Sometimes truth is like the tortoise, slow to reach its destination, but nonetheless unstoppable. (Photo: EcoWorld)

“There can be little doubt that the issue of global warming presents green entrepreneurs with many tempting opportunities and it’s only natural that one would want to exploit these opportunities.”

Moreover, environmental opportunities are accompanied by the satisfaction of cloaking the profit motive in virtue. Still, it pays to remember that for any enterprise there is a responsibility, and one of those responsibilities is the ability to detect bullshit, or as it is more formally called, due diligence. You have been told since 1988 (if your memory should go back that far) that the science of global warming is settled and that all scientists agree. Those of you who are intimate with physics, know that no such claim would even be made for the standard model or for general relativity. Those of you who have attended college will have difficulty remembering classmates who studied climate – certainly not the obvious ‘rocket scientists.’ So how does it happen that a primitive, backwater science dealing with a complex system involving some the most formidable equations in physics and innumerable unexplained features come to be characterized by a certainty that escapes the strongest of sciences? And what exactly is the certainty claimed for given the innumerable facets of this issue? It is certainly not about the various catastrophic scenarios.

Most of you will recognize that the rhetoric of global warming is not the rhetoric of science, it is the rhetoric of politics, and, quite frankly, global warming has always been a political movement. As a political movement, it is characterized by an unusual degree of ugliness. Scientists who legitimately question the alarmism are regularly associated with holocaust denial – an insult to the scientist and a belittling of the holocaust by associating the real murder of millions with a guess about some future problem. And for over 20 years, it has, moreover, been an excellently organized political movement. There has, in fact, been no comparably organized opposition.

My first point is that as far as scientists go, most of the atmospheric scientists and oceanographers who I respect do endorse global warming (without generally being specific about exactly what they are endorsing). The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier. For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition.

Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has a major oceanographic program to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal. Perhaps, the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.

For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding provides little incentive to complain about the spin.

Second, most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority. This, the global warming movement has done with great success.

Thus, for over twenty years, the National Academy had a temporary nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental activists. The current president of the academy is one of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm. Holdren is now President Obama’s nominee for science advisor. There are numerous further examples. How often have we heard a legitimate scientific argument answered by the claim that the alarmist scenario is endorsed by, for example, the American Physical Society (regardless of their lack of expertise in the issue)? How often have you heard innocuous claims by some society or another taken as endorsements of alarm? How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy website designed to assure warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)?

Thirdly, the success with respect to the second item also gives the climate alarm movement control over carrots and sticks – which, in turn, is what makes it expedient for most scientists to go along. Note that the carrots are as important as the sticks, though the sticks matter a great deal when grants, publication and promotion are at stake.

With respect to carrots, for example, John Holdren was long on the board of the MacArthur Foundation which has awarded ‘genius’ grants to numerous environmental activists. Ironically, an award allegedly honoring the late Bill Nierenberg (who served as director of Scripps Oceanographic Institution), a very perceptive and active skeptic of climate alarm, is now given annually to an alarmist. One could go on at great length. At the stick end, one simply has to note that Science and Nature have both publically taken positions against publishing anything that opposes the notion of dangerous anthropogenic warming, while publishing highly dubious science endorsing the notion.

The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science – especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate science would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change. All impacts depend on regional forecasts, and quoting the leading scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (widely regarded as the foremost atmospheric modeling center), Tim Palmer, such forecasts are little better than guesses.

Nonetheless, regional forecasts are at the heart of numerous state initiatives to ‘fight’ climate change. These initiatives are usually prepared by the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group that purports to help states determine for themselves how to develop climate change policies. In reality, according to Paul Chesser of the John Locke Foundation, CCS tightly controls these commissions, who consider proposals mostly from a menu of options presented by CCS themselves. Nearly all the choices represent new taxes or higher prices on energy, increased costs of government, new regulations for businesses, and reduced energy-producing options for utilities, and therefore consumers. CCS is funded largely by a multi-million dollar global warming alarmist foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

What can the entrepreneur who wants to get to the bottom of this mess do? The most obvious point is to better understand the science, and to notice the obvious breaches of logic. Logic ultimately has to trump alleged authority. Moreover, there is generally a deep disconnect between consensus statements that commonly only repeat the trivial points that there has been some warming and that man’s emissions have caused some part of this, and the claims of catastrophe made by advocates. Pay attention to these differences. Note especially that citing various changes that are observed is simply to note that the earth is always changing; it is hardly evidence of man’s role in such changes.

