Lite Initiatives

Posts Tagged ‘Emissions’

The article is available at http://probebusiness.blogspot.com/2009/12/india-on-reducing-carbon-emissions.html

In the run up for Copenhagen Climate Conference to be scheduled from 7-Dec-09, India has become the center stage for the key negotiations between developed and developing nations for its stance on reducing Carbon emissions. India has expressed concerns over sacrificing its ‘development and objectives of eradicating poverty’ at the expense of ‘costs for reducing greenhouse emissions’. The main obstacle India sees is its spending costs on reducing Carbon emissions that would have a significant negative impact on it’s objectives of development and poverty eradication.

In this article I have tried to analyze the concerns of India by evaluating the costs of reducing Carbon emissions and the costs of not reducing Carbon emissions, and base my conclusions on the differential costs between the two. To reiterate I am considering the following costs:
1. Costs incurred for Not reducing Carbon emissions – CN
2. Costs incurred for Reducing Carbon emissions till 350 ppm – CR
Comparing the above two costs If CN > CR Then reducing Carbon emissions would have a negative impact on India’s Objectives of development and eradicating poverty
Else If CN < CR Then reducing Carbon emissions will have a positive impact on India’s objectives and India should aim at reducing Carbon emissions.

1.Costs incurred for not reducing Carbon emissions – CN

According to a study released by the group Economics of Climate Adaptation – ECA [Swiss Re, Mckinsey & Company, ClimateWorks, the European Commission, Rockefeller Foundation and Standard Chartered Bank make up the ECA working group] under climate change scenarios, the climate related disasters can result in 9-13 percent of loss of India’s GDP by 2010 and 19% loss of India’s GDP by 2030. Accordingly the Costs for not reducing Carbon emissions till 2030 i.e, CN is 19%. However there is a potential for this loss to be increased as the long term effects of climate related disasters are serious on the economy.

To examine how much loss a natural disaster may cause, let’s take a case study of the floods that recently hit North Karnataka in October 2009, and examine the losses incurred as a result of the disaster. This would give us an idea of the approximate losses that would incur if a natural disaster of similar severity happens due to the climate changes resulting from not reducing Carbon emissions, which could have been avoided otherwise.
Following are some of the significant losses caused by the floods: >> 194 people died
>> 10 million homeless. This means that the Govt had created 10 million poverty people at an instant by letting the disaster happen.
>> Losses totaled to 18,000 crore, according to the State government estimates
>> State govt sought 9,000 crore flood relief from the Central govt.
>> State demanded for the release of 1.5 lakh metric tonne food grains under BPL rates for the affected people
>> 25 lakh hectares of crop area affected. This amount of land would not be productive for a few months which is a Loss. The investments in terms of labor, resources, subsidy provided by the govt on fertilizers from citizen’s taxes are totally wasted, A  very big loss again.
>> Supply chain disruption. Industries, Businesses, Prices, Markets in other areas which  were reliant on the flood hit area are affected. The standstill region wouldn’t be able to supply any goods or services which it was supposed to, to other businesses.
>> Inflation figures during this period.
Vegetable prices up 50%, potatoes up 81%, sugar up 44% and rice up 19%. Food prices were more broadly up by 16% compared to the previous year. Although floods weren’t the only reason, they were significant in contributing for rising Inflation.This is a serious impact. Higher inflation would reduce the buying power of people and would create more poverty
>> The state’s machinery and resources are dedicated for flood relief works which would  have otherwise been dedicated for other Productive works
>> Chances of spreading of epidemics are very high. More spending on health.
>> Affects both the physical and mental health of the people in the flood affected region. The implications of this are very serious.
>> Job losses
>> The list runs

All the above effects which would be caused because of ignoring the climate change disasters have eventually resulted in hampering development and creating more poverty which would have been avoided otherwise.

2. Costs incurred with spending on Reducing Carbon emissions – CR

There will be some significant costs associated with spending (or rather investing) on reducing Carbon emissions. The following are the areas where the government has to chiefly spend if it makes a commitment for Carbon emission reduction.

1. Spending on newer energy resources
India should start spending (investing) in newer energy resources which are more energy efficient so as to reduce it’s over dependence on burning of fossil fuels like coal which is less energy efficient and results in more Carbon emission.

2. Spending on building more energy efficient products
This would apply to a wide range of products from almost every sector.India needs to build Energy efficient engines, Energy efficient commercial and residential buildings, Energy efficient transportation of all forms, Machines and Technologies that enable energy efficiency.

