

Sikkim’s Teesta River
![]() |
| The beautiful Teesta River of Sikkim |
Editor’s Note: Few issues of scaleable energy are harder to parse and assess than hydropower. It is renewable, it is 24 hour, it can be throttled back, the capacity is massive. At capacity China’s Three Gorges complex outputs somewhat over 17.0 gigawatts. India’s entire hydroelectric capacity is about 35 gigawatts. The “hydel” (hydro-electric) dams India plans to build in the Teesta river systems will pour another 5.0 gigawatts into India’s electric power grid. Sikkim will be an energy exporter. And the dams will consume lands and habitats and ecosystems will be drowned.
Who can make the call? The Teesta River system is one of the most beautiful watersheds of wild river left in the world. It is an unspoiled treasure of surpassing beauty. These wild rivers of Sikkim are about to be tamed, fresh water will be harvested and stored, and they will generate hydro-electric energy. What if we had no ice melt? What if we needed to store the water? Building water storage capacity is not necessarily a bad idea - what if storage and hydropower could be implemented off main watercourses? What sort of green dam engineering could be put to work in Sikkim? To simply build a dam, a powerhouse and a reservoir on every river, inundating every valley, every village, eliminating every white water haven - that is not necessarily a good idea.
On the other hand, more electricity and water abundance is worth something. There is no justification for doing anything to harm the earth or the people living on it; not one earthworm is beyond the precious purview of the environmentalist. And that is not a bad idea. So where do we leave the footprint of public utilities, so there are adequate power and water supplies for people? Should no project be began, anywhere? No large scale energy or water development can fail to be at some level to be arbitrary, unfair, heedless, yet to continue to adapt as a civilization we must balance benefits as best we can. - Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| “Let Us, Live In Our Homeland, We Want Freedom From Hydel Project” Source: Affected Communities of Teesta (ACT) |
The ‘God’s Own Garden’ is in peril! The only state in India claim to have green manifesto in its developmental path is going to be seriously dismantled by the state itself.
The Green Protection Index- Sikkim government’s initiative for environment protection- sordidly overlooks the environmental and cultural disruptions due to several hydel power initiatives on the Teesta River and its major tributaries.
The state government’s hydel spree of more than two dozens of projects on the Teesta River basin has been facing severe protest in the tiny Himalayan state. In the true sense of Gandhian non-violence, the indigenous communities of Sikkim are continuing their indefinite hunger strike for more than 165 days against the proposed construction of hydel projects since June 20, 2007. Various community organisation led by Affected Communities of Teesta (ACT), along with the Concerned Lepchas of Sikkim (CLOS) and the Sangha of Dzongu are protesting projects proposed in North Sikkim, particularly in Dzongu, the holy land and exclusive reserve of the Lepcha indigenous community.
![]() |
| Source: Site of Indefinite Hunger Strike, Affected Communities of Teesta (ACT) |
The 30 MW Rathong Chu project in West Sikkim was abandoned as the lamas (Monks) protested against its impacts on the sacred landscape. A senior monk Sonam Paljor Denjongpa of the Chorten Gonpa, Deorali, Gangtok said that some of hydel projects will destroy the heart of the sacred land, Dzongue.
33 year old Dawa Tsering Lepcha who lives in Lingdong Village, in the Dzongu Lepcha Reserve in North Sikkim, and Secretary of ACT, says, “The proposed hydropower projects will have a drastic effect on the social, cultural and religious well-being of Lepchas, not to mention on the fragile environment of Dzongu, our ancestral and present homeland in north Sikkim.” Dzongu has been reserved for the Lepcha community and borders the Kanchenjungha Biosphere Reserve, which hosts a large number of biological curiosity. The Lepchas are one of the three ethnic communities resides in Sikkim. The 40,568 Lepchas as per the 2001 census, who call themselves the Rong-pa, are Sikkim’s earliest inhabitants and popularly classified as hunting-gathering forest-dwelling primitive groups. The culture, customs and traditions of the Lepchas are inextricably linked to the nature. However, now the Lepachas are facing serious threat of their existence. Tenzing Lepcha, 23 years from Heegyathang village which resides 70 Lepcha family in Dzongu province says, “We want development but not on our existence cost.”
Early September, under the pressure from the indigenous communities, the state government has ordered to halt all the five hydel power projects in Dzongu till a review committee submit its report within 100 days. On September 10th, the ACT responded with a Press Statement rejecting the government’s statement and continuing their struggle. Dawa Lepcha says, “The entire process of constituting the Committee, appointing its members, formulating its TOR etc is done without any consultation with ACT.”
Development of Power installations in Sikkim
Sikkim has been declared a 100 percent electrified state in 1995 as per definition of Rural Electrification Corporation of India- a federal government enterprise (http://recindia.nic.in/). However, the foundation of power was established in 1927 with the commissioning of first hydel project at Lower Sichey Busty on the bank of Ranikhola River near Gangtok with the installed capacity of 50 KW. This was distributed through 3.3KV overhead transmission line to the Royal Family and Gangtok town. Till 1954, this was managed and operated by only two persons.
The Ranikhola hydel station was further augmented in the year 1935 by adding 60KW generating set. In 1957, keeping in view of growing demand for electricity and as a standby measure, a Diesel power house was established and commissioned with a capacity of 257 KW. This was upgraded to 4 MW from the previous capacity in 1998.
Till the end of 1975, the state was having a generation capacity of only 3MW from its small hydel projects (SHP) like Jali Power House, Rimbi Micro Hydel, Rothak Micro Hydel, Manul Micro Hydel Power House and Diesel Power House at Gangtok. The 60 MW Rangit Hydel project in West Sikkim was commissioned in 1999. A 2 MW Kalez Khola hydel project in Dentam in West Sikkim and 3 MW Rabomchu power project in North Sikkim were commissioned in 1995-96 and 1998, respectively.
The state nodal agency for renewable energy has installed 1,000 solar home lighting systems and 5 solar water heating systems. Till 31st March, 2007 a total of 16 Solar Home Lighting Systems, 162 Solar Street Lighting Systems, 720 Solar Lanterns, 15 kWp aggregate capacities of solar photovoltaic plants, 5 solar water heating systems of 156 sq m collector area and 20 solar cookers have been installed in the state.
![]() |
| The 60 MW Rangit Power House Source: Government of Sikkim |
The State government is expected to commission 22 power projects by 2012.
A total of 5148 MW capacity hydel power generation will be added by the end of 11th Five Year Plan. From these projects, the State Power & Energy Department says, the state government will get 12 percent of free power.
At present the total Installed Capacity of the state is 95.70 MW. The per capita consumption of electricity in the state is 182 KWh. However, the government estimates total hydro power potential is 5505 MW. Out of which, a total capacity 5257 MW of 27 projects have been formulated (See Table-1).
The State government’s vision document enshrines the fulfilment of this hydro potential (http://sikkim.gov.in/ASP/Visiondocument/POWER.htm). Under the Prime Minister’s 50,000 MW initiatives, the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) have prepared Preliminary Feasibility Report (PFRs) of 162 schemes which are located in 16 states. Under this scheme, the Sikkim government has been allocated 10 schemes of 1469 MW of installed capacity.
| TABLE: SIKKIM HYDRO POWER PROJECTS ALLOTTED TO PRIVATE & PUBLIC SECTOR |
![]() |
| The proposed Hydel sites on the rivers in Sikkim; over 5.0 gigawatts of capacity Source: Department of Power and Energy, Government of Sikkim |
Carrying Capacity of Teesta Basin
The State as well as the Federal Government wants to harness the vast hydropower potential of Teesta River as well its tributaries. Out of 104 rivers and streams in the state, the state government has taken up six stage ‘cascade’ plan to harness 3635 MW of hydropower within 175 kms of the Teesta River flows across in Sikkim (See Table -1). The perennial Teesta, fed by the snow and glaciers of Kanchenjungha and great Himalayas, is also an international river flows through the territories of India (Sikkim and West Bengal) and Bangladesh. The proposed and on-going projects are criticised for its various negligence on environmental aspects, forest clearances and public participations. The State environment department had also detected several violations of forest laws by the projects.
Ramamurthy Sreedhar, Earth Scientist and Director of Academy of Mountain Environics (http://www.environicsindia.in/) says, “The projects in Sikkim must be considered in a completely different light, as apart from the ecological implications for which comprehensive carrying capacity studies were to be made, the unique cultural situation and aspirations of the people have to be taken into account”. A study on Carrying Capacity of Teesta Basin in Sikkim has been initiated in the year 2001. The Study is sponsored by National Hydro electric Power Corporation (NHPC) and coordinated by the Centre for Inter-disciplinary Study of Mountain and Hill Environment (CISMHE), Delhi University. The objective of the study was to help in formulating guidelines for overall development of Teesta Basin. Reading through the volumes of the draft Carrying Capacity study of Teesta Basin is scary. However, the findings of the study are yet to be officially put in the public domain.
The study says that the ecology and the geology are so fragile that if any development project is undertaken, proper studies have to be done before that. The study also mentions that tunnelling will be difficult in the types of rocks present in north Sikkim. The Study also predicts more landslides and landslips, which has already increased due to construction of roads.
Souprna Lahiri, senior member of National Federation For Forest People and Forest Worker (NFFPFW) who also works with groups in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh on the issue of hydel projects, says, “One of the conditions for according environmental clearance to Teesta Stage V was that no further clearances will be given to any hydel project till the carrying capacity study of Teesta is carried out. The study is yet to be officially published but at least two projects Teesta State III and Panan has been cleared”.
The international aspect of sharing the Teesta water is yet to be resolved between India and Bangladesh. Despite the Joint River Commissions of Indo-Bangladesg (JRC) reached an agreement in 1983 for two years to utilise the quantum of water, the issue has not been resolved yet. The impeding demand on Teesta water is definitely creating bilateral skirmishes despite institutional mechanism to resolve the problem is available like Joint Committee of Experts (JCE) on sharing of waters of Teesta and a Joint Technical Group (JTG) on sharing of Teesta Waters.
Bangladesh constructed a barrage on the Teesta River in 1990 to provide irrigation water for crop production in the Teesta Barrage Project (TBP) area. India has also constructed a barrage on this river upstream. However, unilateral withdrawal of water in India upstream, limits irrigation water availability in the TBP area. Water sharing with India is crucial in achieving food security and sustainable livelihood in Bangladesh.
![]() |
| Teesta Phase III Source: ACT |
The Government’s Argument
The Federal Agencies are taking serious notes of the development in Dzongu Province. In early January coming year, a member of Planning Commission may pay a visit to see the ground zero situation in Dzongu province. However, the State government is buying time to restart the projects. In a Public Hearing (mandatory for every project in India) initiated by the Sikkim State Pollution Control Board, in June 2006 in Dzongu, the government agencies cajoled, intimidated and persuaded the communities and people through their introductory notes for the hydel projects before disseminating information regarding the projects.
This process of public hearing has been questioned at large in all over India. During the Public Hearing, the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board in her speech asked the people to support the hydel projects and should not carried away by the remarks of people who opposed the projects. The local legislature who is also the Health Minister of the present administration said during the Hearings as ‘there is not a single person displaced by this project’. However, Mr Lahiri rues, “In the Public Hearings there was considerable opposition to the project, in case of Panan, 100 per cent said no, in case of Teesta III it was 50 per cent. In the Teesta III PH, those who raised concern and protested against the project were termed as anti-social and anti national by the chairperson of the SPCB.”
The state officials have been arguing for the revenue generation amounting approximately two billion rupees from these projects per annum. The State Department claims that 100 percent of the jobs generated in these power projects are being given to the local people depending upon their qualifications. According to the government, the benefits from these hydel projects would contribute to the national GDP growth, revenues from free power and environment cess, clean power as CDM perspective, employment generation and local area development but, as community believes, at the cost of environment and unique culture.
| MAP: SIKKIM HYDRO POWER PROJECTS ALLOTTED TO PRIVATE & PUBLIC SECTOR |
![]() |
| The proposed Hydel sites on the rivers in Sikkim; over 5.0 gigawatts of capacity Source: Department of Power and Energy, Government of Sikkim |
Conclusion:
During their last two days protest in New Delhi (December 5-6, 2007), the communities from Dzongu has met various officials, conveyed their grievances, and pledged to carry forward their peaceful protest against the upcoming hydel projects in coming days. The Constitutional provision of cultural rights which are also fundamental rights will be in jeopardy in Dzongu province if the concerns of the Lepcha community are not addressed adequately and immediately.
> |
About the Author: Avilash Roul, a doctoral fellow on international environmental negotiations, has been writing, advocating, researching, creating knowledge on Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. Earlier, he worked with Down To Earh (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India). He also contributed regularly in Sundays for a column in New India Express on environment and development. More recently, Mr. Roul worked as an Assistant South Asia Regional Coordinator for the Bank Information Center (www.bicusa.org), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank, regional development banks, and the International Monetary Fund. Presently, he contributes his time on researching and empowering and building capacity of various communities on environment risk management, climate change, forest, mining, water and wildlife issues in South Asia as well as advisor to Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict - a Delhi Based think tank.
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
![]() |
| This decentralized wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to serve 150 households. |
Editor’s Note: When addressing the challenge to provide abundant clean energy and water, decentralized solutions are becoming increasingly attractive. By distributing the infrastructure of everything from energy generation to wastewater treatment, you avoid the costly necessity to maintain a grid. Whether it is the electric power grid or underground pipes that deliver water and remove sewage, the more decentralized solutions there are, the more the public infrastructure can be downsized.
In this report by Tom Bartlett, the economic benefits of small scale sewage treatment plants are explained. The cost per home to construct a neighborhood sewage treatment plant is under $2,000, and these small-scale plants will last at least 50 years, with minimal maintenance other than a weekly inspection, and sludge removal every two years. Compare this with the costs to lay “big pipe” to huge centralized water treatment plants - an option that becomes prohibitively expensive the further a development is from an urban center.
With respect to sewage treatment, decentralized solutions often can yield better environmental benefits as well. By treating the water upstream, neighborhood assets requiring irrigation can receive the treated discharge, which in-turn can percolate underground and help refill aquifers. Large-scale sewage treatment plants are often unable to make use of the treated water and instead of being recycled and returned to the aquifers upstream, much of it is discharged into rivers.
