India’s environment Minister disputes climate change impact

The following report is extremely worrying.
If an Environment Minister can get it so wrong about the Himalayan glaciers, then somewhere somehow the message is not getting through.
Too much emphasis is being placed on conferences where leaders make the expected pitch.
This article gives us an insight into why climate change is not on the political agenda for so many poor countries.
It’s on the conference agenda for sure but politicians with short term horizons (and little
care about their people) are miming their lines like Britney Spears.

Farid Bakht

India minister under fire over glaciers
Source: Agence France-Presse . New Delhi and http://www.newagebd.com

“India’s environment minister came under fire Tuesday from scientists for denying climate change was causing Himalayan glaciers to melt and disputing the work of the UN’s top global warming body.
The environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said Monday there was no ‘conclusive scientific evidence’ linking global warming to the melting of the glaciers and questioned work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC, a UN body regarded as the world’s top authority on climate change, has warned Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and could ‘disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner’.
Shresth Tayal, a glaciologist with The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, rejected a new report from an Indian scientist presented by Ramesh that denied the link between rising temperatures and receding ice.

‘This report is incomplete. It has been written with a biased approach,’ said Tayal, who labelled the findings ‘self-contradictory.’
‘Do you think any scientist needs to prove that warming causes melting of ice? If there is heat, ice is bound to melt.’
Tayal criticised the Indian government for endorsing the report by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, saying it should have analysed the results before making it public.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri also blasted the research by Raina, calling it ‘unsubstantiated’ and said Ramesh’s support of it was ‘arrogant.’

‘I cannot see what the minister’s motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening,’ he told Britain’s Guardian newspaper.
Ramesh admitted some glaciers were receding but said the rate was not ‘historically alarming’ as projected by the IPCC, the Hindustan Times daily reported.
‘The health of the Himalayan glaciers is poor, but according to the (research) paper the doomsday prediction of the IPCC and Al Gore is also not correct,’ Ramesh said, referring to former US vice-president and climate campaigner Al Gore.
Raina, who authored the research, echoed Ramesh, saying ‘nothing abnormal is happening to Indian glaciers.’
‘There’s no evidence of climate change,’ said Raina, according to the Hindustan Times newspaper.
Pachauri likened the explanations to ‘climate change deniers and schoolboy science’.
India’s attitude to the IPCC and other international findings on Himalayan glaciers has been marked by nationalist sentiment, with Ramesh repeatedly stressing that most research on the subject is done by non-Indians.

Climate change roundtable discussion on Bangladesh

The European Action Group on Climate Change in Bangladesh will be having a discussion this Thursday at the Whitechapel Gallery at 6PM.
It will be led by filmmakers & photographers – Hazuan Hashim and Phil Maxwell.
The convenor is Ansar Ahmad Ullah

Vote Green, not Brown (1)

The Vestas saga (New Labour duplicity on the low carbon economy) may have some consequences:
1) Union members will demand that many of their compromised leaders change tack and press for an industrial revival based partly on manufacturing renewables
2) We convince them about our vision of a low carbon economy placing industry in the centre – jobs, high technology and low emissions.
3) Among many Labour voters, the credibility of New Labour is terminally shattered as they are found out to be obsessed in kow-towing to carbon-trading multinationals and to Nuclear.

What I would like to see is now:
a) a continuing protest to force the government to step in and save Vestas
b) a practical Green vision of a series of wind turbine plants up and down the country. For example, setting up clean manufacturing in the Thames Gateway and other sites in London – how many Mega watts, how many jobs, and in which locality.

The Green New Deal gave a broad outline. Since then, we have had additions, for example, by Sean Thompson, on embedding that initial document with reducing inequality and wealth mal-distribution, with a firmer commitment towards nationalisation.

I would now like us to draw a picture of what a green industrial renewable landscape actually looks like by region.
For example, if we had the per capita wind energy capacity of Denmark or Germany, how many jobs would we create and how many factories would we have?
Would it ten or twenty Vestas plants in England and Wales?

