Administrator Lisa Jackson signing the final rule (photo: EPA)

Starting on January 1^st 2010, any US fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and other facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year, will be required to report their emissions data to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to the EPA this will cover approximately 85 percent of the United States’ GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

These new rules lay the groundwork for regulating emissions, providing the basis of a monitoring system that should be in place by the time – if such a time arrives – that greenhouse gas emissions are to be regulated.

As Administrator Lisa Jackson, who signed the rules on Sep 22, stated – “The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

 While opposed by many business, claiming that the reporting requirement is a first step toward burdensome and needless government regulation, others have welcomed this move.

Even the United States Chamber of Commerce seems to be on board with the new rules – “We have always supported transparency and do not oppose the reporting requirement,” said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

This is somewhat surprising as the Chamber of Commerce stance has so far been very much in opposition to any action, legislative or otherwise, on climate change. Throughout the past months the Chamber has sided themselves with climate change deniers by repeatedly attacking the EPA’s use of climate science, and it was the same Bill Kovacs who said in August that the EPA doesn’t “have the science to support the endangerment finding,” when the Chamber recently demanded a “Scopes Monkey Trial” for climate change science. A call they have later retracted after receiving too much heat.

The Chamber’s continual opposition to climate legislation has recently resulted in several utilities – including the major Californian utility Pacific Gas and Electric – withdrawing their membership (mirroring similar desertions in other industry groups). Others, such as Nike and Johnson & Johnson, have also expressed their dissatisfaction over the Chamber’s approach, saying it does not represent the full spectrum of members’ views. I wonder if the support, or at least non-opposition, to the EPA’s new reporting rules is an attempt to soften the Chamber of Commerce’s position before more companies quite it.

Recently, the Indian government signed a MoU with the United States aimed at strengthening development of bio fuels in India. Focused on advancing first and generation fuel crops, conversion technologies, and decentralized production processes the MoU suggests a promising outlook in India. But bio fuels in India has had a bumpy path. Indian officials have sought bio fuel avenues in their pursuit to reach energy security and strengthen its agriculture sector role yet there have also been significant policy setbacks which have prevented a unified national policy.

Lack of political unity and regulation towards bio fuel mission
Poorly structured regulations and politics have limited the bio fuel potential in India. Despite regulations in place to promote blended fuels, problems with state to state tariffs have made this regulation more of a hindrancethan a catalyst for bio fuels producers. In the past two years, the Government sought to establish a national bio fuel policy with an ambitious agenda such as requiring a 20% ethanol blend in petrol and diesel by 2017. The policy faced significant struggles in the political arena over the policy’s handling of commercialization of bio fuels. Since then, the mission has reportedly been shelved.

Windows of opportunity for bio fuels in India

Photo credit: Centre for Jatropha Promotion & Biodiesel.

To add, there is broader debate over promoting bio fuels as alternative energy sources in general. While biofuels can provide an avenue of energy security, reducing energy dependency on imported oil, they place significant pressures on natural resources (land, water, etc). Currently, bio fuels (predominantly ethanol-based) in India is mainly sourced from water intensive sugar cane crops. Proposals to encourage food crops for fuel production have been viewed negativelyby the Indian officials, yet the promotion of non edible crops such as jatropha have gained considerable favorable attention.
India’s government-owned railway system has encouraged the cultivation of jatropha on railway wastelands
through leasing schemes. Such a scheme has been viewed positively by some who believe making bio fuels work in India is a matter of thinking innovatively on various aspects of bio fuels policy: type of crop, land usage, and appropriate regulations including inclusion in CDM schemes. This is the view sought after private enterprise, Mission Biofuel India, which is seeking government approval for a jatropha-sourced biofuel refinery in the state of Orissa.

Indian officials need to better articulate the potential of bio fuels in India. This is no easy task as the debate over biofuels continues to be heated in scientific and political arenas. In this way the promotion of collaborative research and technical over bio fuels is welcoming. On another front, Indian officials must seriously review current policies including subsidy and tariff mechanisms at the national and state level that cover current/future bio fuel crops. This evaluation is needed because India has the opportunity to make certain bio fuel crops and processes advantageous but only through proper regulation which will ensure environmental safeguards and social benefits which currently is lacking.

 

Activists protesting against BT Brinjal. Photo credit:S.Subramanium/The Hindu

As much as energy security is integral to Indian climate change policy, meeting basic development targets are important too. A few days ago, the UK gave £6m towards Indo-British research projects, out of which £1.5m has been earmarked ‘to exploit and develop advances in biotechnology applicable in an agricultural context.’ 

This, in the same week that the regulator on GM foods, the government’s GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) announced it will look into independent studies questioning the safety of genetically modified strains of brinjal (aubergine), currently undergoing trials. Protests marked the meeting of the GEAC.