Because of recent technological advances, spanning the gamut from affordable photovoltaics to nano-tech water filtration membranes, decentralized solutions to energy and water supply are better than ever. This belies the conventional wisdom that we are entering an age of resource scarcity, as energy and water is being harvested and reused more efficiently than ever. This also changes the game of development and public infrastructure. With green cars and off-grid energy and water solutions, appropriate developments don’t necessarily have to be within the footprint of existing cities, or within existing centralized public infrastructure. - Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| With a capacity of roughly 200,000 gallons per day, these off-grid plants can be constructed at a cost of well under $2,000 per home. |
One of the biggest challenges to implementing comprehensive land use plans is how to accommodate new development in locally designated growth areas that do not have public sewers. Many rural and suburbanized towns in the US face this question.
They want to direct growth to the most suitable areas of town - near existing services, such as fire stations and schools, for example - but have no prospect of gaining access to public sewer lines. New development must rely on soils, usually on a lot by lot basis, to handle wastewater. The conventional wisdom says that means low densities of development, negating the effectiveness of a growth area. However, towns and counties without public sewer systems have options that they may not realize.
Additionally, watersheds in the United States reflect tremendous diversity of climatic conditions, geology, soils, and other factors that influence water flow, flora and fauna. There is equally great variation in historical experience, cultural expression, institutional arrangements, laws, policies and attitudes. With regards to wastewater issues, it would be a mistake to impose a standard model from the federal level to address the needs on a local level. Correspondingly, centralized sewer systems are aging, frequently under funded with respect to replacement costs and expensive to maintain. In addition centralized sewer strategies are increasingly challenged by environmental and social considerations such as inter-basin transfer issues, aquifer depletion, nutrient loading and urban sprawl.
Decentralized wastewater management has the potential to be the catalyst for the re-creation of our institutions, to support a new agenda, and for rapidly building a flexible infrastructure to sustain the integrity of the natural systems that are essential to a healthy economy. The new emerging civic agenda of smart growth, community preservation, open space planning, ecologically sound economic development, resource conservation, and watershed management demands that we re-think what constitutes assets and liabilities. These are economic, environmental and quality of life issues and they do not lend themselves to single purpose solutions. They require local community based consideration within the context of flexible multi-purpose planning.
![]() |
| Diagram of sewage treatment process using a trickling filter over a clarifier. This technology is used on smaller residential projects. |
Statistics have shown us that within the U.S., 25% of existing residential real estate and 47% of new construction are served by onsite treatment systems. Many of these systems are acknowledged to be inadequate with respect to soil absorption, nutrient removal, resource protection and public health. Ironically, despite these demographics and EPA policy changes, most regulatory codes as well as most municipal and commercial planning continue to consider onsite systems to be temporary solutions awaiting a conventional sewer hookup.
Looking beyond the traditional assumption that wastewater is simply a matter of safe disposal and the public health, the real contemporary wastewater issues are the economic and environmental issues in which the public has a primary interest:
1 - Drinking water quality
2 - Deterioration of recreational water resources and other natural systems services
3 - Property Values
4 - Economic development in small and rural communities
5 - Urban sprawl
Decentralized wastewater management is not just about the disposal of wastewater and the public health. It has the potential to contribute to the formation of an infrastructure to sustain watershed integrity. Decentralized wastewater treatment is about the “watershed agenda” and the principles of “community preservation” and “sustainable development”. When approaches to the real wastewater issues are successfully accomplished everyone benefits.
1 - Local communities win open space zoning, water quality and supply protection, increased development capacity and an expanding tax base.
2 - Natural systems are sustained through prudent zoning and reduction of non-point pollution.
3 - Developers win additional lots for development and higher margins typically associated with conservation subdivision design and municipal infrastructure.
4 - Regulation wins because it gains partners in compliance management such as the municipality and perhaps a watershed authority.
5 - Citizens and homeowners win because property values are enhanced with municipal infrastructure, water quality and supply management is improved, and economic development and quality of life issues are not restricted by infrastructure limitations.
![]() |
| This golf course in New Zealand is being irrigated by reclaimed wastewater through drip irrigation. |
There are no major obstacles to a decentralized infrastructure for wastewater treatment.
New technologies in a properly managed context, provide the opportunity for a land based watershed initiative that could significantly reduce small flow point source discharges such as those associated with onsite treatment systems. A decentralized wastewater management infrastructure should include:
1 - Clustered, performance-based, decentralized wastewater management systems
2 - Industrial & commercial pretreatment prior to discharge to existing sewage treatment systems
3 - Wastewater reuse systems
Estimates suggest that this infrastructure is achievable with technologies that require 50% to 70% less space with corresponding reductions in cost of 40% to 50%. For citizens in small and rural communities these reductions represent opportunities to preserve water quality, to stimulate economic development and job formation and to restore property values. Essentially, we are shifting from large sewage collection systems and centralized treatment plants to small and decentralized management systems. Keep in mind also that this is not an alternative to centralized sewer. Rather, it is a complimentary adjunct to the existing infrastructure.
Moreover, the decentralized solution is coming from local community and watershed needs. It is not coming from the bureaucracy. It is essentially good old bottoms up American pragmatism. It is important, therefore, that community people remain committed to the decentralized approach. We must find a suitable mechanism to accelerate the progress to support watershed management. If we can not find such a mechanism, we run the risk of letting the limited existing strategies (centralized and onsite) dominate the next 20 to 30 year cycle.
![]() |
Tom Bartlett is the CEO of Aqua Tech Systems, specializing in the decentralized approach to wastewater systems and management. Serving a wide range of private and public clients, Aquatech utilizes a collaborative approach with equipment companies, land planners, engineers, private consultants, utility providers, lending institutions and contractors to develop tailored solutions for infrastructure design. Founded in 1999, Aqua Tech Systems and its affiliates are professionals dedicated to providing wastewater solutions for the growing needs of today’s communities, providing the necessary resources to allow their clients to make decisions that are economically sound, environmentally responsible and socially equitable. Based in Arkansas and servicing clients all over North America, Aquatech can be reached at 479-527-9880 and Tom Bartlett can be reached directly at 479-530-7922 or emailed at tom@aquatechsys.com
35 Inconvenient Truths
![]() |
| Is climate change endangering the Polar Bear? |
Editor’s Note: When you strip away the ideology, the truth still matters, so not just for balance but for integrity, we continue to post features like this. The denial industry is not going to go away until the truth is known, and truth can withstand skepticism. And what if the skeptics are right?
In October 2007, a British judge ruled the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had nine inaccuracies. And shortly thereafter, in reference to this movie, another British person, Chris Monckton, wrote “35 Inconvenient Truths,” republished with permission by EcoWorld here. Not nine, but 35 inaccuracies. In reading this compilation you have to wonder whether we aren’t getting carried away. How many sweeping political and economic mandates will come of this? How many civil suits? How many regulations, subsidies, taxes, and trades?
Reading this feature - which certainly has several valid points - presents the question of what else? Is every weather event imbued with inflections of doom and guilt, the numerical or factual basis unquestioned, the inflections informed by emotion instead of due diligence? Is climate-change alarm influencing reporting on business and politics? Should someone simply believe in anthropogenic global warming, “AGW,” because they want to believe in AGW because all the collective action we may take on behalf of AGW is good? Maybe yes, and maybe not.
Because even if AGW is real, would unleashing the power of free enterprise to adapt to changing climate realities be a better use of resources than trying to eliminate combustion through massive new transfers of wealth from the private sector to the public sector? In our view, $100 dollars per barrel of oil is a sufficient incentive for alternative energy to have a chance. Further, eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel should come before new taxes and subsidies to develop alternative energy. Reforming the public sector should come before any new taxes.
One of Monckton’s points, #30, deserves highlighting - like many of us, he rejects the position that CO2 is pollution. Without CO2 plants could not have photosynthesis, which is necessary for plants to grow and generates oxygen for humans to breath. Plants cannot breath without CO2. For such a fundamental misconception to enter into law via the U.S. Supreme Court ought to alert anyone to the fact something is wrong here. Let the gardens of private land and the gardens of public discourse adapt and benefit from this truth; CO2 is life, and airborne toxic molecules and particulates are something else altogether. In that spirit, on with the story. - Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| Al Gore delivering his famous presentation. But are his arguments really beyond debate? |
In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine “errors” in the movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
A Gore spokesperson and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, has issued a questionable response to this news. She begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction - towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.
#1 - Sea Level Rising Six Meters:
Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise.
The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by nearly 10,000 percent.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change.
![]() |
The report also mentions the possibility that there may be an unquantified further contribution in future from these two ice sheets arising from “dynamical ice flow.” However, the Greenland ice sheet rests in a depression in the bedrock created by its own weight, wherefore “dynamical ice flow” is impossible, and the IPCC says that temperature would have to be sustained at more than 5.5 degrees C above its present level for several millennia before half the Greenland ice sheet could melt, causing sea level to rise by some 3 m (10 ft).
Finally, the IPCC’s 2007 report estimates that the likelihood that humankind is having any influence on sea level at all is little better than 50:50.
The judge was accordingly correct in finding that Gore’s presentation of the imagined imminent threat of a 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise, with his account of the supposed impact on the present-day populations of Manhattan, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc., etc, was not a correct statement of the mainstream science on this question.
#2 - Pacific islands “drowning”
Gore says low-lying inhabited Pacific coral atolls are already being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming, leading to the evacuation of several island populations to New Zealand. However, the atolls are not being inundated, except where dynamiting of reefs or over-extraction of fresh water by local populations has caused damage.
![]() |
Furthermore, corals can grow at ten times the predicted rate of increase in sea level. It is not by some accident or coincidence that so many atolls reach just a few feet above the ocean surface.
Ms. Kreider says, “The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.” However, the IPCC cannot be basing its estimate on sea-level rise, since even its maximum projected rise of just 30 cm (1 ft) by 2050 would not cause significant coastal flooding or shoreline erosion. There are several coastlines (the east coast of England, for instance) where the land is sinking as a consequence of post-ice-age isostatic recovery, or where (as in Bangladesh) tectonic subduction is similarly causing the land to sink. But such natural causes owe nothing to sea-level rise.
There have been no mass evacuations of populations of islanders as suggested by Gore, though some residents of Tuvalu have asked to be moved to New Zealand, even though the tide-gauges maintained until recently by the National Tidal Facility of Australia show a mean annual sea-level rise over the past half-century equivalent to the thickness of a human hair. The problem with the Carteret Islands, mentioned by Ms. Kreider, arose not because of rising sea levels but because of imprudent dynamiting of the reefs by local fishermen.
![]() |
In the Maldives, a detailed recent study showed that sea levels were unchanged today compared with 1250 years ago, though they have been higher in much of the intervening period, and have very seldom been lower.
A well-established tree very close to the Maldivian shoreline and only inches above sea level was recently uprooted by Australian environmentalists anxious to destroy this visible proof that sea level cannot have risen very far.
#3 - Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
Gore says “global warming” may shut down the thermohaline circulation in the oceans, which he calls the “ocean conveyor,” plunging Europe into an ice age. It will not. A paper published in 2006 says: “Analyses of ocean observations and model simulations suggest that changes in the thermohaline circulation during the last century are likely the result of natural multidecadal climate variability. Indications of a sustained thermohaline circulation weakening are not seen during the last few decades. Instead, a strengthening since the 1980s is observed.”
Ms. Kreider, for Mr. Gore, says that “multiple scientists” have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor. Disruption, perhaps: shutdown, no. It is now near-universally accepted that the thermohaline circulation cannot be and will not be shut down by “global warming,” and the film should have been corrected to reflect the consensus.
#4 - CO2 “driving temperature”
Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore’s film had relied had made clear.
Ms. Kreider says it is true that “greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit.” This does not address Gore’s error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration.
The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).
Ms. Kreider refers readers to a “more complete description” available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” - i.e., the graph was useless.
#5 - Snows of Kilimanjaro “melting”
Gore says “global warming” has been melting the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
The melting of the Furtwangler Glacier at the summit of the mountain began 125 years ago. More of the glacier had melted before Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936 than afterward.
Temperature at the summit never rises above freezing and is at an average of 7 Celsius. The cause of the melting is long-term climate shifts exacerbated by imprudent regional deforestation, and has nothing to do with “global warming.”
Ms. Kreider says, “Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating.” However, a recent survey of the glaciers in the tropical Andes shows that they were largely ice-free in the past 10,000 years, except on the very highest peaks. The mere fact of warming or melting, therefore, tells us nothing of the cause.
Ms. Kreider says, “Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing.” However, since the temperature at the summit of Kilimanjaro remains below freezing and has not risen in 30 years, “global warming” is not “exacerbating the stresses” at the summit of Kilimanjaro.
#6 - Lake Chad “drying up”
Gore says “global warming” dried up Lake Chad in Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. Ms. Kreider says, “There are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad.” However, the scientific consensus is that at present those “stresses” do not include “global warming.”
#7 - Hurricane Katrina “man made”
Gore says Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. It was caused by the failure of Gore’s party, in the administration of New Orleans, to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers that the levees dams that kept New Orleans dry could not stand a direct hit by a hurricane. Katrina was only Category 3 when it struck the levees. They failed, as the Engineers had said they would. Gore’s party, not “global warming,” was to blame for the consequent death and destruction.
![]() |
Ms. Kreider says, “Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.” What Gore actually says, however, addresses the frequency not only of hurricanes but also of typhoons and tornadoes
“We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.”
![]() |
For the record, however, the number of Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend over the past half century; the number of typhoons has fallen throughout the past 30 years; the number of tornadoes has risen only because of better detection systems for smaller tornadoes; but the number of larger tornadoes in the US has fallen.
#8 - Polar bear “dying”
Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of “global warming.” They are not. The study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. The real threat to polar bears is not “global warming” but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000.
Ms. Kreider says sea-ice “was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007.” She does not say that the measurements, which are done by satellite, go back only 29 years. She does not say that the North-West Passage, a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, or that Amundsen passed through in a sailing vessel in 1903.
#9 - Coral reefs “bleaching”
Gore says coral reefs are “bleaching” because of “global warming.” They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year. Two similarly severe El Ninos over the past 250 years also caused extensive bleaching. “Global warming” was nothing to do with it.
Ms. Kreider says, “The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs.” So they have: but the bleaching in 1998 occurred as a result not of “global warming” but of a rare, though not unique, severe El Nino Southern Oscillation.
#10 - 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
Gore implies that the difference of just 100 parts per million by volume in CO2 concentration between an interglacial temperature maximum and an ice-age temperature minimum causes “the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head.” It does not. Gore’s implication has the effect of overstating the mainstream consensus estimate of the effect of CO2 on temperature at least tenfold.