With respect to better understanding the science, it is my view that the observations of almost a decade ago that outgoing long wave radiation associated with warmer surface temperatures was much greater than models predicted provided as good evidence as one could hope for that model sensitivities were much too high. However, without an adequate understanding of the physics, the point is largely missed. How can one communicate this to the public? Actually, the science isn’t all that hard.

John Sununu (formerly Bush I’s chief of staff, governor of New Hampshire, and professor of mechanical engineering at Tufts University) offered an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback. In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow. If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then the pedals would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow.

Alarming predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer is may well be no. In the common (though admittedly somewhat inaccurate) picture of the greenhouse effect, greenhouse substances (mainly thin high clouds and water vapor, but also CO2, methane, freons, etc.) act as a blanket, inhibiting the emission of infrared (heat) radiation. We know that in the absence of feedbacks (in which water vapor and clouds allegedly act to amplify the effect of added CO2), an increase in temperature will lead to a certain increase in this heat radiation (also known as outgoing longwave radiation, OLR). With positive feedbacks, this amount of radiation will be reduced (in terms of the ‘blanket’ imagery, the blanket has gotten thicker). Current models do, indeed, predict this. The feedback processes actually operate on very short time scales, and the earth’s temperature also undergoes relatively rapid fluctuations (associated with internal phenomena like El Nino). In response to such fluctuations, the emitted heat radiation will also fluctuate.

In these diagrams we actually have a crucial piece of information that tells us that models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. It tells us that the greenhouse blanketing effect in models is about 7 times greater than it is in nature.

As we see in the accompanying figures from a paper by Wielicki et al (2002), the actual fluctuations in heat radiation are substantially greater than those produced by models forced by the observed temperature fluctuations. They are also greater than what would be expected in the absence of feedbacks. This implies that nature is, as any reasonable person might suppose, dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks. It has been noted that the climate in models is an example of unintelligent design – something modelers are far more capable of than is nature.

From 1985 until 1989 the models and observations are more or less the same – they have, in fact, been tuned to be so. However, with the warming after 1989, the observational spikes characteristically exceed 7 times the model values. This corresponds roughly to a sensitivity of 0.5C for a doubling of CO2. Note that the ups and downs of both the observations and the model (forced by observed sea surface temperature) follow the ups and downs of temperature.

Getting people (including many scientists) to understand this is crucial. Once it is understood, the silliness of the whole issue becomes evident – though those who are committed to warming alarm as the vehicle for agendas ranging from a postmodern coup d’etat to simple personal profit will obviously try to obfuscate matters. Although the above results were confirmed by at least four other groups, there did appear a paper in 2006 by Wong, Wielicki et al that attempted to eliminate the observed discrepancy with models by adjusting the data. In this particular case, satellite orbital decay was shown to largely reduce the secular change in emitted heat radiation between the 80’s and 90’s. However, the episodic fluctuations remained substantially greater than those produced by the models. It is an interesting feature of climate science that when data disagrees with models, the data is inevitably ‘corrected’ to eliminate the disagreement. The ‘corrections’ in my experience are not implausible; the data, after all, is subject to numerous uncertainties.

However, the fact that such changes inevitably act to bring the data into better agreement with highly uncertain models is, in fact, highly implausible. There are many reasons why the weakness of the arguments for catastrophic anthropogenic warming are little known (though increasingly suspected by the general public). Some of these reasons are institutional. Those who note the weaknesses are limited by minimal resources.

Indeed, given the minimal resources available to those who are truly interested in how climate actually works, and the immense resources and power of the environmental movement, it is astounding that resistance has been as effective as it has been. That said, one should not underestimate the impressive degree of organization behind the climate alarm movement. Notable, in this regard, has been the Climate Action Network that has coordinated the activities of hundreds of environmental NGO’s since 1989. To be sure, there have been petitions by 100’s to tens of thousands of scientists opposing global warming alarm. These have been largely ineffective. However, there is now afoot a movement for these thousands of scientists to resign en masse from scientific and professional organizations wherein a few activist members have managed to speak for the entire membership in taking unrepresentative stands on the warming issue. Such a movement would make clear the shallowness of the claims of institutional authority.

The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one dimensional which is to say that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO2 is grotesque in its oversimplification. This error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it. However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble simply because it endorses the oversimplified paradigm. Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (a few tenths of a degree concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries, and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature. The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd – about as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook.