Farid Bakht

Ed and Mandy aren’t talking

Germany has 250,000 working in their renewable energy sector. The UK? Less than 10,000.
Minus 600 more if this government allows Vestas to pack up their wind turbine factory, on the Isle of Wight.
Even then, those turbines were not being sold here, despite the hot air of nuclear-friendly New Labour, they failed to create demand for wind turbines.
Let’s get this straight. The other day, Ed Miliband tells us about his plans for ‘low carbon Britain’.
At the same time, the boss (Lord Mandelson) decides he cannot be bothered with Vestas. He has got his hands full trying to save TATA’s Jaguar….. and more car factories.

In a few months, in Copenhagen, we will hear more hot air from Brown and the rest as they tell us how they really, really do care about the world and climate change……
By the end of the next decade, Germany will have a million people plus working in a sector both high tech and job friendly.
Meanwhile, Cameron and Brown will sweep us towards a nuclear future – hardly any jobs, a decade late and hugely over-budget.

Welcome to low carbon – high unemployment Britain.

Farid Bakht

Energy efficiency grants in Tower Hamlets

This is today’s information on the council website.

East End Energy Savers
A grant from the Energy Saving Trust has enabled the setting up of a loan fund to assist residents in financing the installation of energy efficient measures in their homes.

The fund offers interest-free loans with repayment periods to suit your individual circumstances.

In addition the unit has negotiated discount rates with reputable energy efficiency installers, which are only available through the East End Energy Savers scheme.

We can also access grants for insulation and solar water heating.

Warm Front Scheme
The Warm Front Scheme is a government funded scheme which provides grants up to £2000 to make your home warmer, more energy efficient and more secure.

To be eligible for the scheme, you must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit and be a private sector resident (i.e. not housing association or council tenant).

The grant focuses on households with the greatest health risks. Older people, families with children under the age of 16 years and people who are disabled get priority.

MRA Energy Efficiency Scheme (for council tenants only)
This scheme provides loft insulation and draught sealing for council tenants in receipt of a qualifying benefit, or over 65.

London Warm Zone
The Warm Zone scheme is an East London Renewal partnership programme which provides grants to make your home warmer and more energy efficient.

To be eligible for the scheme, you must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit and be a private sector resident (i.e. not Housing Association or Council tenant).

The grant focuses on households with the greatest health risks. Older people, families with children under the age of 16 years and people who are disabled get priority.

How to contact us
For more information contact:

Private Housing Improvement Team (PHIT)
Development and Renewal
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Mulberry Place (AH)
PO Box 55739
5 Clove Crescent
London
E14 1BY

Tel: 020 7364 2521
Fax: 020 7364 2533

Email: energy.services@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Open: Mon to Fri 9am to 5pm

Xinjiang’s coal and gas

Beijing will do all it can to hang on to Xinjiang.
Besides its strategic location next to Afghanistan, it holds one quarter of China’s petroleum reserves and 40% of its coal.
Xinjiang also holds 17.4 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves.
In 2005, the West-East Gas Pipeline was built to supply gas from Xinjiang’s Tarim Basin (as well as from Central Asia) to Shanghai.
This will help reduce China’s huge dependence on coal eventually.
While the rest of the world uses gas for 25% of its energy consumption, the figure for China is only 2.5%.
Beijing plans to build another couple of pipelines in the province to fund its ‘Go West’ development programme i.e. do something about the impoverished western half of the country.
EurAsia is driven by competition over minerals, energy and pipelines.

Skin deep Tory ideas on climate change

The Greens have scrupulously analysed the Conservatives’ green paper number 8 on de-carbonising Britain, which was published in January and which forms the basis of current thinking at the top of the Conservative Party, if not necessarily amongst Tory MPs and councillors.

A communique from the Green Party said: “A few of the Tories’ new ideas closely mirror pre-existing Green Party policies – except that despite all experience, the Tories have preserved their somewhat naive faith in the market – while some of their ideas are frankly stupid, like building more nuclear power stations.