Temperature changes by up to 12 degrees C between glacial minima and interglacial maxima, but CO2 concentration changes by no more than 100 ppmv. Gore is accordingly implying that 100 ppmv can cause a temperature increase of up to 12 degrees C. However, the consensus as expressed by the IPCC is that 100 ppmv of increased CO2 concentration, from 180 to 280 ppmv, would increase radiant energy flux in the atmosphere by 2.33 watts per square meter, or less than 1.2 degrees Celsius including the effect of temperature feedbacks.
#11 - Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
Gore says that Hurricane Caterina, the only hurricane ever to strike the coast of Brazil, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. In 2004, Brazil’s summer sea surface temperatures were cooler than normal, not warmer. But air temperatures were the coldest in 25 years. The air was so much colder than the water that it caused a heat flux from the water to the air similar to that which fuels hurricanes in warm seas.
#12 - Japanese typhoons “a new record”
Gore says that 2004 set a new record for the number of typhoons striking Japan. It did not. The trend in the number of typhoons, and of tropical cyclones, has fallen throughout the past 50 years. The trend in rainfall from cyclones has also fallen, and there has been no trend in monsoon rainfall.
#13 - Hurricanes “getting stronger”
![]() |
Gore says scientists had been giving warnings that hurricanes will get stronger because of “global warming.” They will not. Over the past 60 years there has been no change in the strength of hurricanes, even though hydrocarbon use went up six-fold in the same period. Research by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, cited by Ms. Kreider, has been discredited by more recent findings that wind-shear effects tend to nullify the amplification of hurricane strength which he had suggested, and, of course, by the observed failure of hurricanes to gain strength during the past 60 years of “global warming.”
#14 - Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
![]() |
Gore says insurance losses arising from large storms and other extreme-weather events are increasing, by implication because of “global warming.” They are not. Insured losses, as a percentage of the population of coastal areas in the path of hurricanes, were lower even in 2005 than they had been in 1925. In 2006, a very quiet hurricane season, Lloyds of London posted their biggest-ever profit: £3.6 billion.
#15 - Mumbai “flooding”
![]() |
Gore says flooding in Mumbai is increasing, by implication because of “global warming.” It is not. Rainfall trends at the two major weather stations in Mumbai show no increase in heavy rainfall over the past 48 years.
#16 - Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
![]() |
Gore says that 2004 set an all-time record for tornadoes in the US. More tornadoes are being reported because detection systems are better than they were. But the number of severe tornadoes has been falling for more than 50 years.
#17 - The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
Gore says that ice-melt allows the Sun to heat the Arctic Ocean, and a diagram shows the Sun’s rays heating it directly. It does not. The ocean emits radiant energy at the moment of absorption, and would freeze if there were no atmosphere. It is the atmosphere, not the Sun that warms the ocean. Also, Gore’s diagram confuses the tropopause with the ionosphere, and he makes a number of other errors indicating that he does not understand the elementary physics of radiative transfer.
#18 - Arctic “warming fastest”
![]() |
Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster than the rest of the planet. It is not. While it is in general true that during periods of warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) the Arctic will warm faster than other regions, Gore does not mention that the Arctic has been cooling over the past 60 years, and is now one degree Celsius cooler than it was in the 1940s. There was a record amount of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in 2001. Several vessels were icebound in the Arctic in the spring of 2007, but few newspapers reported this. The newspapers reported that the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began: but the records, taken by satellites, had only begun 29 years previously. The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship.
#19 - Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
![]() |
| Colors indicate ice-sheet elevation change rate in cm/year, based on satellite altimeter data, 1992-2003. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 +- 0.2 cm/year |
Gore says “global warming” is making the Greenland ice sheet unstable. It is not. Greenland ice grows 2in a year. The Greenland ice sheet survived each of the previous three interglacial periods, each of which was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present. It survived atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 1000 ppmv (compared with today’s 400 ppmv). It last melted 850,000 years ago, when humankind did not exist and could not have caused the melting. There is a close correlation between variations in Solar activity and temperature anomalies in Greenland, but there is no correlation between variations in CO2 concentration and temperature changes in Greenland. The IPCC (2001) says that to melt even half the Greenland ice sheet would require temperature to rise by 5.5 degrees C and remain that high for several thousand years.
#20 - Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
Gore says 40% of the world’s population get their water supply from Himalayan glacial melt waters that are failing because of “global warming.” They don’t and they are not. The water comes almost entirely from snow-melt, not from ice-melt. Over the past 40 years there has been no decline in the amount of snow-melt in Eurasia.
#21 - Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
Gore says that a Peruvian glacier is less extensive now than it was in the 1940s, implying that “global warming” is the cause. It is not. Except for the very highest peaks, the normal state of the Peruvian cordilleras has been ice-free throughout most of the past 10,000 years.
#22 - Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
![]() |
Gore says that “the ice has a story to tell, and it is worldwide.” He shows several before-and-after pictures of glaciers disappearing. However, the glacial melt began in the 1820s, long before humankind could have had any effect, and has continued at a uniform rate since, showing no acceleration since humankind began increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Total ice volumes in three of the last four Ice Ages were lower than they are today, and “global warming” had nothing to do with that.
#23 - Sahara desert “drying”
![]() |
Gore says terrible tragedies are occurring in the southern Sahara because of drought which he blames on “global warming.” There is no drought caused by “global warming.” In 2007 there were record rains across the whole of the southern Sahara. In the past 25 years the Sahara has shrunk by some 300,000 square kilometers because of additional rainfall. Some scientists think “global warming” may actually mitigate pre-existing droughts because there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere. Before 1200 AD there were frequent, prolonged and severe droughts in the Great Plains. Since 1200 AD, there has been more rainfall. Likewise, the US has had more rainfall since the 1950s than it had in the earlier part of the 20th Century, when the great droughts which were then common were described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath. South African rainfall was also more stable in the second half of the 20th Century, when human effect on climate is said to have become significant, than in the first half.
#24 - West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
![]() |
Gore says disturbing changes have been measured under the West Antarctic ice sheet, implicitly because of “global warming.” Yet most of the recession in this ice sheet over the past 10,000 years has occurred in the absence of any sea-level or temperature forcing. In most of Antarctica, the ice is in fact growing thicker. Mean Antarctic temperature has actually fallen throughout the past half-century. In some Antarctic glens, environmental damage has been caused by temperature decreases of up to 2 degrees Celsius. Antarctic sea-ice spread to a 30-year record extent in late 2007.
#25 - Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
Gore says half a dozen ice shelves each “larger than Rhode Island” have broken up and vanished from the Antarctic Peninsula recently, implicitly because of “global warming.” Global warming is unlikely to have been the cause. Gore does not explain that the ice shelves have melted before, as studies of seabed sediments have shown. The Antarctic Peninsula accounts for about 2% of the continent, in most of which the ice is growing thicker. All the recently-melted shelves, added together, amount to an area less than one-fifty-fifth the size of Texas.
#26 - Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
Gore focuses on the Larsen B ice shelf, saying that it completely disappeared in 35 days. Yet there has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years, and the maximum ice-shelf extent may have been in the Little Ice Age in the late 15th century.
#27 - Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
![]() |
Gore says that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes. They are not. Most recent outbreaks have been at lower levels than those of a century and more ago. He says that Nairobi was founded 1000 m above sea level so as to be above the mosquito line. It was not. In the period before anthropogenic warming could have had any significant effect, there were ten malaria outbreaks in Nairobi, one of which reached as far up as Eldoret, almost 3000 m above sea level. Malaria is not a tropical disease. Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15 degrees Celsius to breed. The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle. There is no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer.
#28 - Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139. It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.
#29 - West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not. The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate, however caused, does not affect its incidence or prevalence.
#30 - Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
Gore describes carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution.” It is not. It is food for plants and trees. Tests have shown that even at concentrations 30 times those of the present day even the most delicate plants flourish. Well-managed forests, such as those of the United States, are growing at record rates because the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is feeding the trees. Carbon dioxide, in geological timescale, is at a very low concentration at present. Half a billion years ago it was at 7000 parts per million by volume, about 18 times today’s concentration.
#31 - The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000″
Gore says, “A couple of years ago in Europe they had that heat wave that killed 35,000.” Though some scientists agree with Gore, the scientific consensus is that extreme warm anomalies more unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly; extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly; El Niýo and volcanism appear to be of much greater importance than any general warming trend; and there is little evidence that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time. In general, warm is better than cold, which is why the largest number of life-forms are in the tropics and the least number are at the poles. A cold snap in the winter following the European heat wave killed 20,000 in the UK alone. Though the IPCC says 150,000 people a year are being killed worldwide by “global warming,” it reaches this figure only by deliberately excluding the number of people who are not being killed because there is less cold weather. In the US alone, it has been estimated that 174,000 fewer people are being killed each year because there are fewer episodes of extreme cold.
#32 - Pied flycatchers “cannot feed their young”
Gore says “The peak arrival date for migratory birds 25 years ago was April 25. Their chicks hatched on June 3, just at the time when the caterpillars were coming out: Nature’s plan. But 20 years of warming later the caterpillars peaked two weeks earlier. The chicks tried to catch up with it, but they couldn’t. So they are in trouble.” Yet adaptation is easy for the flycatchers: they merely fly a few tens of kilometers further north and they will find caterpillars hatching at the appropriate time. Besides, though Gore does not say so, what is bad news for the pied flycatchers is good news for the caterpillars, and for the butterflies they will become.
#33 - Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
In the book accompanying Gore’s film, the story of the pied flycatchers and the caterpillars is accompanied by a picture of a bird feeding her hungry chicks. However, closer inspection shows that the bird is not a pied flycatcher but a black tern; and that she is not carrying a caterpillar in her beak, but a small fish. Gore similarly misuses spectacular footage of a glacier apparently calving off enormous slabs of ice into the sea footage that is often shown on television to accompany stories about “global warming.” However, the glacier in question is one that is known to be advancing and to be doing so more rapidly and more often than previously. It is in southern Argentina, where its snout crosses and eventually dams, Lake Argentino. Water builds up behind the ice dam and eventually bursts it, causing the spectacular collapse of ice into the lake that is so misleadingly used as the iconic image of the effect of “global warming” on glaciers. The breaking of the ice dam used to occur every eight years or so: now, however, it occurs every five years, not because of “global warming” because of the regional cooling of the southern Atlantic.
#34 - The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
Gore says that rising sea levels are compelling the operators of the Thames Barrier to close it more frequently than when it was first built. They are not. The barrier is indeed closed more frequently than when it was built, but the reason has nothing to do with “global warming” or rising sea levels. The reason is a change of policy by which the barrier is closed during exceptionally low tides, so as to retain water in the tidal Thames rather than keeping it out. Yet even the present leader of the official Opposition in the UK Parliament recently used a major speech as the opportunity to mention today’s more frequent closing of the Thames Barrier as though it were a matter of grave concern.
35 - “No fact…in dispute by anybody.”
Gore says that his prediction that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will rise to more than 600 parts per million by volume as soon as 2050 is “not controversial in any way or in dispute by anybody.” However, not one of the half-dozen official projections of growth in CO2 concentration made by the IPCC shows as much as 600 parts per million by 2050.
![]() |
About the Author: Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a retired British international business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and climate change. This story was originally released in October 2007 on the website of the Science & Public Policy Institute, among other places, and is republished here with permission.
Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr.
![]() |
| Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. “Scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.” |
Roger Pielke Sr. is a retired professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, and a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Since July 2005 he has written and maintained Climate Science, a blog that serves as a scientific forum for dialogue and commentary on climate issues. With William R. Cotton, he is the co-author of Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2007). And over the past summer he co-hosted a conference entitled “Land Use and Climate Change,” in Boulder, Colorado. While Dr. Pielke rejects being characterized as a “global warming skeptic,” his work is unwaveringly critical of the current conventional wisdom regarding climate change and what to do about it. EcoWorld Editor Ed Ring recently caught up with Dr. Pielke, who had the following to say on the topic:
EcoWorld: How would you say that current conventional wisdom regarding climate change has gotten it wrong?
Pielke: In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment [of Climate Change] have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in relation to a diversity of other human climate- forcing mechanisms. Indeed, many research studies incorrectly oversimplify climate change by characterizing it as being dominated by the radiative effect of human-added CO2. But while prudence suggests that we work to minimize our disturbance of the climate system (since we don’t fully understand it), by focusing on just one subset of forcing mechanisms, we end up seriously misleading policymakers as to the most effective way of dealing with our social and environmental vulnerability in the context of the entire spectrum of environmental risks and other threats we face today.
EcoWorld: What about experts’ predictions of rising sea levels, extreme weather, melting polar ice caps, and so on?
Pielke: Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated themselves to be skillful predictors of regional and local climate change and variability over multidecadal time scales. For example, in the case of sea ice, the models are consistent with the decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent years, but they cannot explain the multiyear increase in Antarctic sea ice (including a record level this year). With respect to extreme weather, a much more important issue than how greenhouse gases are altering our climate is society’s greatly increased vulnerability to extreme weather events - a direct result not of changes in weather but of increased settlement by expanding human populations into low-lying coastal regions, floodplains, and marginal arid land.
EcoWorld: But what about the northern icecap shrinking this September to possibly possibly its smallest size in history (exposing more than 1 million square miles of open water) or the comments of Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, regarding recent observations in Greenland (”We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea”)? Is something new and alarming happening?
Pielke: These examples represent selected observations that promote the view that human-input carbon dioxide is dominating climate change. However, the climate is - and always will be - changing. Thus, although human activity certainly affects the way in which climate varies and changes, actual global observations present a much more complex picture than that represented by the two examples listed above. For example, Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum coverage in 2007, and the globally averaged lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last nine years (and, in fact, is cooler than it was in 1998). In addition, there are regions of the world where glaciers are advancing (such as New Zealand, parts of the Himalayas, and Norway). However, this information - which conflicts with the projections of the multi-decadal global climate models and the 2007 IPCC report - has been almost completely ignored by policymakers and the media.
![]() |
| Human Impacts on Weather and Climate, by Roger Pielke, Sr., and William R. Cotton Cambridge University Press |
EcoWorld: What role have alterations in land use played in climate change?
Pielke: Changes in land use by humans and the resulting alterations in weather and hydrology are major drivers of long-term regional and global climate patterns - yet the 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers largely ignores their importance (despite extensive documentation in research literature). Along with the diverse influences of aerosols on climate, land use effects (caused, for example, by deforestation, desertification, and conversion of land to farming) may be at least as important in altering the weather as the changes in climate patterns associated with the radiative effect of carbon dioxide and other well-mixed greenhouse gases. Moreover, land use and land cover changes will continue to exert an important influence on the Earth’s climate for the next century.