Finally, I would suggest that history supports the notion that science eventually favors the truth, and I am confident that when this point is finally reached global warming alarm will be viewed as another inexplicable mania. There are many reasons for being confident of this. However, we have just gone over one of the most important scientific reasons. The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal.

In a field as primitive as climate science, most of the alleged climate scientists are not even aware of this basic relation. And these days, as we have seen, attempts will be made to alter the data. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the public is not likely to understand this as well. On the other hand, the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly has not increased statistically significantly since at least 1995, does not actually disprove anthropogenic global warming, but for the public this failure may well be crucial. (It may already have been crucial for the otherwise inexplicable surge in global warming propaganda over the past three years.)

For some of us, this is an occasional source of frustration, but one must always remember that this is a political rather than a scientific issue, and in a political issue, public perception is important. Moreover, the temperature record does demonstrate at least one critical point: namely, that natural climate variability remains sufficiently large to preclude the identification of climate change with anthropogenic forcing. As the IPCC AR4 noted, the attribution claim, however questionable, was contingent on the assumption that models had adequately handled this natural internal variability. The temperature record of the past 14 years clearly shows that this assumption was wrong. To be sure, this period constitutes a warm period in the instrumental record, and, as a result, many of the years will be among the warmest in the record, but this does nothing to mitigate the failure of nature to properly follow the models. To claim otherwise betrays either gross ignorance or grosser dishonesty (see Figures 2 and 3 from data from the UK Meteorological Office). When it comes to global warming hysteria, neither has been in short supply.

About the author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://web.mit.edu). This paper was prepared for a keynote address delivered by Linzen at the AlwaysOn GoingGreen cleantech investor conference, held March 9-11th in Boston. This transcript is posted here with permission from the author, and the video of this address can be found at the GoingGreen East Program Archives; scroll through the program and click on Lindzen’s opening keynote at 8:30 a.m. on March 11th.

Bishkek’s electricity generating plant can be seen in the background - frequently starved for fuel.

Every year when the winter knocks the door at former Soviet Republics particularly Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan…

Many political pledges, populist programs, negotiations, concessions, and decrees are made to facilitate the easy access to energy needs at least for survival. The political equations among the Central Asian countries oscillate awkwardly on the use of common rivers water that produces major requirement for electricity and irrigation. Claimed to having the largest hydropower potential in the region, the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) is facing the challenge of an energy quagmire.

Power fluctuations have caused major discontent in Kyrgyzstan, which has been embroiled in political and economic instability in recent years. The citizens of the landlocked Kyrgyzstan are going through yet another difficult winter and electricity generation is so low that the government has been unable to honor a pledge to end power cuts. The politics over energy demand and supply inside the Kyrgyzstan is ticking to explode at anytime as civil unrest.

According to government sources the exceptionally cold winter of 2007 forced them to produce more electricity than planned from the major Toktogul reservoir. Toktogul Hydro Power Station has a concrete gravity dam with height of 215 meters and water reservoir with a total volume of 19.5 km3 (cubic kilometers - a cubic kilometer or km3 is equivalent to, and frequently also expressed as “bcm” or billion cubic meters). The water inflow in the reservoir made 7.44 km3 till October 2008, which is 1.8 km3 less as compared to the last year at the same time. The water outflow reached 4.3 km3, 1.5 km3 less than in 2007. Once the volume of water in the Toktogul reservoir decreased even further in May 2008 to 6.8 km3, which was difficult to produce electricity. By overexploitation, the depletion of the Toktogul reservoir, which on 01 April 2008 amounted to only 7.2 km3, some 5 km3 lower than average (2002-2007).The water in reservoir is already low since 2007. The water inflows into Toktogul in 2007 summer were 1.7 km3 less than the average of the previous 15 years. The 2008 winter forced the government to exploit more water to produce electricity. So in the mentioned figure, the government highlighted that so far the situation is not normal for the winter of December-2008 to March 2009. For this reason the Kyrgyz government wants to conserve water in the reservoir by scheduled cutting electricity. So it was not primarily the 0.3 km3 net drop which necessitated the flow reduction, but to manage the low level of water in the reservoir and to produce more electricity required for this ongoing winter.