3. There would be costs incurred due to reduced economic development taking into consideration the reduced economic development taking into consideration the factors such as unemployment, Industries spending on equipments, technologies for reducing Carbon emissions, policies, administrative and legislative costs and more

So what would be the likely total cost for accomplishing all the above stated spending at reducing Carbon emission?
Unfortunately as of now [5-Dec-09] I have not been able to find any data released by Indian govt about the costs estimates for reducing its Carbon emissions. I urge the Govt of India to release its estimates for costs associated with reducing Carbon emission at a particular target.Had this been released our work would have been easier. But that shouldn’t stop us from continuing further as the cost estimates on reducing Carbon emissions are available from many other sources. Various academic and research groups like Economics for Equity and Environment network (E3), groups from European universities have tried to estimate the costs for attaining emission reduction till 350ppm. One group starts from the (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and finds that long-run employment and economic growth would be increased by a program of public investment in green technology and emissions reduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three groups adopt the common assumption that short-run unemployment can be ignored in long-run models. They generally find that the needed emissions reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, for some years to come. Studies from other groups such as Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have arrived at more optimistic estimates where the savings from fuels would be more compared to the spending. They assume high oil prices at 140$ per barrel (Greenpeace). Now considering Mckinsey’s estimates (Non conservative and pessimistic compared to the estimates of Greenpeace and UCS), it would cost 2.3% of India’s GDP to halve the Carbon emission growth by 2030. Hence the Costs for Reducing the Carbon Emission – CR would be 2.3% of India’s GDP.

Comparison of the Costs between reducing and not reducing Carbon emissions

As already reasoned before, the value of CN is 19% of GDP and the value of CR is 2.3% GDP. The Difference Costs of CN and CR = 19 – 2.3 = 16.7 % of GDP
India would actually save 16.7 % of GDP subjected to the reasons presented above if it aims at reducing Carbon emissions. These savings can eventually be used for economic development and reducing poverty. The earlier reasons from Indian govt that reducing Carbon emissions would reduce economic development and increase poverty would hence needs to be strongly suspected.

According to the 2006 military data released by Central Intelligence Agency [CIA, US], India’s military expenditures cost 2.5 % GDP annually. These military expenditures are effectively the safety needs of the country to protect the citizens from deaths and losses.If the climate changes are allowed by not reducing the Carbon emissions, the resulting climate change disasters would eventually lead to more deaths and homeless people. This is indeed a basic safety and physiological need for the country. The costs for mitigating this is spending on reduction of Carbon emission [ CR ] which is 2.3 % of GDP. Comparing the Annual 2.5 % GDP costs on military expenditures with 2.3 % GDP costs till 2030 for the safety needs of similar importance, the spending on Carbon emissions looks very meager. Again India need not bear all the costs [ 2.3% of GDP ] for reducing Carbon emissions alone. India can actually make a case for contributions from other developed nations. India has now started pressing the developed nations for contributing 0.5 % of GDP to fund its costs.

Based on the reasons presented in the article, I conclude that India should target for reducing Carbon emissions so as to pursue with its objectives of economic development and

Incoming search terms:

• Agua e Vida OR Sierra club OR Amnesty International OR Greenpeace (1)
• climate protection (1)
• copenhagen climate (1)
• india economic development and carbon emissions (1)
• reduction of carbon emissions in india (1)
• rockefeller research (1)
• total oil co2 (1)
• total oil energy efficiency (1)

Along with positive ideas come those scammers who are out to make a buck. Even though trading in carbon credits is still in its infancy, there are those who are already taking advantage of what may be a very beneficial environmental program. To first understand how to avoid being taken advantage of, it is important to understand exactly what carbon credits are.

Carbon credits are part of national and international attempts to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. One carbon credit is equal to one ton of carbon. Many individuals are now taking an interest in their carbon footprints, trying to lower their usage, as well as trying different ways to offset their usage. Carbon credits are part of an approach to emissions trading. With a certain amount of greenhouse gas allotted to markets, each individual group is given the opportunity to decide how much of a limited amount can be designated to each area. This allows for industries to control the amount of greenhouse gases they are using. This also allows industrial and commercial processes to market in the direction of lower emissions, or utilize approaches that are designed to not emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This helps to finance carbon reduction schemes.

Many companies sell carbon credits. These carbon credits are sold to companies who voluntarily desire to lower their carbon footprint. Carbon credits are purchased from investment funds or carbon development companies. Many of these companies have saved these credits from other individual products and offset themselves and the buyers by selling them. The quality of the credits is based on the validation process, the type of fund, and the development company. The price is also affected by these things. Voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously-validated Clean Development Mechanism.