The reason for this is that even if the globally averaged surface temperature change over time ends up being close to zero in response to land use and land cover change and variability, the regional changes in surface temperature, precipitation, and other climate metrics could be as large as or larger than those that result from the anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases. Moreover, people and ecosystems experience the effects of environmental change regionally, not as global averaged values. Thus, the issue of a “discernable human influence on global climate” misses the obvious, in that we have been altering climate by land use and land cover change ever since humans began large-scale alterations of the land surface.
EcoWorld: What were the main conclusions to come out of your recent conference focusing on the land use changes that affect the Earth’s climate?
Pielke: This meeting reconfirmed the first order role of land management as a climate forcing mechanism. These findings supported the conclusions of the 2005 National Research Council report “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties,” which identified land use change as having a major effect on climate. Unfortunately, the role of land surface processes was underreported in the body of the IPCC report and was essentially ignored in the IPCC Statement for Policymakers.
EcoWorld: Sticking with land use changes: Do you think that tropical forests create a thermostatic effect that moderates extreme weather? And following on that, do you think tropical deforestation could be as significant a driver in climate change as anthropogenic CO2?
Pielke: Tropical deforestation clearly has an effect on both regional and global climate that is at least as important as the radiative effect of adding CO2. When forests are removed, not only does the climate system lose the biodiversity and other benefits of that environment, the vegetation loses its ability to dynamically respond in ways that reduce extreme weather fluctuations. For example, when trees access deeper water through their roots, the resulting transpiration of water vapor into the atmosphere (making rain more likely) can help ameliorate dry conditions when the large-scale weather pattern is one of drought.
EcoWorld: What is your criticism of the IPCC?
Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.
EcoWorld: How effective are current climate computer models in helping us understand global climate trends?
Pielke: Using global climate models to improve our understanding of how the system works represents a valuable application of such tools, but the term sensitivity study should be used to characterize these assessments. In sensitivity studies, a subset of the forcings and/or feedback of the climate system are perturbed to examine their response. Since the computer model of the climate system is incomplete (meaning it doesn’t include all of the important feedbacks and forcings), what the IPCC is really doing is conducting a sensitivity study.
The IPCC reports, however, inaccurately present their assessment as a “projection” - one that’s widely interpreted by policymakers and others as being able to skillfully forecast the future state of the climate system. But even one of the IPCC’s leading authors, Kevin Trenberth, has gone on record reminding people of the limitations of the models used in its projections. Says Trenberth, “There are no predictions by IPCC & and there never have been.” He further states, “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.”
Indeed, says Trenberth, “The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another, and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle.”
Thus, as clarified even by one of the key IPCC contributors (who has a vested interest in the acceptance of the 2007 IPCC report), current climate models clearly cannot accurately model observed real-world changes in climate. Global model results projected out decades into the future should never be interpreted as skillful forecasts. Instead, they should be interpreted as sensitivity studies on limited variables. When authors of research papers use definitive words (such as “will occur”) and display model output with specific time periods in the future, they are misleading policymakers and other people who use this information.
EcoWorld: What policies should be considered to deal with climate change? Is reducing CO2 emissions part of the solution?
Pielke: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can only serve as a useful “environmental currency” as long as it provides the benefits needed to reduce the risk to critical environmental and social resources. As such, it needs to be part of a win-win strategy that provides a diversity of benefits. With energy efficiency and energy independence, for example, everyone benefits. As the “currency” for these benefits, however, greenhouse gas emission reduction represents an unnecessarily blunt instrument if there are more effective ways to reduce the risks to societal and environmental resources. Moreover, greenhouse gas policies can produce serious unintended negative consequences such as an increase in carcinogenic emissions when biodiesel is used, or reductions in biodiversity and alterations in climate when land management practices convert large areas to biofuels.
Greenhouse gas emission reductions, relative to other environmental currencies, should be evaluated with respect to their ability to reduce risk to essential social and environmental resources. In this framework, greenhouse emission reductions are only useful if they provide real benefit to those resources. Thus, if a policy made for other reasons also happens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you clearly have a win-win situation. The current focus on using reductions in CO2 emissions as the primary currency for achieving benefits to society and the environment, however, clearly represents a very flawed approach.
Cleaning Up China
![]() |
| Even if China cuts energy per unit GNP by 50%, to increase per capita income to 50% of the USA, energy production will still need to increase 40%. |
Editor’s Note: China and India, along with much of the rest of Asia, is industrializing at a pace that is astonishing by any historical standard. And with nearly double digit annual economic growth impacting literally 50% of the world’s population, roughly 3.0 billion people, comes an insatiable appetite for energy.
With reference to China in particular, we have covered their ongoing and epic transformation to a fully industrialized nation within mere decades before, in our reports “China’s Energy Demand,” “China’s Renewable Energy,” “Wind Power in China,” “China’s Energy Outlook,” “Fuel Cell Development in China,” “China, Canals & Coal,” and others. In all of these reports the message is the same - with over 1.3 billion people, the industrialization of China (along with India) is turning the global energy economy on its ears.
Between 1995 and 2005 China’s energy consumption has more than doubled - from 33 quadrillion BTUs to 67 quadrillion BTUs, and her economy has increased by a factor of 13x, from $700 billion to 10.1 trillion dollars. The perspicacious reader will take heart from the fact that these numbers mean China’s energy intensity - the efficiency whereby energy is converted into wealth - has improved by an impressive 86%, from 46,000 BTU’s per dollar of GNP in 1995 to only 6,600 BTUs per dollar of GNP in 2005. This is probably due to most of the new energy currently being produced in China going to manufacturing. As the Chinese middle class continues to grow, China’s energy intensity may become less efficient again. By comparison, the USA in 2005 had an energy intensity virtually tied with China’s - 7,000 BTUs per dollar of GNP.
In the following report by Sam Goffman and Peter Wang, part one of a five part series, China’s renewable energy prospects are explored in depth. In summary, renewable energy production in China is expected to increase from 7.5 percent of total energy produced today to over 15 percent by 2020. This is an impressive goal, but is overshadowed by the fact that total energy production in China must increase dramatically. As the above table demonstrates, even if the Chinese improve their energy intensity by another 50%, which would be an incredible achievement, in order for China’s 1.3 billion people to attain a per capita income only 50% that of the United States, energy production in China will still need to increase by 40%, from 62 quadrillion BTUs (”quads”) per year in 2006 to over 94 quads per year. If so, doubling China’s renewable energy sector to 15% of all the energy they produce would nonetheless require annual nonrenewable energy production to increase from 62 quads to 80 quads, an increase of nearly 30 percent. Can the global energy economy sustain this rate of depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, particularly since India and other rising nations will need to log similar overall increases in energy production?
One factor however that may be grossly underestimated in this report is the speed with which solar energy will grow. In this report, solar energy is projected to reach “1.8 gigawatts by 2020.” We think this projection is way too low. According to a white paper prepared by THT Research, China is projected to increase polysilicon production for photovoltaic cells from 230 tons per year in 2006 to 12,660 tons per year by 2011. In 2005 roughly 30,000 tons of polysilicon was produced worldwide, with one third of it going to production of photovoltaics (the rest was used by the semi-conductor industry). And in 2005 the worldwide manufacturing output of photovoltaics was about 2.5 gigawatts.
This means that unless China intends to export most of her polysilicon, by 2011 she will be manufacturing in excess of 2.5 gigawatts of crystaline photovoltaic capacity every year. And given the very recent viability of thin film photovoltaic manufacturing technologies which don’t require polysilicon, the ratio of gigawatt capacity to tons of polysilicon feedstock will not be nearly as relevant in the future as it is today, since thin film only accounted for about 6% of global photovoltaic production in 2005. Moreover, none of the projections in this report address the potential of utility scale solar thermal power, which has just become economically competitive with conventional electricity generation. The report to follow may well be underestimating the potential of solar power in China by several orders of magnitude, and if so, that is a very, very good thing. - Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| Lake Tai’s breathtaking beauty belies the fact it is one of the most polluted lakes in China. (Photo: Wikipedia) |
It’s no secret that China is on the brink of environmental crisis. As the country works to clean up its act, the development of the renewable energy industry could mean a big payoff to investors as well as Chinese society as a whole.
A recent article in the New York Times profiles a Chinese environmental activist named Wu Lihong. The article, part of the paper’s series on environmental degradation in China, documents Wu’s attempts to clean up Lake Tai, one of China’s most polluted bodies of water. As the article shows, Wu’s efforts have been truly heroic: he has campaigned vigorously against corrupt officials, has succeeded in generating public awareness about the problem and has risked his own livelihood - including possible jail time - for the cause.
Western reportage about the environment in China, such as the Times article about Wu, inevitably focuses on the disastrous environmental degradation that has accompanied the country’s rapid economic growth, noting that the government’s proclamations of concern for the environment mostly go unfulfilled. Such reporting usually carries with it the implication that pro-environment statements made by the Chinese government are just for show, and treats the government as a homogeneous entity and Chinese society as interested only in making money.
However, the reality is not so simple. China’s 5-year plans and far-reaching policies are indeed often bogged down in the obsession with economic progress, and the rapid pace of economic growth combined with the sheer size of the country means that effectively implementing those policies is difficult and prone to corruption and inefficiency. Focusing on activists such as Wu Lihong puts the problems of China’s embrace of capitalism in stark relief. Yet it should be noted that such cases may obscure the larger potential of China’s environmental efforts, specifically its renewable energy industry. Prominent officials and institutions in the Chinese government frequently indicate an awareness of the country’s environmental problems. China’s drive to build up its renewable energy industry will offer many opportunities for foreign investment, and the government’s plans for the future - the kinds of policies that will see fruit in the long term - are far from unpromising.
China’s plans for the future
The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the institution responsible for the country’s macroeconomic planning, plans to have renewable energy account for 10 percent of China’s total energy consumption by 2010, and 15 percent by 2020, compared to 7.5 percent in 2005. (In comparison, in the United States about 7 percent of energy consumption was supplied by renewable energy in 2005 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, less than China’s figure for that year.)
![]() |
| The main dam at the Three Gorges Complex. When complete, this hydroelectric project will generate a staggering 17.5 gigawatts of electricity. (Photo: NASA) |
Breaking that figure down further, the NDRC aims for hydropower generation capacity to reach 180 gigawatts a year by 2010 and 300 GW by 2020, compared to 115 GW in 2005; annual wind power generation capacity to reach 5 GW by 2010 and 30 GW by 2020, compared to 1.3 GW in 2005; biomass capacity to reach 5.5 GW in 2010 and 30 GW in 2020, compared to 2 GW in 2005; and, finally, solar power to reach 0.3 GW in 2010 and 1.8 GW in 2020, compared to 0.07 in 2005.
As for the very long term, an energy development plan compiled by the China Academy of Sciences (CAS), a Chinese government think tank, recently recommended that the country should push to make nuclear power and renewable energy (besides hydropower) main elements of the country’s energy mix by about 2030, and ensure that dependency on fossil fuels falls under 60 percent by 2050.
Government projections of renewable energy in China’s overall energy usage, 2005-2020
Can China achieve its goals?
Are these goals feasible? It’s too soon to know for sure. On the one hand, the government has often expressed its seriousness in reaching its environmental targets, and has issued several preferential tax policies and subsidies to support the development of renewable energy. On the other hand, the country has fallen short of some of its yearly goals. Energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product fell by only 1.23 percent in 2006, one-third of the country’s annual target of four percent. The government has said it will stick to its previous plan of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent between 2006 and 2010, or 4 percent annually, as well as emissions by 10 percent for the period.
Taking wind power, one of China’s fastest growing renewable energy sectors, as another example, the sector ranked sixth in the world in terms of wind power generation capacity in 2006, up from eighth in 2005, according to the NDRC. Figures released by the Global Wind Power Council indicate that wind power installed capacity in China went up from 1260 megawatts in 2005 to 2610 MW in 2006, an increase of 107 percent.
In short, China’s record is inconsistent - some projects succeed, while others stall. What is clear is that the country will have to be more rigorous in implementing energy-saving measures if it really plans to achieve its environmental goals.
China’s renewable energy potential: analyses and predictions
Many Western analysts are optimistic about China’s renewable energy potential. Dr. Eric Martinot, a former senior energy and environment specialist at the World Bank, told Interfax in June, “For all the [renewable] technologies [apart from biomass], I think they’ll all achieve [the targets] early. Wind will go definitely more than 30 GW by 2020 and it would very likely achieve its 2010 target two years early. Also for hydropower, I think they’ll achieve the target early.”
There have also been indications that many elements in the Chinese government, including prominent government officials and institutions, are increasingly willing to confront environmental problems head-on. The Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric project, a pet project of powerful Chinese officials, has caused landslides, stagnant pollution and excessive algae. All of these problems were finally admitted openly in September by government officials (though there was no mention of another problem with the project, the forced relocation of nearby residents). Wang Xiaofeng, the director of the Three Gorges Construction Commission on the State Council, which is in charge of building the dam, reportedly said, “We must never lower our guard against environmental problems caused by the Three Gorges project, and we cannot achieve economic prosperity at the cost of damaging the environment.” Such openness has earned praise from international commentators. “It’s the first time that Chinese officials have (openly) talked about the pollution issues and environmental effects of the Three Gorges Dam. It’s a milestone for the Chinese government to show a positive attitude towards solving the ecological problems caused by the project,” Dr. Li Lin, the Conservation Strategy Director for the World Wildlife Fund’s China branch, told Interfax.
The development of renewable energy in China: pitfalls and opportunities
![]() |
| The Dabancheng Wind Farm At 100 megawatts, China’s largest |
The country will face several hurdles in its development of the renewable energy industry. The biggest hurdle is also foreign companies’ biggest opportunity: the need to attract more foreign investment. As Francois Nguyen, senior policy adviser with Paris-based International Energy Agency, explained to Interfax in May, “The obstacle is that China needs to attract more foreign companies and in order to achieve that, China needs to provide more incentives.” Nguyen added that China needs a more diverse and competitive market that can ensure efficient allocation of resources, and needs to reorganize the government regulators in charge of the industry. “Right now the NDRC controls both policy-making and implementation,” he said. “If you have an independent market watcher and an independent regulator, that will give confidence to foreign investors.”
