal memo.” Senator James Inhofe, who frequently clashes with Boxer, responded with a statement siding with the EPA.

So what does all of this mean?  Well, first that the regulation of CO2 (or lack of) has been one of the defining features of the President Bush’s time in office, and that he is keen to ensure that greenhouse gases are not controlled during his presidency. Obama has pledged to use his “executive authority without waiting for congressional action” to reverse Bush’s midnight rulings. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) issued a statement saying,

The ultimate consolation, however, is that today’s EPA offense is so ham-handed, so divorced from the law, that it can and should be reversed by the Obama administration with the stroke of a pen.

If the Attorney General does not intervene (which is, in my opinion, likely) then there will be a number of coal-fired power stations that progress far enough down ‘the pipeline’ that Obama will not be able to stop their being built when he takes office on January 20th.  The Justice Department said that it would review Boxer’s letter and respond appropriately, to which Joe Romm of Climate Progress replied, ““Appropriately”? This is the Department that signed off on torture. What the heck is a few coal plants to them?”