The Indian context 

BT Cotton, perhaps the most well known GM crop in India, turned cotton into a cash crop and made India into a major exporter and the 2nd largest producer in the world. The GEAC has also given the go-ahead for trials into GM versions of brinjal (aubergine), transgenic cotton, tomato, rice and okra (lady’s finger). Proponents of GM foods argue that not only do they provide stronger better crops and reduce water use and emissions, they are also vital in the context of food security, as populations increase and climate change affects agriculture.

 But, as these independent studies argue, BT brinjal in this case, could pose a hazard to humans as well as biodiversity.  

Moreover, the emergence of new secondary pests, health problems and cattle deaths have been associated with farmers who switched to GM crops. Additionally, associated financial burden, debt traps and farmer suicides have been documented.  There has been widespread public outcry as well. So why is it that in spite of the questionable utility of genetically modified crops in India is the government still pursuing them?

Lack of information, weak regulation and public participation

A large part of GM debate in India is about bringing in new investment and technology, modernizing agriculture and integrating it into the market.  Much of the problem lies in the opaque manner in which these decisions are taken. As of now, the regulatory process is questionable: it is not transparent, there is little public participation, and the rampant spread of illegal GM crops is testimony to the regulator’s weak powers.

 Virtually nonexistent in this whole question has been the inclusion of public participation and debate, even though (or perhaps because) those directly affected by such commodities are millions of poor farmers. This has created a confrontational situation: with the powerful biotechnology MNCs with financial and political clout on one side lobbying the government and the public and the activists on the other side. The two don’t really meet (except perhaps in litigation). Debate on GM products does exist, but it is rarely integrated into the regulatory process itself. Information is not disseminated - Greenpeace, for example,  resorted to filing a Right to Information petition for access to the BT Brinjal bio safety reports, following which Mahyco, the company trialling the vegetable got a stay order before being directed by the courts to release the reports.

The way forward 

India urgently needs to incorporate debate into the political process in order to comprehensively assess if GM is the way forward. One has to look at the alternatives – organic farming, for example – as well. Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya is one of many groups arguing for a less external-input intensive approach to India’s problems: sustainable agriculture that relies on the farmer’s participation, encourages ‘seed sovereignty’ and local solutions that are environmentally friendly. IFAD’s study into organic agriculture and poverty reduction in China and India highlights the need for for better support systems for smaller farmers switching to organic farming that help in certification, marketing and capacity building. 

Very little importance is given to public consultation on a very public issue, and most people don’t entirely understand the arguments involved. To top it all, the government too is flip flopping on the issue: the Union Agriculture Minister and the Health Minister have both said that India should be GM free. Or is this just electioneering?

Only one week into office and U.S. President Barack Obama is charging full speed ahead on fulfilling his campaign promise to bring change to Washington. In an effort to reverse former President Bush’s policy on climate change and take the United States in a new greener direction, Obama asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to review whether states should be allowed to set more stringent emission standards than those that are currently federally mandated. Additionally, Obama directed American automakers to develop more fuel efficient cars and trucks for models with release dates starting in 2011.

More than a dozen states have adopted the more stringent standards set by California which requires a 30 percent cut in emissions and a federal waiver could lead to more states signing on. While environmentalists are understandably thrilled at the direction of the new administration, Obama’s announcement has led to resistance by both automakers and Republicans. The two leading arguments put forth by the opposition are that a reversal in Bush’s order will be costly to automakers in an already struggling economy and state-led emissions requirements creates the possibility of a patchwork of different standards for different states. Alternatively, the automakers want uniform mileage and emission standards set nationwide along with assistance and incentives for car buyers to alleviate the added cost. While environmentalists may be applauding Obama’s announcement, the argument made by the automakers does deserve consideration.

When the Bush administration showed reluctance to legislate any significant curb in tail-pipe emissions and increase fuel efficiency requirements, the effort of states to step in and tackle the issue of greenhouse emissions themselves appeared a win for environmentalists. Furthermore, future U.S. presidents might not be as green-minded as President Obama. In such instances, state-led emission standards can provide the greatest opportunity for environmentalists to bring change to the auto industry by allowing states to set their own bar for the auto companies to meet.

However, should Maryland suddenly decide to set even more stringent standards than California, what does this mean for the automakers? The answer is additional costs and confusion for the auto industry. This will inevitably lead the car companies to try to meet the most stringent standards to avoid a patchwork of different regulations. While this may be a positive result for environmentalists, it also means huge costs anytime a state decides to tighten its requirements beyond the then-set industry standard.

The Obama administration is in a great position to bring change to the U.S. auto industry including the opportunity to institute a nation-wide tightening of emissions beginning with the model put forth by California. This could reduce confusion over state-by-state regulations and lessen the price tag for adjustment.

While I applaud President Obama’s push toward reducing emissions, considering a nationwide approach may prove to be a more effective, less confusing and less costly way to reduce auto emissions nationwide.