China will also have to improve its technology to develop the renewable energy industry. In the wind power sector, building wind turbines is expensive, and China still largely relies on foreign equipment. “In 2006, 60 percent of all wind power equipment in use in China was imported from overseas. Such equipment is expensive, as equipment prices have soared in recent years on the international market,” Qin Haiyan, secretary-general of the China Wind Energy Association, said in June, as cited by state media. He added that only three domestic companies are able to mass produce equipment with an individual capacity of more than 1.5 MW. Other sectors, such as solar and geothermal, face similar problems: the government will need to invest substantial resources in technological development to spur the renewable energy industry.
Another problem is that energy produced by renewable energy projects tends to be more expensive than traditional sources. The solar power sector is a good example. Eric Martinot, the former World Bank official, said that an important question is, “how soon will the cost come down so that there will be a domestic market for solar PV [photovoltaic]? We are looking at maybe at least five years. Actually a lot of people are thinking much longer. The first problem with solar in China is the acceptance by the utility companies to use power generated by solar power.”
Development of the industry may suffer from infrastructure problems as well. One potential obstacle that is often overlooked is the difficulty in connecting some renewable energy projects, especially wind power, to national and local grids. “The government likes to talk about how rapidly China is building up its wind power capacity, seeing it as a symbol of achievement in its renewable energy drive,” Shi Pengfei, the vice chairman of the China Wind Energy Association, told Interfax earlier this year. “However, to me, it means nothing, as it will only make a difference in our energy mix when the grid is able to receive a majority of the power generated.” Shi added that steps are being taken to address the problem, such as requiring wind power projects to consult with local and national grids before construction.
In the coming years, all sectors of the renewable energy industry - wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, waste-to-energy, clean coal and gas-fired power generation - will be expanded. All will face obstacles, but it is increasingly apparent that the Chinese government recognizes the reality of the environmental crisis, and will work to build up renewable energy in the country. As Li Lin from the WWF put it, “In recent years the central and local governments have gradually realized that sustainable economic development won’t happen without effective environment protection.”
![]() |
This article was originally published by Interfax-China, and is republished with permission. Author Sam Goffman is the Editor of the Interfax-China Energy Sector Team, with special thanks to Terry Wang, Sector Analyst, Interfax-China. This article is part one of a five part series written as part of the research efforts for Interfax-China’s “China Clean & Renewable Energy to 2010” special industry report. To automatically receive the other parts of the series please send an email to andrew@interfax.cn.
Glacial Acceleration
| MELTING ON GREENLAND’S ICECAP |
![]() |
| The darker the shading, the more days of summer melting are happening today compared to the base year of 1988. (Photo: NASA) |
Editor’s Note: Our committment to providing a forum for all points of view is not part of an attempt to hide our own beliefs. Regarding climate change, we believe changes in land use - tropical deforestation in particular - are of equal or greater significance than anthropogenic CO2 emissions. We further believe steps to reforest the tropics are far more feasible than reducing CO2 emissions. And we are appalled that well-intentioned policy makers, particularly in Europe, have allowed CO2 offset credits to fund subsidies for biofuel which has been the primary cause of accelerated rainforest destruction in recent years.
In general, we believe using the biosphere (which can barely provide the 17 quadrillion BTUs of caloric energy per year that 6.2 billion people require) to grow biofuel - in order to make a dent in the 550 quadrillion BTUs of yearly energy for our technosphere - is absolute folly. Quite simply, in our rush to avoid using fossil fuels, we are destroying the world in order to save it.
In the article to follow, written by one of the most respected environmental journalists in the world today, his message is clear - Greenland’s ice sheet is melting faster than any earlier predictions and the current rate of melt could possibly cause sea level rise of up to two meters within this century. We believe the phenomenon of icecap melting is something that requires vigilant monitoring, but we disagree with the suggestion that sea levels could rise two meters within this century.
Notwithstanding everything we’ve already reported on this topic, most of which the reader can find in our Global Warming category, here are some additional recommended readings: “What if All the Ice Melts?” by Robert Johnson, “You Will Still Need Your Parka in Antarctica,” by Lawrence Solomon,” and “Greenland Icecap May be Melting at Triple Speed,” by Kelly Young. These stories agree on most data, but reach wildly different conclusions. In all cases it is acknowledged that there are about 29.3 million cubic kilometers (km3) of land based ice on earth, and that about 26 million km3 of that is in Antarctica, with most of the rest, 2.9 million km3, atop Greenland. But here is where conclusions differ:
In the above-referenced article “Greenland Icecap May be Melting at Triple Speed” the author notes that recent measurements of 80 km3 of net icecap loss per year may have been understated, and that in reality 240 km3 of net yearly icecap loss may have occurred in recent years. But basic algebra indicates that it would still take over 12,000 years for Greenland’s icecap to melt at this rate, and it would take 4,000 years for Greenland’s net loss of ice, at this rate, to raise sea levels by two meters - not the end of this century, but sometime in the distant future. And it isn’t clear this rate of melt will accelerate inexorably - according to polar temperature records, if the multi-decadal oscillation stays on schedule, the arctic will begin to cool again sometime between 2015 and 2035.
In any case, it isn’t necessarily what happens to Greenland, with 10% of land based ice, that matters. It is what happens in Antarctica, and there are no reports so far that indicate the Antarctic icecap is losing mass, and in fact there are reports that suggest Antarctica is gaining ice mass. Small percentage increases in Antarctic ice mass will cancel out anything happening in Greenland. Less than 1% of land-based ice is outside of Greenland or Antarctica. Thermal expansion of the ocean may be offset by increased evaporation.
The point of all this isn’t to skewer the message in the story below. Unlike many if not most parties to what remains of this debate, we only want a revitalized and reasoned debate regarding the extent and the causes of climate change - and what to do about it! And we recommend the CO2 alarmists turn some of their wonderful and well-intentioned passion to stopping the catastrophe unfolding as we decimate the rainforests of the Americas, Africa and Asia to grow fuel. In our humble opinion, if tropical deforestation is not stopped and reversed, the consequences for our climate will be far worse than if we continue to burn fossil fuel. If Greenland’s icecap does melt someday soon - perhaps it will be because within a few short decades we dried and heated the millions of square miles of equatorial land mass, because we cut down the tree canopy for biofuel plantations, because someone thought that would actually reduce CO2 emissions.
- Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| Meltwater stream flowing into a large moulin in the ablation zone of the Greenland ice sheet. (Photo: NASA) |
It is hard to shock journalists and at the same time leave them in awe of the power of nature. A group returning from a helicopter trip flying over, then landing on, the Greenland ice cap at the time of maximum ice melt last month were shaken. One shrugged and said: “It is too late already.”
What they were all talking about was the moulins, not one moulin but hundreds, possibly thousands. “Moulin” is a word I had only just become familiar with. It is the name for a giant hole in a glacier through which millions of gallons of melt water cascade through to the rock below. The water has the effect of lubricating the glaciers so they move at three times the rate that they did previously.
Some of these moulins in Greenland are so big that they run on the scale of Niagara Falls. The scientists who accompanied these journalists on the trip were almost as alarmed. That is pretty significant because they are world experts on ice and Greenland in particular.
We were visiting Ilulissat, Greenland, once a stronghold of Innuit hunters but now with so little ice that the dog sleds are in danger of falling through even in the depth of winter.
But it is not the lack of sea ice that worries scientists and should be of serious concern to the inhabitants of coastal zones across the world. Cities like New York and states like Florida are in the front line.
Scientists know this already, but just to give you some idea of the problem, the Greenland ice cap is melting at such a fast rate it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break up.
Scientists say the acceleration of melting and subsequent speeding up of giant glaciers could be catastrophic in terms of sea level rise and make previous predictions published this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) far too low. The glacier at Ilulissat, which it is believed spawned the iceberg which sank the Titanic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, from Washington told me: “We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 metres an hour on a front five kilometres long and 1,500 metres deep. “That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one day to provide drinking water for a city the size New York or London for a year.”
Professor Correll, who is also director of the global change programme at the Heinz Centre in Washington said the estimates of sea level rise in the IPCC report in February 2007 had been “conservative” and based on data two years old. The range of rise this century had been predicted to be 20 to 60 centimetres, but would be the upper end of this range at a minimum and some now believed it could be two metres. This would have catastrophic effects for European and US coastlines.
He said newly invented ice penetrating radar showed that the melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a melt water lake 500 metres deep causing the glacier “to float on land. “These melt water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic.
The glacier is now moving at 15 kilometres a year into the sea although in periodic surges it moves even faster. He has seen a surge, which he had measured as moving five kilometres in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event.
If all of Greenland melts, something we were previously assured would take thousands of years, but now could be hundreds, then sea level round the world would rise seven metres. That is without any contribution from the Antarctic, the glaciers of Alaska, the Rockies, the Himalayas, or the ocean water expanding as it warms.
So the talk of sea level rise should not be in centuries, it should be decades or perhaps even single years. For 10,000 years, during all of human civilisation sea level remained stable leading us to believe that coastlines remained roughly in the same place. A century ago the sea began to rise one millimetre a year, 20 years ago it had reached two millimetres and this century it has risen to 3 millimetres. This annual rise may not seem much but add hurricane storm surges and high tides and we are soon saying good bye to a lot of coastal settlements like the Big Apple.
| CHINA, USA, INDIA - 1995 vs. 2005 |
![]() |
| In 2007 China’s CO2 emissions passed the USA, though China and the USA currently have virtually identical energy intensity (energy consumed per unit of GNP). |
Switch forward a week from the helicopter ride to George W. Bush’s meeting of 16 of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in Washington last month and what do we hear. We hear lots of rhetoric about how, along with terrorism, climate change is the biggest threat to the earth although the catastrophic sea level rise facing our major coastal cities does not rate a mention.
But instead of decisive political action (as with terrorism) we get suggestions from the President of voluntary cuts in emissions, down to the government of each country, and then next summer another conference to discuss where we have got to which on past form will be nowhere at all. It did not sound like the much needed change of heart from the President, but just another delaying tactic to tide him over until his term of office ends.
Although it may sound like it, the commentators in Europe are not singling out America for criticism, although it has to be said as often as possible that the US is the world’s most profligate nation when it comes to fossil fuel consumption, AND has rejected the only legally binding international agreement that could do something about it. But Europeans are not doing enough either. We need convincing that our own leaders have enough political will to reach the tiny Kyoto targets that are the minimum first step to tackling this problem. The public hears the latest scientists warnings that an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions is needed if we are to stave off catastrophic climate change, yet wait in vain for the policies needed to achieve them.
In my book, protestors wearing George Bush masks are pictured “fiddling while the earth burns.” Maybe he is just the lead violinist of the orchestra.
![]() |
About the Author: Paul Brown was the environment correspondent for The Guardian newspaper for 16 years and has worked in newspaper journalism for more than 40 years. He has written extensively about climate change, population, biodiversity, pollution, energy, desertification, and ocean management. Brown has appeared in and written television documentaries on environmental issues, contributed to books on green politics, and is the author of several books on the environment, ref. www.globalwarningbook.com.
EcoWorld’s 2007 Clean Dozen Champions
AN ERA OF ABUNDANT LAND, ENERGY & WATER
![]() |
| High-rise urban farms will deliver water and food, freeing up millions of square miles of farmland Skyscraper Farms |
The promise this green iteration of high technology makes is that we will achieve resource abundance. Because of high-tech green innovation, we will soon have abundant land, abundant energy, and abundant water. Smart growth policies that are based on conditions of scarcity are short sighted. Spot shortages of energy and water - as well as perceived shortages of land - may last a few more decades but will eventually be swept away in a wave of prosperity and abundance.
The human race, about 6.2 billion human beings, consume about 17 quadrillion BTU’s of caloric energy each year. For this reason we expend huge resources protecting our farmland. When the total human population begins to level out, at perhaps somewhere around 8.0 billion, we will require more caloric energy than we already produce. High rise farming will address this challenge, as well as enable us to take huge percentages of our farmland out of production. This will make land abundant.
Solar energy is now being tapped both using photovoltaic and solar-thermal technology. Breakthroughs in these technologies promise long-term exponential growth for solar power. Within a few years solar energy production could increase an order of magnitude to represent more than 1% of global energy production. And there is no reason to believe production of solar energy - using photovoltaic and solar thermal technology - cannot increase by another order of magnitude so that within a decade it offers 10% of world energy production. Combined with increased energy efficiency and other energy advances, solar energy is the wildcard that will fill whatever gap we experience in energy supply - it is the infinite and cost-effective, economically competitive energy alternative that guarantees we never run out of energy. Solar power guarantees energy abundance.