The Ministry of Industry, Energy and Fuel Resources responsible for supplying electricity and heat informed the public that due to inadequate water supplies in the Toktogul Reservoir, there would be daily power cuts everywhere. School days are shortened or closed. A senior citizen of Bishkek, Rufat Aliev says, “Even during World War-II, schools were never shortened or closed down.” Although citizens reprieved from daily blackouts in the extreme cold for few days, the blackouts resume again on November 15 in rural areas and Bishkek countryside. Kyrgyz electricity company Severelectro has already restarted electricity blackouts in Bishkek in late 2008 and planning to continue in 2009. (See Table-1 of black out- schedule). Meanwhile, the President sacked the energy minister Saparbek Balkibekov when the minister apprehended the looming energy crisis in Feb, 2009!

Table #1: ELECTRICITY BLACKOUT SCHEDULE - BISHKEK (OCTOBER & NOVEMBER)

Electricity generation in 2008 totalled 8.8 billion kilowatt hours, when in 2007 it was 10.5 billion. Due to the shortage of electricity generation, the prices of the electricity have been increasing gradually. Kyrgyz Prime Minister Igor Chudinov announced the government’s plans to increase prices for electricity by 13 percent and water by 20 percent in April 2008.

According to the electricity, heating and hot water tariffs raising plan, the prices may increase by 25-30% starting from April - May 2009. But, right now the price is 62 Tyiyn per KW (1 Som= 100 Tyiyns, in mid-January 2008 the Kyrgyz Som would exchange for about .025 US dollars, ref. Kyrgyz/USD exchange rate) is much above the normal price. So far, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade estimated that the electricity blackouts cost Kyrgyzstan about 60 billion Soms or 6 percent out of GDP growth.

The new Minister of Industry, Energy and Fuel Resources, Ilias Davydov, said to the Parliament in mid-December that “heating and electricity tariffs are not expected to rise since January 1, 2009.” However, many people who live in condominiums, have already constructed small stoves in their apartments and buying coal, and/or mazut (heavy, low quality fuel oil) in order to heat their homes, in case the central heating system fails to provide the required heat. Although people are receiving heat from the central heating system in Bishkek, people are expecting a high increase in tariff in anytime in end of January 2009. During the summer, the Bishkek residents were angry and frustrated by the fluctuation of power supply. Nicholas Lukyanovich Kravtsov, a former Soviet energy specialist now heads the public association on protection of the rights of consumers ‘Yustin’ in Bishkek says, “The government has created this myth of load shedding on the decline of water level in the reservoir including other myths of non-profitability of the energy sector, high prices for electricity and privatisation.” 

On another night without electricity, candlelight is seen dimly through the windows of this apartment building.

The Complex Water and Energy
Nexus in Central Asia

In this situation, it is necessary to delve into policies and mechanisms for management of key resources - water and energy resources. According to the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, the countries of the region day by day would be involved in tough negotiations for water and energy. However, one-sided utilization of water resources of rivers for power generation entails problems in water supplies for people living in lower reaches, primarily for the irrigation purposes.

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are located in the high mountains of Pamir and Tyan Shan, whose many glaciers supply the water which is the main energy resource in these countries. Hydropower provides over 90% of their energy supply. In the former Soviet region, after Russia, Tajikistan has the second highest water resource potential (530 billion kWh/year) followed by the Kyrgyzstan (142 billion kWh/year). However, most of the experts and government agencies are of the view that Kyrgyzstan exploits less than 9% of its hydroelectric potential. The annual hydropower potential of the smaller rivers is between 5 and 8 billion kWh, but only 3 percent has been utilised so far. Its rich water resources consist of 50 cubic kilometers of surface runoff a year, 13 km3 of potential ground water resources, 1,745 km3 of lake water, and 650 km3 of glaciers. The region’s largest rivers (the Naryn, 807 km; Chu, 380 km, Talas, 200 km, Saryjaz, Kara Darya, Chatkal, and others that belong to the Syr Darya and Amu Darya basins) find their headwaters in Kyrgyzstan.

There are 20 major power plants with a total installed capacity of 3,680 MW in the country.  Although there is conflicting information about the total number of large hydropower and combined heat and power plants (CHP) in the Republic, it’s commonly accepted that 2,950 MW comes from 18 hydro power plants and approximately 725 MW comes from two heat and power plants.