There are two distinct types of Carbon Credits: Carbon Offset Credits (COCs) and Carbon Reduction Credits (CRCs). Carbon Offset Credits consist of clean forms of energy production, wind, solar, hydro and biofuels. Carbon Reduction Credits consists of the collection and storage of Carbon from the earth’s atmosphere through reforestation, forestation, ocean and soil collection and storage efforts. Both ways are valid and positively recognized, each used in different situations.

Whether or not you decide that the use of carbon credits are for you, it is important to know how to avoid being scammed.

• First and foremost, do your research on the company you are thinking of buying credit from. It is necessary to see if the industrial companies are actually implementing reductions in carbon use and greenhouse emissions or if they are really doing very little.

• They need to have verification. A shortage of verification makes it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. Reliable third party verification is critical.

• Be careful of companies or individuals that are over-pricing their carbon credits. Why are their credits more expensive? What is their value? Have their prices increased or decreased due to changes in their emissions reductions?

Do the research before purchasing carbon credits. It is important to find if the organization has any history of selling worthless credits which do not yield reductions. There is no point in purchasing carbon credits if they do not benefit you or the environment.

Incoming search terms:

• carbon credit scams (3)
• carbon storage (2)

Biofuels have become talk of the town these days. These are obtained from biomass and utilize many renewable energy sources. These fuels also use plant matter as the raw material. Solid biomass is known to be the most common types of bio-fuels. The consistent rise in the price of fossil fuel has affected the world economy. The introduction of biofuels has come as a rescue to this problem. In fact, these have acted as a complete replacement for most of our energy requirements. However, prior to completely trusting this renewable energy source, it is important to know about the pros and cons of using biofuels. Stated below are some of the significant biofuels pros and cons.

Biofuels Pros and Cons:

The most obvious pros of using biofuel is the independence it allows from oil that can be bought from outside the United States. The best part is that the emissions coming from direct usage in automobiles is far lesser as compared to those from conventional fuels such as gasoline.

Other benefits:

Biofuels are extracted from the plant oils or animals. This facilitates recycling. This in turn, turns the trash into something resourceful.
Biofuels are cost-effective. In fact, these are considered to be the only fuel available at affordable price.
The best thing about biofuel is that they are safer and can be easily transported from one place to another sans posing any potential risk on the health of consumers.
When using biofuel, there is no peculiar gasoline stench. It is also sulfur-free. Additionally, it aids in eliminating acid rain.
Bio fuel can be used by all vehicle engine types.

Cons of using biofuels:

The traditional petroleum products produce more energy than biofuel. This may result in power loss in engines.
It is true that biofuel can function with most engines but there are just a few specifically designed for this type of fuel.

Incoming search terms:

• pros and cons of biofuels (4)
• pro and cons of biofuels org (3)
• biofuels pros and cons (3)
• pros and cons of biofuels org (2)
• pros and cons of using biofuels (1)
• pros and cons of biofuels org - com (1)
• pros and cons biofuels org (1)
• pros and cons biofuel org (1)
• pro biofuels and air polution (1)
• biofuels liteinet org (1)

Carbon management is now a major focus of environmental initiatives. Although carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, it is the most common and therefore at the centre of attempts to reduce the rate of growth of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and eventually to cause these emissions to fall.
Carbon management is a controversial area, involving politicians, public servants, social and physical scientists, activists, businesses and many others. The controversies include:
– Whether carbon dioxide is a cause or a consequence of global warming or both
– Whether global warming is a fact – depending on the time period analysed
– Whether particular initiatives or mechanisms for carbon reduction (such as carbon trading) work (whether scientifically, technologically or in terms of incentives)
– Whether they have desirable or undesirable other consequences,
This report abstracts from these and other controversies. It focuses on the extent to which emerging economies are involved in innovative and/or leading edge practices in carbon management. So it focuses on questions such as whether a particular initiative works to reduce carbon emissions, whether it has known or suspected adverse consequences in other areas, whether environmental, economic or other; whether the approach to funding it creates problems; whether the initiative may lead to diversion of energy from other initiatives; and whether the initiatives taken together are in some sense enough for the emerging economy in question.