Advances in desalination are already making fresh water extracted from the ocean a major water source throughout the Middle East and Asia. The desalination option is being increasingly considered throughout the world, and it’s about time. Desalination only requires 2.0 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter of fresh water. Recent technological advances, already reflected in advanced desalination plants operating from Israel to Australia, have cut the amount of electricity required to desalinate water by 50% in just the last few years. The energy required to desalinate seawater is no longer a significant portion of any family’s energy needs - it requires less electricity than any major household appliance. Advanced desalination technology guarantees fresh water abundance. - Ed Ring
| CONCEPT & DESIGN |
![]() |
| McDonough, Braungart Design Chemistry www.mbdc.com |
If you’re looking for “cradle to cradle” design you can do no better than to call upon the duo who coined the term, William McDonough and Michael Braungart, whose 2002 breakthrough book “Cradle to Cradle, Remaking the Way We Make Things” has helped launch the latest green revolution. But you better get in line. McDounough and Braungart’s firm, MBDC, is in the forefront of green design with projects all over the world. For example, MBDC is playing a key role helping the Chinese develop new cities of 500,000 people each - cities that are springing up from nothing. These cities will produce their own energy and reuse their own water. They will have farms on their rooftops. They will leapfrog everything that has come before, merging the latest technologies with time-honored traditional designs, building on everything we’ve ever learned. There are many excellent green development and design firms, but MBDC is the leader of the pack.
| MANAGING GREEN CONSTRUCTION |
![]() |
| Essential Software & Services www.ess-home.com |
It is no longer possible to consider large scale development without needing to navigate extremely complex and constantly changing regulations. In order to make sure your contractors are in compliance, you need to track and fulfill these requirements from application to sign-off without getting off schedule. You need to manage a task involving dozens if not hundreds of public and private entities, and know who is doing what, where, when and how. You need to set and track goals for financial and operational excellence. Essential Software & Services is a company whose been helping developers and contractors accomplish these objectives for many years.
| ASPHALT |
![]() |
| Astec, Inc. www.astecinc.com |
In the United States each year over 3.0 billion tons of rock is quarried and crushed. This amounts to over 10 tons of rock per person per year. About 25% of this rock is used in asphalt, 25% is for concrete, and the remaining 50% is used for the base rock in canals, embankments, and buildings. Asphalt is 95% crushed rock aggregate, and 5% heavy oil. A new technology pioneered by Astec Inc., the world’s largest manufacturer of asphalt manufacturing equipment, allows the asphalt to be mixed at lower temperatures. By developing a method to mix asphalt at less than 285 degrees fahrenheit, which is the boiling point of heavy oil, Astec equipment requires less energy and emits significantly less air pollutants. Astec’s process also allows for much heavier, less usable oil to be mixed into asphalt. Astec also has new machinery that can recycle and remix into asphalt as much as 50% of old road surface - where previously only 15% of old road surface could be recycled and remixed into new asphalt.
| CONCRETE |
![]() |
| Hycrete, Inc. www.hycrete.com |
Hycrete has invented an inexpensive, non-toxic sealant that mixes directly into concrete, rendering it impervious to water. Not a surface sealant, but a part of the concrete mixture, Hycrete’s additive is chemically bound throughout the mix. Not only does this mixture create sealed concrete, which is useful for far more applications, but it ensures the concrete chemically binds to steel reinforcing members inside the concrete, for greater endurance and better structural life.
| STRUCTURAL PANELS |
![]() |
| Sipcrete, LLC. www.sipcrete.co.uk |
Sipcrete has pioneered structural panels with a “sandwich” design that combines cement exteriors with foam interiors. Between the reinforced concrete exterior slabs, running through the foam interior are diagonal steel struts which give the panels extraordinary structural strength. These relatively lightweight panels combine drywall, insulation, and framing in one modular unit. They use far less materials than most alternative construction materials.
| PHOTOVOLTAICS |
![]() |
| Applied Materials www.amat.com |
Photovoltaic electricity, which converts light into electricity, has the potential to greatly increase global energy production. Applied Materials (AMAT) occupies the leadership position in supplying photovoltaic manufacturing equipment for use in factories around the world. Several thin-film photovoltaic factories are currently under construction using AMAT tools, including some designed to output 500 megawatts of thin film panels per year. This is a staggering achievement, given the entire manufacturing output of photovoltaics in the world in 2006 was only about 3.0 gigawatts, and the entire installed base of photovoltaics worldwide is still only about 10 gigawatts. AMAT also is a leading supplier of tools to manufacture crystaline photovoltaics, which still dominate the photovoltaic market, and which are finally free of the shortage of polysilicon. The only primary materials you need to manufacture photovoltaics are sand and electricity - which itself is a product of photovoltaics. With manufacturing costs dropping below $1.00 per watt, and installed costs falling below $10.00 per watt, look for this energy source to explode in the coming years.
| SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRICITY |
![]() |
| Ausra, Inc. www.ausra.com |
Long the shy sister of photovoltaic power, solar thermal technology is now in a horse race with photovoltaic technology to become the dominant source of alternative electricity. Solar thermal electricity is generated by using mirrors to focus the sun’s heat onto a heat exchanger, superheating water to drive a steam turbine. The water is then cooled and returned into the system - almost no water is lost in this process. The breakthrough designs being pioneered by Ausra, Inc., promise to bring solar thermal electric generating stations into the mainstream of utility delivered electricity. A solar field of one square mile can deliver 175 megawatts of electricity in full sun; about 1.0 gigawatt-hour per day. Such a plant costs under $500 million, and has far lower operating costs than conventional power generating plants. Officials at Ausra believe they can get the cost per kilowatt-hour under $.10, a very competitive price. And adding extra steam storage capacity to allow a solar thermal power station to continue generating electricity into the night only adds about 10% to the cost of the entire installation. Solar thermal technology is going to be big.
| ENERGY STORAGE |
![]() |
| Gridpoint, Inc. www.gridpoint.com |
Until energy can be efficiently stored all over the power grid, it will not be feasible to complete our transition to decentralized clean energy. Solar thermal power can be stored at the utility. But how do you store surplus photovoltaic electricity, generated during the day but needed at night? Gridpoint’s “Connect Series” energy management systems are turnkey energy management appliances that can manage electricity for a neighborhood, multi-family dwelling, or commercial building. Each unit is a turnkey energy management system that can decide whether to draw electricity from the grid, send surplus energy into the grid, or store energy. Each unit can store up to 12 kilowatt-hours of usable AC current. Stationary batteries are now down to $185 per kilowatt-hour of usable AC current. Gridpoint is the only company to-date that has an off-the-shelf product to allow storage and management of surplus electricity from on-site sources. This sort of storage solution is the key to distributed power - and unlike electrolysis / hydrogen / fuel cell systems which lose over 50% of the original electricity during conversions, these battery systems can charge and discharge electricity while losing less than 10% of the original electricity in the conversion.
| WATER SUPPLY |
![]() |
| Energy Recovery International www.energyrecovery.com/ |
The biggest secret in the water industry today is the feasibility, right now, of desalination. Recent developments in energy recovery, many of them innovations brought to market by Energy Recovery International, have reduced the power required to desalinate sea water to 2.0 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter of recovered fresh water. This is a major breakthrough, reducing energy necessary to desalinate by well over 50% over earlier technologies. A desalination plant, running on a constant energy input of only 60 megawatts, can desalinate enough seawater to provide fresh water to 1.0 million residential consumers. And a plant of this capacity would only cost about $500 million, or about $500 per residential customer. Practical, large scale desalination is one of the most important breakthoughs in the history of civilization.
| WATER RECYCLING |
![]() |
| Epuramat www.epuramat.com |
Total water recycling is closer than ever to reality. In the USA each year, total water withdrawals are over 500 cubic kilometers per year, about 80% of it for agriculture. Treated sewage returns about 65 cubic kilometers of water each year to US watersheds, with only about 5% of that water reused for irrigation. This is all going to change. Epuramat, a Luxembourg company, has developed a breakthrough treatment that replaces expensive primary and secondary treatment methods with a much smaller, far less expensive system that hydraulically removes the sludge from the water. Methods to complete the process and go the last mile in water purification are just around the corner. Water recycling combined with desalination have the potential to eliminate water scarcity in the next few decades.
| IRRIGATION |
![]() |
| Netafim www.netafim.com |
In California, public authorities are toying with the dangerous notions of water rationing for residences, when residential water use only represents about 10% of California’s water consumption. Meanwhile, wasteful flood irrigation consumes about 80% of California’s water, and this technique threatens to destroy California’s rich farmland due to salt buildup caused by years of flood irrigation. Clearly the Californian farmers need to consider drip irrigation, both above ground and subsurface. Such techniques have been used in Israel for years, and have reduced their agricultural water requirements by over 50%. What water scarcity? Move to drip irrigation. Netafim, based in Israel, has over 80% of the world market for drip irrigation equipment.
| TRANSPORTATION |
![]() |
| General Motors “Volt” www.gm-volt.com |
Last but certainly not least, here comes the green car. The GM “Volt” is still on track to be in showrooms by 2010, and this is much more than a plug-in hybrid. The “Volt” is a series hybrid, meaning that while it has a gasoline engine, this engine is completely disconnected from the drivetrain. Instead, the gasoline engine turns an onboard electric generator, supplying power to an electric motor. The Volt also comes with a 400 pound lithium ion battery pack, which will power the car exclusively for 40 miles. But when the battery is drained, the gasoline engine (highly efficient because of no variable RPM requirements) can deliver a 600 mile range at a gasoline-only mileage of 50 miles per gallon. This car is a breakthrough - once cars like this a deployed by the millions, vehicular transportation miles will increasingly be fueled by electrons, not petroleum, and these electrons will come from renewable sources such as photovoltaics and solar thermal power stations. Energy, water, and land abundance is the destiny that awaits us, if we maintain our faith in free market innovations, and let green technology take us there.
Food vs. Fuel
AND WHY IT IS NOT
![]() |
| Ethanol fuel from sugar cane has surely been an economic benefit to the Brazilians. |
Editor’s Note: There are compelling reasons why it is in the national interest of Americans to grow biofuel. It creates a significant disbursed indigeonous source of vehicle and heavy equipment fuel, helping in the market to balance spot prices for imported oil. Not just the USA, but many nations who invest in biofuel achieve, if not energy independence, greater energy security and more diversified energy sources. Biofuel is good business for many good reasons.
Biofuel in the arid regions of the world can take the form of hardy “pioneer” trees, that act as windbreaks and stablize soil. Eventually they become significant sources of water retention and additional less hardy trees and plants can then be sown. The jatropha tree is an example of such a plant. It is drought tolerant and yields perennial oil nuts.
The vast canyons that run in for hundreds of miles off the Caribbean and Atlantic coastlines of South America, whose rivers run northwards to the ocean, could be deforested, their verdant rises filled with massive terraced plantations of genetically engineered super high-yield biofuel plants. Would this fuel the world, or would the rains stop coming in from the sea?
And what of the savanna in Africa, so vast and verdant its extent is almost incomprehensible to a Westerner - savanna that sweeps across a continent nearly as large as Asia, with only one billion people living there? Should they plant biofuel? Won’t this encourage development and prosperity? Author Louis Strydom’s reasoned recommendations in the report to follow are sound.
As for food vs. fuel, if biofuel is truly profitable for a region, then these earnings presumably would invest in the prosperity of the region, in-turn generating increased local investment per capita in food supplies. Any long-term player in a subsidized market should carefully consider the future scenarios, and design sustainability into their business so it can survive subsidy free. Carbon-based payments from the global north should buy the rainforests to preserve them, not to chop them down for fuel. - Ed “Redwood” Ring
Renewable fuel has always been of interest, but has historically not been commercially viable at low fuel prices.
At high fuel prices and due to climate change there has however been an upsurge in the interest in renewable fuel.
The renewable fuel interest can be grouped into the following segments:
1) Governments
a. For fuel security
b. For the environment
2) Social interest groups for the environment
3) Producers of renewable fuel feedstocks
a. Existing farmers of feedstocks that can be used for fuel.
b. New entrants to the market who produce food stocks that can be used for fuel.
c. New entrants to the market who supply feedstocks that can only be used for fue.
4) Producers of Renewable fuel
If we look at the impact of each of these segments and list the main costs and benefits that the actions of each group provides we can summarise as follows:
1) Governments
![]() |
| Switchgrass, which is a fuel-only crop, requires cellulosic extraction of its ethanol in order to produce high yields. |
a. Fuel Security
We need to distinguish here between the intention of the government and realistic ability to secure fuel security. First, if we say a government seeks fuel security that clearly implies that the fuel from crop to market would be under control of the government. It therefore would justify the motive to try and produce all the fuel under the government’s control, which would imply the fuel, would have to be produced in country. However, the question then falls back to whether that country has the ability to produce such renewable fuel in country given the local agricultural system dynamics.
As we now live in a global village, the impact of any significant shift in agricultural output use would affect other parties and countries in the world. Without going into details this is exactly what happens if you try and subsidise local production of biofuel from corn which drives up local demand for corn and consequently the effect spills over into the rest of the world which leads to the fact that corn prices skyrocket. Similar effects are visible throughout renewable feedstocks that can be used either for food or fuel once you create a synthetic demand by way of subsidies or legislation you impact market demand and prices. The net result here is that this is in no way whatsoever a food versus fuel debate but simply a debate on what the effects of legislation, subsidies and government intervention has on markets; this is why we have noble prize winners in economics who try and explain why governments should not directly intervene in markets.
b. Environment
As is the case of fuel security, the intention of environmental security or environment improvement is pure in nature, however, to institute policies that directly affect markets simply lead to market demand increasing, resulting in market price pressure and thus market insecurity which is synthetically created by such interventionist policies. Again, this makes a strong case for disinterventionist policies by government when it comes to fuel production targets for green fuel which consequently affects feedstock prices (such as the rise and rise of palm oil prices). Again this is not a matter of food versus fuel but synthetic impact on market prices by government interventionist policies.
2) Social Interest Groups
Firstly it is greatly due to the tireless pursuit of these groups that climate change and the correlation of interest in renewable was formed. This has certainly resulted in renewable fuels surging to the forefront of interest. What is however very hard to ascertain if these groups have resulted in the current policies of Governments in which case, the net result is more instability than benefit to the food markets, again their support is well intended, but if correlated with government reactions as described above then more specific lobbying is required to stay aware from the above policies and rather try and refocus on the producers of renewable resources and support to these parties.
3) Producers of renewable fuel feedstocks.
There are actually three subsets of producers and their impact and reactions to the increased interest in renewable fuels differs.
a. Existing farmers of feedstocks that can be used for fuel.
These include existing coconut growers, palm oil plantations, corn growers and so forth. These groups are simply reacting to existing demand and supply forces and therefore when scenarios like government reaction affect demand for their products upward, they simply benefit from increased income. The parties can be seen as neutral parties as they consistently supply their products and simply sell to the highest bidder. In this context these parties certainly do not participate in the food versus fuel debate.
![]() |
| Nigerian Cassava A flex crop, good for food or ethanol. |
b. New entrants to the market who produce food stocks that can also be used for fuel.
These farmers focus on similar products as the above parties. Their expansion I simply centred around the logic that farming has become profitable in feedstock that can be used either for food or fuel. Again these parties will not act as market makers, but rather market takers. In this regard they will simply sell to the highest bidder, regardless if that is a fuel or food consumer. The focus then turns directly back on to the buyer and their motives for buying, which in turn directly back on to whether subsidies or economics provide incentive for the buyer to consume the crop as a fuel or as a food. Again, the food versus fuel debate can quite easily be removed from the discussion by simply asking as to whether the market is being created by government intervention, as is the current case, or by plain market forces, which does not appear to be the case.
c. New entrants to the market who supply feedstocks that can only be used for biofuel.
These are specialist producers who use crops such as Pongamia or Jatropha often with the interest of either developing own plantation or combining this with an outgrower program or doing a combination of the two. The first question one would need to ask of these parties is how do they affect the local food security. Is the areas of their operation currently food neutral or positive (thus producing more or equal food than being consumed), or is the area food negative (thus consuming more food than being produced. If negative the one should determine if the consumption of the area can be maintained from another area in the world, and if it would not be more important to increase food security to neutral or positive before commencing fuel crop production.
