India on reducing Carbon emissions – An Economic Development perspective

The article is available atenergy resources which are more energy efficient so
In the run up for Copenhagen Climate Conference toas to reduce it’s over dependence on burning of
be scheduled from 7-Dec-09, India has become thefossil fuels like coal which is less energy efficient and
center stage for the key negotiations betweenresults in more Carbon emission.
developed and developing nations for its stance on2. Spending on building more energy efficient
reducing Carbon emissions. India has expressedproducts
concerns over sacrificing its ‘development andThis would apply to a wide range of products from
objectives of eradicating poverty’ at thealmost every sector.India needs to build Energy
expense of ‘costs for reducing greenhouseefficient engines, Energy efficient commercial and
emissions'. The main obstacle India sees is itsresidential buildings, Energy efficient transportation of
spending costs on reducing Carbon emissions thatall forms, Machines and Technologies that enable
would have a significant negative impact on it’senergy efficiency.
objectives of development and poverty eradication.3. There would be costs incurred due to reduced
In this article I have tried to analyze the concerns ofeconomic development taking into consideration the
India by evaluating the costs of reducing Carbonreduced economic development taking into
emissions and the costs of not reducing Carbonconsideration the factors such as unemployment,
emissions, and base my conclusions on the differentialIndustries spending on equipments, technologies for
costs between the two. To reiterate I amreducing Carbon emissions, policies, administrative and
considering the following costs:legislative costs and more
1. Costs incurred for Not reducing Carbon emissions -So what would be the likely total cost for
CNaccomplishing all the above stated spending at
2. Costs incurred for Reducing Carbon emissions tillreducing Carbon emission?
350 ppm - CRUnfortunately as of now [5-Dec-09] I have not been
Comparing the above two costs If CN > CR Thenable to find any data released by Indian govt about
reducing Carbon emissions would have a negativethe costs estimates for reducing its Carbon emissions.
impact on India’s Objectives of development andI urge the Govt of India to release its estimates for
eradicating povertycosts associated with reducing Carbon emission at a
Else If CN < CR Then reducing Carbon emissionsparticular target.Had this been released our work
will have a positive impact on India’s objectiveswould have been easier. But that shouldn’t stop
and India should aim at reducing Carbon emissions.us from continuing further as the cost estimates on
1.Costs incurred for not reducing Carbon emissions -reducing Carbon emissions are available from many
CNother sources. Various academic and research
According to a study released by the groupgroups like Economics for Equity and Environment
Economics of Climate Adaptation - ECA [Swiss Re,network (E3), groups from European universities
Mckinsey & Company, ClimateWorks, thehave tried to estimate the costs for attaining
European Commission, Rockefeller Foundation andemission reduction till 350ppm. One group starts from
Standard Chartered Bank make up the ECA workingthe (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and
group] under climate change scenarios, the climatefinds that long-run employment and economic growth
related disasters can result in 9-13 percent of loss ofwould be increased by a program of public
India’s GDP by 2010 and 19% loss of India’sinvestment in green technology and emissions
GDP by 2030. Accordingly the Costs for not reducingreduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three
Carbon emissions till 2030 i.e, CN is 19%. Howevergroups adopt the common assumption that short-run
there is a potential for this loss to be increased asunemployment can be ignored in long-run models.
the long term effects of climate related disasters areThey generally find that the needed emissions
serious on the economy.reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of
To examine how much loss a natural disaster mayworld economic output, for some years to
cause, let’s take a case study of the floods thatcome. Studies from other groups such as
recently hit North Karnataka in October 2009, andGreenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
examine the losses incurred as a result of thehave arrived at more optimistic estimates where the
disaster. This would give us an idea of thesavings from fuels would be more compared to the
approximate losses that would incur if a naturalspending. They assume high oil prices at 140$ per
disaster of similar severity happens due to thebarrel (Greenpeace). Now considering Mckinsey’s
climate changes resulting from not reducing Carbonestimates (Non conservative and pessimistic
emissions, which could have been avoided otherwise.compared to the estimates of Greenpeace and UCS),
Following are some of the significant losses causedit would cost 2.3% of India’s GDP to halve the
by the floods: >> 194 people diedCarbon emission growth by 2030. Hence the Costs
>> 10 million homeless. This means that thefor Reducing the Carbon Emission - CR would be
Govt had created 10 million poverty people at an2.3% of India’s GDP.