Key features of this report

• A review of the principles of carbon management
• An examination of carbon trading and the working of carbon markets
• Comprehensive and up-to-date data on CO2 emissions for emerging nations, broken out by fuel type
• Insights on the principlal initiatives taken by nation to reduce CO2 emissions
• Examination of the key technology introductions and innovations.
• Implications for the future

Scope of this report

• Achieve a quick and comprehensive understanding of the various options and models available for reducing carbon emissions
• Definitive source work, including the most up to date data on carbon emissions by emerging nation
• An overview of trends and initiatives in reduction of carbon emissions, both worldwide and by emerging nation
• Comparison of initiatives by nation: which countries are making the greatest progress in dealing with carbon emissions; which are struggling

Key Market Issues

• Core Issue: Different paths to managing CO2 emissions require different degrees of participation by industry, consumers and governments. The future of carbon management is still uncertain, due to lack of international consensus on how best to manage efficiency and equity issues, and the lack of consensus about the continuation of global warming.
• Alternative approaches: Various initiatives are used to greater or lesser extent, including:
– Improved carbon management
– The Clean Development Mechanism: an important stimulus for carbon reduction initiatives, but high cost and bureaucratic
– Carbon trading: the cap and trade approach depends for its success on realistic caps
– Taxation, subsidies and regulation
– Innovation
• Approaches vary by location: Most African countries have low carbon emissions. A few – Libya, Algeria, Nigeria and Ghana – have significant oil reserves, and so tend to focus their carbon management on reduction of flaring and other oil and gas-related projects. Access to energy is Africa’s main problem.

Key findings from this report

– The carbon management situation in emerging economies has produced a mixed picture, with two giants – China and India – focused on carbon management, making significant improvements in some area, but with some substantial gaps.
– The carbon market looks like it will continue to grow very rapidly, once the recession is over, leading to greatly increased demand for auditing capability – and a risk that there will be a worldwide shortage the of the skills needed to audit carbon savings.
– The bureaucracy of carbon management is still posing significant problems, even though some progress is being made with reducing validation times for carbon investments.
– In the CDM, there is tension between the “cleanness”, which leads to carbon saving, credits and money for the emerging economies, and “development”, the much wider objective that all emerging economies have adopted.

Key questions answered

– What are the key issues affecting different approaches to carbon reduction?
– How are various emerging economies adapting to the demands of carbon reduction?
– What are the key trends in carbon emissions by emerging economy?
– What are the main obstacles to a co-ordinated worldwide approach to carbon reduction?
– How has the perceived failure of Copenhagen impacted on international policy in this area?

To know more about this report & to buy a copy please visit :
http://www.visionshopsters.com/product/3847/Carbon-Management-in-Emerging-Economies-New-mechanisms-for-managing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html

Contact us:

Visionshopsters
Ph : 91-22-40583000
Emailid: marketing@visionshopsters.com
Website : www.visionshopsters.com

Incoming search terms:

• copenhagen climate (2)
• Carbon Management in Emerging Economies (1)

As people are waiting for “them” to make biofuel available as a source of energy there are many of us who have been using forest biofuel to heat our homes for generations. This biofuel is sold on the free market without government subsidies or a need for more research and development.

Wood can be made into many biofuel products like methane, alcohol, or diesel and it can be burned directly to power electric generators to produce electricity. All of these are expensive and energy intensive. After refining wood into these biofuels the cost and energy used has not made wood biofuel a viable source of energy. The exception to that is burning wood to generate electricity which has experienced some commercial success.

What people often overlook is a form of wood biofuel that requires very little or no processing and that is wood as a heating fuel. While people are waiting for biofuel they are still using fossil fuels to heat their homes when they could switch today to an economically proven biofuel heat source which is to burn wood.

Since there is little or no processing required, direct heating with wood is more efficient than turning wood into another fuel such as diesel or electricity. The raw material is directly converted to the desired product which is heat.

The most basic form of wood biofuel is simple firewood for wood stoves and fireplaces. This is a very desirable form of energy for many homes but it’s not for everyone. Burning firewood does have some disadvantages such as wood handling, it can be messy and can produce smoke. Although modern wood stoves have come a long way in reducing emissions and efficiency. Modern wood stoves can burn with no visible smoke. Burning firewood is not as convenient as other heat sources since you have to continually feed fuel into the fire.

The alternative to fireplaces and firewood stoves is wood pellet stoves. Wood pellets require more processing but pellet stoves are more efficient than firewood stoves so it makes up for the difference. A pellet stove combines the use of renewable biofuel with the convenience of traditional electric, gas or oil heating systems.

Pellet stoves have automatic fuel feeding systems and are thermostatically controlled. Wood pellets are available today and have been proven as a heat source that is competitive and can even cost less than fossil fuels.