The questions raised by the prospect of biofuel-only crops replacing food crops in food-neutral regions are exceptionally important, because today many very poor parts of the world do not have food insecurity in poor rural areas. Such areas would include certain parts of Africa where the environment is exceptionally fertile for most of the year and the local populace are therefore certainly not starving by way of food from crops this I can affirm from personal experience as I have travelled across a number of areas by road and very rarely see signs of malnutrition in such areas.
![]() |
| Jatropha is a fuel-only crop, doing well in harsh arid conditions. Jatropha’s best yields, however, are where food crops would also thrive. |
In cases therefore where food security is neutral or positive and land is not currently under development it would therefore raise the question as regards what to do with the land should we plant food or fuel renewables. Allow me to say that the greatest crime what not be to develop the land at all (this is of course in a sensitive way that takes care of biodiversity and the environment which is a totally separate issue from a strictly food versus fuel debate). Development will bring economic development and prosperity to an undeveloped area and would be to the benefit of all people. So if the question then is what should be developed on the land logic would then dictate that the most economically viable crop should be produced, irrespective of whether it is used for food or fuel for the simple reason that the investment pool for agriculture projects is somewhat smaller than for industries such as mining.
A high yielding project would greatly assist to bring development to an area and this would lead to a socially and economically responsible investment not focusing on what the crop is used for, but what benefits the projects (and hopefully if a socially acceptable project then what benefits the people of the area most. In this regard it is the writers opinion that a blend of pure fuel and ‘flex’ crops (used for fuel or food) would be the most justifiable long-term investment. This would mean that a balanced output can be provided and the output can be switched between the two uses to provide a more stable income.
There is another reason why it is safer to spread the project between pure fuel and ‘flex’ crops, and this reason is agricultural subsidies. Put very simply, it very often does not pay to produce pure food crops in the third world as very often you have to compete against highly subsidised markets, that is ultimately the reason why the World Trade Organisation is consistently struggling to bridge this exact problem in the various trade rounds held to address the problem. This problem cannot be expected to disappear for a very long time still, and in this regard it therefore provides a far sounder project profile with reduced risk by at least planting partially flex crops and partially pure fuel crops which are not affected by agricultural subsidies. That way if food prices synthetically skyrocket then the project benefits, and if they drop you can still sell your crop for fuel, thus providing a balanced investment.
4. Producers & Refiners of Renewable Fuel
This group simply provides a conversion function dependent on one hand on feedstock supply and on the other hand for a viable market. Often however the risk is that the feedstock price is driven by support for the off-take segment to which the fuel producers deliver, and if this is affected as described in the government impact section, then they directly need to drive up the feedstock prices which means they needs further government support to remain at viable levels of off-take prices. The greatest danger here is that these producers along with government support can fall into a negatively reinforcing loop by consistently requiring more and more government support as the feedstock prices consistently get driven up, which can potentially bring food from fuel production to a total market collapse if subsidies are withdrawn for these producers. The contra argument would be that if the fuel producers seek lowest cost advantage and structure their investments on that basis (which would mean that they would need to be as close from crop to market as possible) and therefore possibly relocate given that they then produce an international commodity fuel and not biofuel anymore they might find a more stable, reliable and cost effective market.
![]() |
| Burgeoning plantations of oil palms are an example of how subsidized biodiesel is generating massive rainforest destruction. |
Whether for food security or for environmentalism, intervening or creating synthetic prices in the market for food securities is creating food instability.
Certainly seeking optimal areas where the optimal crop yields can be sought and seeking a blended strategy of pure fuel and flex feedstocks provides as safe strategy against such risks, as the investors will be able to capitalise on their dual position.
Synthetic prices also create a dangerous position for pure fuel refiners if they do not focus on low cost production strategy and stick to as short as possible a cycle from crop to market as it means your political risk to the project is immense as if the government withdraws support for market prices your project viability is significantly eroded.
Further, if fertile areas can be accessed and developed this provides benefit for the local area and therefore social upliftment flexible crop strategies can greatly impact the viability of these investments. And if return on investment both for the community and investor is the prime objective, why then could it be possibly justifiable to launch the main centre of a commercial investment into marginal land. Yes of course, if there is some economic return it could be considered to develop such marginal land, but surely any investor would primarily be interested in good economic return.
It is unlikely that marginal land would cater for such rate of return requirements, more likely these projects would be social, and if they are social, then there is a real case for government intervention to address social development and not to affect markets. Food versus fuel is not the issue then, the issue is renewable policy for fuel and flex feedstocks from governments both in the first and the third world.
![]() |
About the Author: Louis Strydom is an expert in new venture creation and project finance with wide experience on projects in the developing world. One of Strydom’s main projects for the last year has been conducting a pre-feasibility study and promotion of a 230,000 acre site for a Jatropha plantation and biodiesel refinery in Kenya. Previously he was Senior Vice President of Project Finance at Decillion - a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Other positions included Senior Economist managing the Credit Policy and Risk Management division of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of South Africa. Prior to that he was a Director with Triumvirate responsible for Marketing and Consulting on Crisis Management. Strydom also has extensive experience in short term insurance with American Insurance Group on fire/casualty risks, niche products and political risks in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, UK and USA.
China’s Eco-Challenge
REQUIRES GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION?
| CHINA, USA, INDIA - 1995 vs. 2005 |
![]() |
| China’s economy has grown by nearly 14 times in the last ten years |
Editor’s Note: Back in early 2001, using 1995 data, we published an analysis of global energy production trends entitled “The Good, the Bad, & the BTUs,” where we calculated if everyone on earth were to require 100 million BTUs of energy per year, on average, energy production on earth would have to double to nearly 700 million BTUs. And with global energy production topping 500 BTUs last year, we are well on our way.
Something else happened over the past decade, however, something difficult to explain, which may provide an encouraging note as we struggle to find enough energy to complete the industrialization of the world. Referring to the chart that accompanied our 2001 story (BTUs & GNP by Nation), we noted that in 1995 the major developing nations were far less efficient at turning energy into wealth than the developed ones. In 1995, for example, China required 46,666 BTUs to generate one dollar of GNP, and India required 30,759 BTUs to do the same. In the USA back then, by contrast, only 12,583 BTUs were needed to generate one dollar of national wealth.
The table “CHINA, USA, INDIA - 1995 vs. 2005″ tells a dramatic and encouraging story: In the last decade, the energy intensity - the efficiency with which a nation turns energy into wealth - has flipped-flopped, and China and India are now able to turn energy into wealth more efficiently than the USA. While the USA has logged a commendable achievement in the last ten years, improving its energy intensity by 44%, China has improved its energy intensity by 86%, and India’s national energy intensity has improved by 85%. The numbers are almost unbelievable: China’s BTU’s per GNP has plummeted from 46,666 to 6,608, and India’s have dropped from 30,759 to 4,541. This incredible achievement should encourage anyone who hopes global energy production can level off quickly enough to allow clean energy technologies to catch up.
Yet challenges are remain daunting as these massive nations transform themselves at breathtaking speed. With a real growth rate of over 11% per year, China, whose GNP has increased nearly 14x in the last ten years, is poised to have a larger economy than the USA by 2009! And with a population nearly four times larger than the USA, China’s economy is going to keep on growing well beyond parity with the USA.
This article by Gordon Feller explores some of the tradeoffs China faces as they wrestle with issues of economic growth, environmental protection, and sustainability in both areas. Increasingly, it is evident in China that environmental protection is a prerequisite for ongoing economic growth - it is not always one at the expense of the other. That realization is encouraging as well, as the Middle Kingdom awakens.
- Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| Nowhere is the environmental impact of China’s modernization more evident than in the Three Gorges section of the Yangtze River. |
The standard discussion of environmental challenges treats them as more socio-political, in the short-term, and a threat to economic development, but only in the long-term.
The May 2007 suspension of construction on a paraxylene plant in Fujian, for instance, was widely characterized as a gain for local interest groups at the expense of jobs. The primary force behind the suspension was indeed local and political rather than environmental, since far more damaging projects are underway all across the country.
Moreover, the Communist Party obviously sees a short-run trade-off between economic and environmental gains. The October 2005 Party plenum denounced the blind pursuit of economic growth at the expense of, among other things, pollution control. More recently, the 2007 National People’s Congress reasserted growth as the top priority, explicitly of more importance than environmental objectives.
It is certainly true that environmental degradation - especially of the water supply - threatens long-term growth. But there are also short-term dangers, exacerbated by sustained and ill-advised policies.
Carbon emissions and the long-term question of climate change are the pollution issues that receive the most publicity. But there is also the short-term cost of respiratory ailments from conventional air pollution. The last World Bank report on the topic puts the majority of the world’s most (air) polluted cities on the mainland. A generation of urban children has grown up under conditions of poor to abysmal air quality, which will affect their participation in the labor force just as the PRC begins a demographic shift to labor shortage.
![]() |
| Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao |
In carbon emissions the present debate over whether China has passed the US as the worst offender is immaterial. If it hasn’t already it will do shortly; shortly after that it will lead the world by a huge amount. Rapid growth in heavy industry ensures this outcome and the last four years are irrefutable evidence the central government will not undermine the industrial boom. Only four of 32 provinces met emissions targets in 2006.
Beijing is correct that much offending output is in high demand by the same trade partners objecting to carbon emissions. In the current setting, though, this argument might chiefly turn out to be ammunition for foreign protectionists. Dismissing overseas environmental concerns could contribute to an economic shock as access to export markets is inhibited Energy constraints.
Closely connected to emissions is energy use. The State Environmental Protection Administration happily projects cuts in the discharges of major pollutants and, thus, a decline in chemical oxygen demand by 2010. This is difficult to reconcile with the objective of a 20% drop in energy consumption per unit of GDP, as the latter implies a considerable increase in absolute energy consumption from GDP growth.
As an illustration, demand for oil products is so high that improvement in the quality of gasoline has stagnated, delaying implementation of tougher auto emissions standards.
Since energy use is rising, chemical oxygen demand will only decline if the energy mix changes significantly. Yet efforts to change the energy mix for environmental and other reasons are being aborted due to environmental and economic consequences.
A mad flight to divert corn stocks to ethanol production, encouraged by central government incentives, has boosted corn prices at a time when food costs are driving inflation. The State Council has thus been forced to halt corn-for-ethanol production. The State Development and Reform Commission is now discouraging once popular coal-to-oil liquefaction projects in light of the power and water these projects require.
![]() |
| Chinese President Hu Jintao |
Water shortages and their economic implications are being recognized in Beijing. By 2010 there is supposed to be a dramatic 30% cut in water per unit of industrial value added. Coincident with this announcement, though, the State Statistical Bureau stopped making industrial production totals public, so that progress cannot be monitored. In May deteriorating conditions in some agricultural areas, in particular lack of clean water, contributed to the spread of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (blue ear disease). According to the Ministry of Agriculture, this is the main factor pushing up the cost of pork, another notable contributor to food costs.
Over a longer timeframe low water inflow has inhibited the anticipated expansion of hydropower use for at least a decade. This partly explains increased reliance on coal and has contributed to power shortages. Now the Ministry of Water Resources is worried, not just about water flow on the Yangtze but that large sections of the river are so polluted that the damage might be irreversible. This would obviously be a death-blow to regional agriculture. International development banks are being asked to ease the scarcity of clean water and multinationals corporations are stepping into remaining gaps. In June alone the World Bank approved a $170m loan for water supply and waste disposal in Liaoning and the Asian Development Bank lent $150m to treat wastewater in Anhui.
France’s Veolia Environnement is the principal private-sector operator. It won a 30-year, $1bn water management contract for Haikou, Hainan in June, one of many for Veolia. Desalinization may not be sensible except in desert countries, but China’s problems are such that is becoming so. Israeli water company IDE will build a $120m desalinization plant serving Beijing and Tianjin.
About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.
| MAP OF CHINA |
![]() |
| CIA China Facts 2006 |
India’s Hydro Power
![]() |
| The mighty Brahmaputra courses southwest, then south, connecting Himalayan glaciers to the Andaman Sea. |
Editor’s Note: In our recent feature “Technology & Sunlight - India’s Green Future” we calculated that for India to produce half as much energy per capita as members of the European Community, its overall energy production would need to quadruple.
While India has technology and sunlight in abundance, and while these are key ingredients for a green energy future, it is daunting to think solar thermal and solar electric power can increase their share of energy production from today’s negligible percentage to provide all needed growth in energy production within a generation.
While biofuel offers potential, barring pending breakthroughs that facilitate biofuel from sources other than crops, there is a finite boundary to how much biofuel can be grown. And biofuel from crops come at the expense of food and forest, and are themselves major drivers of climate change when cooling and rain-inducing forests give way en-masse to new plantations of thirsty biofuel monocultures.
For this reason we have examined the alternatives to the alternatives; conventional energy options such as fossil fuels (including heavy oil), nuclear power, and hydroelectricity. In our report “China’s Renewable Energy,” it is clear what a nation with a strong central government can accomplish. The Three Gorges hydroelectric complex will have a capacity of 17.5 gigawatts, a staggering amount of energy - the single massive Three Gorges installation will output more than 50% of the entire output of every one of India’s current hydroelectric power stations combined! But in democratic India, projects of such magnitude take time, as they probably should. Not every gorge should be dammed.
Yet India’s compelling need to produce more energy remains. And unlike a nation like the United States, where power is already available in abundance and energy efficiency innovations can address much (some would say all) of their energy challenges, there isn’t as much time in India to debate options. Projects in the United States can take decades to gain approval through the democratic process, but the United States has decades to wait. Unlike the USA which is in a post-industrial phase, India needs more energy now to complete their process of industrialization. India needs more energy now in order for its energy infrastructure to keep pace with its burgeoning and world class scientific and technology community, and to give those communities the raw materials they need to lift India to the higher standard of living their innovations promise.
This is the challenge India faces - to balance democratic dialogue, which require delays and compromise, with the need to fulfill urgent economic imperatives. To lose too much democracy or to forfeit too many innovations in an energy challenged nation are both unacceptable outcomes. There is a balance between traditional technologies for energy conservation and water harvesting and small dams, for example, and mega projects such as interlinking rivers and nuclear power plants and large hydroelectric dams. In finding that balance, not everything will be lost, but not everything will be saved, either. The only way India will find a route into the eventual solar future will be to embrace some of these alternatives to the alternatives, unpleasant though they may be, but to do this in a way that leaves enough wilderness and democracy intact to make the choice worthwhile. It can be done.