“Nuclear power is not and never will be green. It can’t deliver CO2 reductions as fast as we need them. It does nothing to help the green recovery we urgently need to tackle the recession. Nuclear sustains far fewer jobs per megawatt than renewables, so it will create too few jobs far too late.”

The communique continued:

“But the more closely you examine the Tory green paper, the more flaws and shortcomings appear.”

“They wholeheartedly back so-called ‘clean coal,’ even while they admit the technology isn’t yet proven and might not even be economical. But anyway, unlike renewables, carbon capture isn’t even zero-carbon, and it can’t deliver emissions reductions fast enough, because it doesn’t yet work. Also it will create far fewer jobs per megawatt than renewables.”

“They want high-speed rail links to replace some internal flights, but they won’t end the massive tax-breaks that make flying artificially cheap and attractive to consumers.”

“They misunderstand the issue of biofuels.”

“They speak warmly of offshore wind energy, but references to onshore wind in their green paper are few and potentially hostile.”

“They talk about ‘internalising externalities,’ the hidden costs including the bill for climate damage, but they haven’t even begun to
understand what that means.”

Flaws and inconsistencies

A forthcoming Green Party review of Tory policy will say the Conservatives’ tenuous grasp of climate change policy and of Green economics has resulted in some blatant inconsistencies in the Conservative approach. For example:

The Tories say: “Our gas dependency is particularly worrying. Gas represents more than a third of our energy mix today, up from 10 per cent in 1970.” Yet elsewhere in the same document they congratulate themselves on bringing about the “dash for gas” in the 1990s. So they themselves, through the privatisation and liberalisation of the UK’s energy industry, helped bring about the situation they now call “worrying.”

The Tories say: “This new dependence on foreign fossil fuels means that the UK is now more exposed to … major national security risks” (1) Yet they would have the UK rely to a large extent on imported coal, and of course they’ll also rely on imported uranium for the nuclear industry, the Green critique will say.

Pakistan on brink of ‘water disaster’

www.dailytimes.com.pk

* Study by International Rivers predicts extreme changes in Himalayan river flows due to global warming, climate change

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Pakistan is on the brink of ‘water disaster’ as a new study has predicted accelerated melting of glaciers and depletion of massive waters in the Indus Basin Rivers.

It is believed that Pakistan’s water availability would plunge to 800 cubic meters per capita annually by 2020 from the current 1,200 cubic metres. Just 60 years ago, 5,000 cubic meters of water was available to every Pakistani citizen.

The study titled ‘Mountains of Concrete: Dam Building in the Himalayas’, believes that threats of floods caused by glacial lake outburst were on the rise with possible failures of downstream dams. There are predictions of dramatic decrease in flows in the Indus basin in the next 100 years, the study said.

Global warming: The study, undertaken by Sripad Dharmadhikari of Manthan Adhyayan Kendra for International Rivers, an organisation that works to defend the rights of communities around the world that depend on rivers, predicts extreme changes in river flows due to global warming and climate change. The study has, however, not taken into account the effect of annual Hindu pilgrimages to Indus line glaciers in the Kashmir Valley and other Himalayan regions. The annual Amarnath pilgrimage on Thajwasan glaciers feeding Indus River witnesses 20,000 pilgrims every day between June and August every year. On the other hand, the Indian government has restricted 250 pilgrims per day to Gumukh glaciers feeding the Ganges River in Uttrakhand state.

The study believes that a renewed push in recent years for building dams in the Himalayan region, including in Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan, could lead to the highest concentration of dams in the world.

As glaciers melt, water in the rivers will rise and dams would be subjected to much higher flows, raising concerns of dam safety, increased flooding and submergence.

Presenting his study, Dharmadhikari pointed out that the dam building in the Himalayas would transform the landscape, ecology and economy of the region. It would have far-reaching impact all the way down to the river deltas. Submergence of lands, homes, fields and forests on a large scale would displace hundreds of thousands of people, he said, adding it would severely disrupt the downstream flows, impacting agriculture, fisheries and threatening livelihoods of entire populations.