instant by letting the disaster happen.Comparison of the Costs between reducing and not
>> Losses totaled to 18,000 crore, accordingreducing Carbon emissions
to the State government estimatesAs already reasoned before, the value of CN is 19%
>> State govt sought 9,000 crore flood reliefof GDP and the value of CR is 2.3% GDP. The
from the Central govt.Difference Costs of CN and CR = 19 - 2.3 = 16.7 %
>> State demanded for the release of 1.5 lakhof GDP
metric tonne food grains under BPL rates for theIndia would actually save 16.7 % of GDP subjected
affected peopleto the reasons presented above if it aims at reducing
>> 25 lakh hectares of crop areaCarbon emissions. These savings can eventually be
affected. This amount of land would notused for economic development and reducing
be productive for a few months which is apoverty. The earlier reasons from Indian govt that
Loss. The investments in terms of labor,reducing Carbon emissions would reduce economic
resources, subsidy provided by the govtdevelopment and increase poverty would hence
on fertilizers from citizen's taxes are totally wasted,needs to be strongly suspected.
A  very big loss again.According to the 2006 military data released by
>> Supply chain disruption. Industries,Central Intelligence Agency [CIA, US], India’s
Businesses, Prices, Markets inmilitary expenditures cost 2.5 % GDP annually. These
other areas which  were reliant on the flood hitmilitary expenditures are effectively the safety
area are affected. The standstill region wouldn't beneeds of the country to protect the citizens from
able to supply any goods or services which itdeaths and losses.If the climate changes are allowed
was supposed to, to other businesses.by not reducing the Carbon emissions, the resulting
>> Inflation figures during this period.climate change disasters would eventually lead to
Vegetable prices up 50%, potatoes up 81%, sugarmore deaths and homeless people. This is indeed a
up 44% and rice up 19%. Food prices were morebasic safety and physiological need for the country.
broadly up by 16% compared to the previous year.The costs for mitigating this is spending on reduction
Although floods weren’t the only reason, theyof Carbon emission [ CR ] which is 2.3 % of GDP.
were significant in contributing for rising Inflation.ThisComparing the Annual 2.5 % GDP costs on military
is a serious impact. Higher inflation would reduce theexpenditures with 2.3 % GDP costs till 2030 for the
buying power of people and would create moresafety needs of similar importance, the spending on
povertyCarbon emissions looks very meager. Again India
>> The state's machinery and resources areneed not bear all the costs [ 2.3% of GDP ] for
dedicated for flood relief works whichreducing Carbon emissions alone. India can actually
would  have otherwise been dedicated for othermake a case for contributions from other developed
Productive worksnations. India has now started pressing the developed
>> Chances of spreading of epidemics are verynations for contributing 0.5 % of GDP to fund its
high. More spending on health.costs.
>> Affects both the physical and mental healthBased on the reasons presented in the article, I
of the people in the flood affected region. Theconclude that India should target for reducing Carbon
implications of this are very serious.emissions so as to pursue with its objectives of
>> Job losseseconomic development and eradication of
>> The list runspoverty.India should focus on building newer energy
All the above effects which would be causedsources and energy efficient products towards its
because of ignoring the climate change disasterspursuit for greener world. I hope to see a positive
have eventually resulted in hampering developmentmove from India towards this end in the Copenhagen
and creating more poverty which would have beenClimate Conference.
avoided otherwise.Global warming Skepticism
2. Costs incurred with spending on Reducing CarbonWith the leaking of emails and the documents from
emissions - CRthe Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the university of
There will be some significant costs associated withEast Anglia, UK the skeptics of Global warming who
spending (or rather investing) on reducing Carbonare arguing that climate change is not man-made
emissions. The following are the areas where thehave found new reason to support their claim. What
government has to chiefly spend if it makes aif the skeptics were right? Should India be not
commitment for Carbon emission reduction.bothered at all about reducing carbon emissions?
1. Spending on newer energy resourcesWatch out in the next post.
India should start spending (investing) in newer