- Ed “Redwood” Ring
![]() |
| The 1,500 megawatt Jhkari Hydroelectric Plant, India’s largest underground hydro-electric project; Satluj River, Himachal Pradesh (Photo: Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd, India) |
The Indian economist Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is eager to provide electricity to every village by 2009, thereby surpassing the official target of “power to all by 2012.”
Over 40 percent of India’s population does not have access to electricity and providing electricity for 24 hours in rural areas is a major challenge. For this the Indian government has envisioned several paths for its energy requirements, from nuclear to renewable. Despite greening its energy requirements, the government has taken various paths from bidding foreign oil well through diplomatic manoeuvring to establishing fossil fuel thermal plants. Meanwhile, hydro-power is one of the energy sources which oscillate between aspiration and achievements. But today there is a strong push for large hydro projects in India. While the pro-hydro lobby is working towards meeting India’s full potential, the anti-hydro-power groups are targeting those projects which they believe are violating environmental and human rights norms. Despite growing number of oppositions to hydro-power, the Indian government is very optimistic to achieve its potential.
By end of August 2007, the total installed capacity in India is 135,402 megawatts (MW), out of which thermal occupies 86,976 MW (64.5 %), hydro 34,131 MW (24.8 %), nuclear 4,120 MW (3.1 %), and renewable 10,175 MW (7.6 %). Out of the total thermal mix, coal produces 71,932 MW (53.4 %), gas produces 13,842 MW (10.2 %) and oil produces a mere 1,202 MW (0.9 %). In comparison with other countries like Canada (17,179 kWh), USA (13,338 kWh), Australia (11,126 kWh), Japan (8,076 kWh), France (7,689 kWh), Germany (7,030 kWh), United Kingdom (6,206 kWh), Russia (5,642 kWh) and Italy (5,644 kWh), India’s per capita electricity consumption is very low at 631 kWh at present. The National Electricity Policy envisages that the per capita availability of electricity will be increased to over 1,000 kWh by 2012. To achieve this, the government is expecting a total capacity addition of about 78,577 MW at the end of 2012 of which 16,553 MW is expected from hydro, 58,644 MW from thermal and 3,380 MW from nuclear. Although India has significant potential for generation of power from non-conventional energy sources (183,000 MW) such as wind, small hydro, biomass and solar energy, the emphasis is still going to thermal energy sources. India has at present a 7.5% overall electrical energy shortage and 11% peaking shortage.
Options for Hydropower
In the 2005 National Electricity Policy the objectives have been set as follows: provision for access to electricity for all households; demand to be met by 2012 with no energy and peaking shortages and adequate reserves to be made available and reliable, and quality power supplies at reasonable rates.
The Indian government considers hydropower as a renewable economic, non-polluting and environmentally benign source of energy. The exploitable hydro-electric potential in terms of installed capacity is estimated to be about 148,700 MW (See Table 1) out of which a capacity of 30,164 MW (20.3%) has been developed so far and 13,616 MW (9.2 %) of capacity is under construction. In addition, 6,782 MW in terms of installed capacity from small, mini and micro hydro schemes have been assessed. Also, 56 sites for pumped storage schemes with an aggregate installed capacity of 94,000 MW have been identified. The government expects to harness its full potential of hydropower by 2027 with a whopping investment of 5,000 billion Rupees.
| Table 1: INDIA’S HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL |
![]() |
| India has the potential to nearly triple their hydroelectric output. Source: India Central Electricity Authority |
Stages of Hydro Power Development
In 1887 at Darjeeling, state of West Bengal, the first hydropower station in India was commissioned. At the time of independence, out of total installed capacity of 1,362 MW, hydro-power generation capacity stood at 508 MW. The share of hydropower in the country had a major thrust after Independence, when it rose from 37% at the end of 1947 to its peak share of 51% at the end of 1962/63. While there has been a continuous increase in the installed capacity of hydro power stations in India, today the share of hydro power has been reduced to only 25% of total electric power generation. The government believes the strong public opposition to dams in India is the reason for slower progress.
In India, power is a concurrent subject and the primary responsibility as far as the consumer is concerned vests with the States who have full responsibility for distribution. During 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017), the Government has identified hydro-power benefits of 38,242 MW (See Table 2). During the same period the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., a government of India enterprise, is targeting to install 5,837 MW of hydropower in India. In the approach paper on power and energy to the 11th Five Year Plan-2007-2012, the government is anticipating in hydro capacity addition of 16,553 MW of which Central Sector will add 9,685 MW, State Sector 3,605 MW and Private Sector 3,263 MW. From 1,061 MW in 1st Five Year Plan (1951-1956), the hydro power has grown to 34,131 MW at the end of 10th Five Year Plan (See Table 3). In fact installed capacity of hydro has increased at a compound growth rate of 4.35% per annum since 1991, higher than all other power sub-sectors.
| Table 2: INDIA’S IDENTIFIED HYDROPOWER PROJECTS, 2012-2017 |
![]() |
| Hydropower projects possible in 12th plan (2012-2017), listed by state, then by river. Source: India Central Electricity Authority |
| Table 3: INDIA’S HYDRO PROJECTS BY 5 YEAR PLAN |
![]() |
| Plan-wise growth of installed capacity of hydropower. Source: India Central Electricity Authority |
The Union Ministry of Power has taken several policy measures to accelerate capacity addition from hydro-electric projects. These include: higher budgetary allocation for the hydro sector; investment approval of new projects; identification of new projects, promoting State Sector projects which were languishing or could not progress due to Inter-State disputes; improving tariff dispensation for hydro projects; simplification of procedure for transfer of clearance; levy of 5% development surcharge to supplement resources for hydro electric projects. While the Power Ministry is responsible for the development of large hydro power projects in India, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has been responsible for small and mini hydro projects up to 3MW station capacity since 1989.
Private Sector Participation:
With the economic liberalisation, the Indian government also opened up the doors in 1991 to private companies for the setting up of private hydropower projects. However, so far only about 910 MW has been commissioned by the help of private players, which constitutes less than 3 percent of the total installed hydropower capacity. The present major private developers are Malana Power Company Ltd., the Jaypee Group and S. Kumar Group. Seeing the vast potential present in the hydro power generation, Jaypee ventured into private power generation on a “Build, Own, Operate” (BOO) basis. So far Jaypee has the distinction of participating in 54% of new hydropower projects under India’s Tenth Five Year Plan.
Small Hydro-Power: A Viable Option
![]() |
| Small 100 KW hydro power project in Himachal Pradesh (Photo: MNES) |
Small and mini hydel projects have the potential to provide energy in remote and hilly areas where extension of an electrical transmission grid system is uneconomical. Realising this fact, the Indian government is encouraging development of small hydro power (SHP) projects in the country. Since 1994 the role of private sector for setting up of commercial SHP projects has been encouraged. So far 14 States in India have announced policies for setting up commercial SHP projects through private sector participation. Over 760 sites of about 2,000 MW capacity have already been offered / allotted.
An estimated potential of about 15,000 MW of small hydropower (SHP) projects exists in India. 4,233 potential sites with an aggregate capacity of 10,071 MW for projects up to 25 MW capacities have been identified (See Table-4). In the last 10-12 years, the capacity of Small hydro projects up to 3MW has increased 4 fold from 63 MW to 240 MW. 420 small hydropower projects up to 25MW station capacity with an aggregate capacity of over 1,423 MW have been set up in the country and over 187 projects in this range with aggregate capacity of 521 MW are under construction.
The MNES provides various incentives like soft loans for setting up of SHP projects up to 25 MW capacity in the commercial sector, renovation and modernization of SHP projects, setting up of portable micro hydel sets, development / upgradation of water mills, detailed survey and investigation, detailed project report preparation, interest subsidy for commercial projects, capital subsidy for SHP projects in the North-Eastern region, and implementation of UNDP/GEF Hilly Hydro project. India has a reasonably well-established manufacturing base for the full range and type of small hydro equipment. There are currently eight manufacturers within India in the field of small hydro manufacturing, supplying various types of turbines, generators, control equipment, etc.
| Table 4: INDIA’S SMALL HYDRO POTENTIAL |
![]() |
| Sites capable of up to 25 MW capacity, another 5,000 MW is believed to be possible. (Photo: MNES) |
The Role of International Agencies on Hydro-Power
Major hydro-power structures are being funded by international financial institutions like World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Export Credit Agency, and bilateral agencies like Japan Bank for International Cooperation(JBIC), and the French Government, Canada, UK, Sweden, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and the US in India. Since 1956 the World Bank has been involved in the hydro-power development in India. The Bank is looking to support India’s hydro development program (www.worldbank.org.in/hydropower) through financial assistance for up to about 1,500 MW of hydropower capacity over the next three to five years. Besides the 412 MW Rampur Hydroelectric Project approved by the Bank’s Board in early September 2007 (www.worldbank.org.in), the Bank also received a request to finance the proposed 444 MW Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydropower Project (www.worldbank.org.in/vishnugard-pipalkoti) being developed by the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation on the Alaknanda River in the state of Uttranchal. The Bank would also like to assist in the 700 MW Luhri hydro power project in Himachal Pradesh.
Similarly, the Asian Development Bank has begun its engagement in producing hydro-power in Uttranchal in India with 4 SHPs (4-10 MW). However, the Manila based-regional development bank believes that India’s vast hydropower potential can contribute to the country’s energy security in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner. The latest report of ADB (Hydropower Development in India, 2007) provides an assessment of the hydropower development potential in India and highlights how hydropower can meet the country’s goal of providing power for all by 2012. In all probability, the World Bank would like to assist in construction of hydropower structures; the ADB will lay the transmission lines from the projects to the grid.
As major rivers transcend international boundaries in South Asia, India has taken up regional (mostly bilateral) cooperation on harnessing the hydro-power potential of international river systems. At present, India has cooperation with Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar on hydro-power.
Challenges and Constraints
The hydro-power in India has always caught the imagination of people’s struggle, displacement, and submergence of large virgin forest tracts and now, the instrument of greenhouse gas emissions. The large hydropower infrastructures usually categorise with adjectives such as “temples of modern India” or “monument to corruptions” or “weapons of mass destruction” and so on. Can these perceptions be changed on the issue of large hydro-power dams?
From a hydro-engineering point of view, the immense potential of hydropower in India is yet to be harnessed. For an engineer, it’s mandatory to build a dam for producing electricity. One of my hydro-engineer colleagues in India’s government argues, “the hydro power is the best option in the Indian context considering the large volume of water going to waste. Besides, hydro-power is better than thermal power as the former is cheaper, can be generated and utilised as per the need without any overhead costs for idle runs.” “Also the thermal units take a longer time to be restarted,” adds the Engineer who is preparing mega hydro-power projects in Orissa. The Engineer tries to convince me that “there are no flaws in hydro power except building a reservoir, and sometimes commissioning of the projects takes more time. The government’s last resort is run of the river (RoR) projects which are the small ones with less producing capacity. This is explored when one does not have the other option.”
For anti-dam activists hydro-power is just an option, not mandatory. They view any estimate on hydropower - the very fact of putting a number with an electricity unit - as flawed and fraudulent. From this perspective, water-the-resource, has other utilities and needs more significant than than generating electricity. Anti-dam activists point out the centralized character of large hydro power projects, with high costs, potential under performance, violations and inequity as the basic flaws.
Hydropower provides one of the strongest examples of the close link between water and energy. Because of its link with large dam projects, which are often environmentally and socially harmful, hydropower has been the focus of heated debate for the last two decades in India. The main negative impacts of dams include displacement of local populations and degradation of ecosystems, adverse down-stream effects on rivers and threatening livelihoods of large numbers of people. Hydro-power has been contested by all except government officials for its efficiency or being green. It’s true that there is little attempt for credible assessment of performance of large hydro. Of late, the large hydro projects have been presented by neo-anti-dam experts as instruments of emission of greenhouse gases more than remedies of climate change because the large dams are the public image of environmental and social degradation in the developing world. The IPCC recognized in its 2006 guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories that reservoirs are a source of emissions, but more research is needed to be able to accurately quantify the extent of these emissions, especially of methane. So whether hydropower is green and renewable or not is gaining more heated discourse than its centralised character of production, distribution and management.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Power is taking notes of the long gestation period from preparation to implementation of the project which is actually hampering the capacity addition. The other weaknesses are duration of preparing a project report, taking an investment decision, acquiring land, getting environment clearance, placing orders for execution of the project. Also there is a great imbalance in capacity addition among the States. However, the major problem is the opposition to hydro power projects all over India.
Should India Achieve its Hydro-Power Potential?
![]() |
| Sidrapong, a small 130 KW Hydro Power Station in West Bengal; a heritage of Hydro power in India. (Photo: MNES) |
The trust in government and its bureaucracy has been eroding in India thereby leaving more avenues for contested domains. It has been very difficult transforming the government intentions to produce electricity from the large water infrastructures after the Sardar Sorvar Project debacle in the early 1990’s. The small hydro projects are being cautiously implemented by the governments. However in some cases the adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts of large dams can be mitigated through informed decision-making, transparency and engagement of all stakeholders. In all probability, the advantages and disadvantages of hydro-power structures, large or small, have to be discussed with people transparently.
The present social and environmental assessments of the hydro projects are flawed from many angles which triggers real and imaginary conflicts of interest. To settle the People’s concern, after two years of debate the Indian Cabinet has recently passed the National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2007. In particular, there has to be clear recognition in all decision making related to dams that a balance needs to found between the needs for use of renewable energy, and the minimization of possible harmful effects on the environment - especially mountain environments where most of the hydro-potential resides. Mountain regions have particular potential for use and production of renewable energy, not only hydro, but also biomass, solar, geothermal or wind; clearly, the adverse environmental effects on fragile mountain ecosystems need to be carefully assessed and prevented before developments take place. Also, possible social issues between upstream (often poor mountain communities) and downstream communities (often the main beneficiaries of energy production) need to be addressed.
About the Author: Avilash Roul has been writing, advocating, researching, creating knowledge on Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. He worked with Down To Earth (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India) for the last three years. He also contributed regularly in Sundays for a column in New India Express on environment and development. More recently, Mr. Roul worked as an Assistant South Asia Regional Coordinator for the Bank Information Center (www.bicusa.org), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank, regional development banks, and the International Monetary Fund.







>



































.jpg)








.jpg)
.jpg)

