Both firewood and wood pellets are available as a practical source of forest biofuel that you can start using today. Which one you choose depends on your situation and preferences.

Learn more about wood pellets and learn more about firewood as biofuels.

Air pollution is one of the problems that our world is facing. We talk about air pollution but we do not know where it comes from, what causes air pollution and how it can be toppled down. Air pollution does not only give us detrimental effects in terms of the environment but also affects our health.

Click Here To Know More On How To Rid My Carbon Now!

What causes air pollution? How can we put a stop on these factors which causes air pollution? Let us discover together what the causes are.  There are actually many things that cause air pollution. First on the list would be the exhaust of cars, trucks and other combustion engines. They produce smog which is composed of harmful greenhouse gases.  Smog can affect people’s health and the worsening problem of the ozone layer.

Secondly, factories are also major contributors to air pollution. As we always say, together with progress, the problem of air pollution also worsens. The emissions from factories which are mainly caused by burning of fossil fuels and coals cause air pollution. Add to that the use of petroleum which releases particulates which contributes to air pollution.

Chemicals and pesticides can also contribute to air pollution. Take into consideration also the ventilation in rooms, buildings, offices wherein toxic paints, chemicals and sprays not exposed or released can cause air pollution. Anything that is not good to the health like dusts can cause air pollution. Even mills, plants and mining can contribute to air pollution.

Those were just some factors that cause air pollution. A volcanic eruption is perhaps the most common natural cause of air pollution. Methane emission can also be a cause of air pollution, now that you know what the things that cause air pollution are, try to reduce it in your own little way. Do your role and responsibility to the environment.

Click Here To Know More On How To Rid My Carbon Now!

The new era of Emissions Awareness
The world’s leading scientists continue to stress the evidence supporting climate change grows stronger with new research.

Everyday, more people and businesses are becoming aware of the impact of the carbon emissions caused by their everyday activities on the environment. Some people are aware and doing something about it. But a lot of people think doing a little bit is enough. The truth is if you do a little you achieve a little. We need to make deep cuts in carbon emissions and help drive investment in low-carbon solutions.

But what can you do? An increasingly popular option is to offset carbon and become carbon neutral.

Offset Carbon and be Carbon Neutral
To carbon offset is to reduce or stop carbon emissions somewhere else in the world for some of the carbon emissions you are responsible in your daily life. If you offset carbon emissions equivalent to the carbon emissions of all your activities in one year, then you are carbon neutral.

You use a carbon credit to offset carbon emissions. A carbon credit generally represents one tonne of carbon emissions reduced in a carbon project somewhere else in the world.

However, there has been some concerns about the calibre of carbon credits available to offset carbon emissions.

Most carbon offset projects use carbon credits created from trees or renewable projects. While these sound attractive there are concerns about using them as carbon offsets. A third type of carbon credit, a carbon emissions credit from a compliance regulated scheme, overcomes these concerns and empowers you to proactively reduce global carbon emission credits. These alternatives are investigated in the article “What are the alternatives to carbon offset / become carbon neutral”.

A More Meaningful Solution – Carbon Emission Credits
Carbon emission credits work like this. Through a simple and powerful initiative, you access a compliance regulated market to buy and cancel carbon emission credits. Cancelling carbon emissions credits from the limited pool of credits in the European Emissions Trading Scheme means there are fewer credits available to be used by industry to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You are taking away the rights of industry to emit carbon dioxide.

Fewer carbon emission credits helps drive investment in low-carbon solutions such as energy efficiencies and renewable energy, as emitters can use the money from the carbon credits they sell to fund their investments in low-carbon solutions. They are rewarded for emitting less carbon dioxide.

Carbon emission credits have been referred to as the ‘most pure’ form of carbon emission reduction. We call it the Climakind alternative to offset carbon emissions because it helps ensure your carbon emissions reduction efforts are proactive, high quality and secure.

You help speed up the transition to a low-carbon future.

Making it Simple
To make it simple, Climakind provides affordable and easily recognisable levels of participation. You can choose to cancel carbon emission credits equal to one year of your annual carbon emissions and instantly become a Gold member, or start with one month’s carbon emissions as a Bronze member.

All this makes being Climakind (ClimateKind – to be climate kind is to be kind to the climate) more than just a simple carbon offset or carbon neutral solution.

You can make a difference
Whether you are a business or an individual Climakind can help you reduce carbon emissions.

Help make a difference. Act now to reduce global carbon emissions and encourage investment in low carbon-solutions.

You can have a meaningful impact in the transition to a sustainable future. You can make a difference.