Labour shows its true colours over Heathrow

Before the credit crunch, Labour quickly donned a green suit. Now, they are giving up the pretence and going back to grey.

Of course,  they are vainly putting a green gloss over the inexcusable decision to allow a third runway. By diverting us on the pledge for a high speed hub around Heathrow, they are only fooling themselves.

This, after BAA embarassingly admitted that passenger numbers are 1.4% down as the recession (and sterling’s collapse) bites.

Even the Conservatives are against the third runway, though they spoil it by looking for increases in other airports (which shows flexible Cameron is an opportunist green and sees this as helpful to soften the harsher edges of an unreconstructed right wing party).

From a local perspective, there is more than enough runway capacity for the residents of Tower Hamlets to fly to Sylhet, in case you wondered. That’s not the point.

It’s short haul flights to Spain and the other tourist destinations that’s the critical problem.

Rather than wasting billions on a third runway, the Labour government should have used that money to invest in a publicly owned railway network – modern, cheaper and lower in carbon emissions.

Look at Europe to see how high speed travel can be in government hands and still be modern, punctual and cheap.

They used to say Labour was beholden to the Unions. New Labour is beholden to the lobbies of Big Business.

Incidently, by running roughshod over local residents, New Labour will ensure that some of its brighter, more honest MPs such as John McDonnell, lose their seats.

As for some of the Unions, comments made about exaggerated numbers of jobs and how ‘vital’ it is for the busiest airport in Europe to become even more of a monster, reveal that some Trade Union leaders see their function as cheerleaders of ‘their’ government.

Farid Bakht

Leading the way to oblivion

 On Saturday, I joined several thousand people on the climate change march from outside the US embassy to parliament square.

It was a good humoured affair in spite of the seriousness of the issue, timed to coincide with re talks in Potsdam. The media found other things to focus on that day – football, Greek riots and Xmas shopping statistics.
What they missed was a curious political phenomenon.

Two leaders were present at re rally. One came across well, projecting her voice.
She was on familiar territory – this was after all a core party issue. Caroline Lucas, the green party’s recently elected leader, had relaunched the party with the Green New Deal. This mini manifesto was a populist document, more palatable to the media, is still the best roadmap out there – though it is not clear how it sits with the real party manifesto.
Easy to understand, it is meant to allow GP activists to engage with re public on serous issues.
and show the Party has a plan for jobs and the wider economy.

It can be criticized for trying to save existing capitalism and its backdrop of Roosevelt and Churchill quotes from an imperial era. Pre-Lehman Brothers it seemed very radical early September. Now as even Cameron acknowledges, the world has changed.
Whatever its merits, the eager beavers expecting a media blitz with a New Green party will be chastened by the damp squib of a campaign since September.
It seems the media feel the environment can be discarded as we worry about the Great Recession 1.
The Greens face an uphill task to be heard in 2009. No change there, then.

The real story on Saturday was about the other leader.
Nick Clegg had sent out a clarion call to LIb Dem activists to turn out in large numbers
After a week of build up in the Independent, this was to be his bid for leadership of the green movement – at least the so-called Middle England voters. In a way, one could say he was suggesting there was no need to vote Green, when the Lib-Dems (a more ‘serious’ party!) was available. Reminiscent of the Ken vs anonymous Green Party mayoral candidate charade earlier this year.

What a fiasco for Clegg.

In a sea of green, there was hardly a yellow banner or badge to be seen.
The Lib Dems snubbed Clegg and the grassroots probably now realize they have elected the wrong leader. He has moved the party to the right in one of the worst political blunders this decade. His timing was atrocious.
In reality, the cult of the leader might have been appropriate for the anodyne politics in the era of the credit boom. Politics was bunched up in the Right, though we called it the centre-ground. The only differentiation was presentation and ‘personality’.
The electorate is now polarizing – to Left and Right. Times are tough.
The last thing they want is another Blairite chief executive, focusing on marginal seats and searching for the holy grail of the Centre.
The world has indeed changed.
Will the courtiers to all leaders understand that fact quickly enough?

Farid Bakht