Table #2: EXISTING POWER PLANTS IN KYRGYZSTAN

(Source: Ministry of Industry, Energy and Fuel Resources, Kyrgyz Republic)

Table #3: SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANTS ON THE NARYN RIVER

According to the National Energy Program (NEP) of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2006-2010 and the Strategy of the Fuel and Energy Complex until 2025 (NEP), there will be addition of 3,960 MW from several hydropower stations by 2025 (See Table-4). However, this ambitious program needs sufficient investment. The NEP also envisages to commission 1200 MW Kavak state district heating power station by 2015.  During the same period, the NEP will add to the hydropower generation from small hydropower amounting 178 MW.

Table #4: HYDROPOWER PLANTS PROPOSED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Although power production is growing from 13.3 billion kWh in 1990 to 14.5 billion kWh in 2006, the citizens are deprived of electricity. The share of hydropower stations in power production increased from 67 to 94 percent, while the share of heat and power plants decreased drastically from 32 to 6 percent in 2006. In country’s fuel energy mix, hydropower takes 81 percent; heat and power plants 17 percent and small hydropower stations around 1.3 percent.

Most of the existing hydropower plants were constructed in Soviet times entirely along a single river - the Naryn River. Before 1991, Toktogul Reservoir was operated in ‘irrigation mode’, with large summer releases to satisfy irrigation demands in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and low winter releases. Surplus hydropower in summer produced by the Naryn Cascade was transmitted to the downstream Republics. During the winter, the Kyrgyz Republic received sufficient fuel to operate its combined heat and power plants. After 1991, fuel deliveries have not fully satisfied Kyrgyzstan’s needs. Therefore, the Kyrgyz Republic increased releases from the Toktogul Reservoir during winter. As a result, the reservoir operation has shifted to ‘power mode’ with large winter releases and lower summer releases. However, to address growing problems in the first half of the 1990’s, the Basin States entered into annual agreements on water allocation energy exchanges in an attempt to re-establish the pre-1991 operating regime. The 1998 Framework Agreement on the joint use of water and energy resources in the Syr Darya Basin between the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan places these agreements on a more formal footing. However, the implementation of the yearly basis negotiated outcome of the 1998 agreement is always questionable.

According to one of the senior Kyrgyz government representative, “It was the balance system to make countries equal. But after collapse of the USSR, upper riparian countries had to buy fossil fuel from downstream countries in market price, while latter used water free of charge. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan cannot understand that Kyrgyzstan needs money to maintain all these reservoirs to provide with irrigation water”.

Without successful barter for alternative fuel, hydropower in winter comes at the cost of downstream summer irrigation.

The Barter system: Water vs Natural Gas

In the latest negotiation with Uzbekistan in Tashkent, the Kyrgyz Minister of Industry, Energy and Fuel Resources Ilias Davydov concluded the imported natural gas price at $250 per 1000 cubic meters. Although the minister explained that the price is quite acceptable, when Uzbekistan sells gas to Russia at $326 per 1000 m3, last year the price was very low at $145. Earlier, both the government has an intergovernmental agreement, where it says that Uzbekistan promises to deliver Kyrgyzstan gas, while Kyrgyzstan give 600 cubic meters of water and 600 million kW/h of electricity. The Kyrgyz government agreed on these conditions, in order to keep the Bishkek heat and power plant operational. Kyrgyzstan intended to negotiate with Uzbek authorities into leaving the gas price unchanged - $145 per 1000m3. In 2007/2008 the Uzbek gas cost Kyrgyzstan $145 per 1,000m3.

The Uzbek government has been accusing Kyrgyzstan not to abide by the water-energy deal that has historically governed water allocations between the two nations. Even per the agreed arrangement, however, the Uzbeks complain about being unable to attain their goals for irrigation needs in summer as well as over unwanted flooding in winter. The Uzbek government’s intention, ideally, is to make beneficial use of the water of the Naryn River and the Toktogul reservoir not only for the Kyrgyz Republic, but for the national economies of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan as well. This is one of the most political and complicated issues between these neighbouring countries. There have been many instances of the downstream Uzbeks accusing the upstream Kyrgyz of not abiding the 1998 agreement which always renewed annually as per the parties request. For example, when Kyrgyz officials released more water for producing electricity during the Winter of 2008, most of the Uzbek’s arable land flooded. When the Uzbeks needed more water in the following summer for irrigation, the reservoir had less water. There were hardly any official remarks on this.

Similarly, the Kyrgyz government inked a deal with Kazakhstan to import of 250 million kilowatt-hours of electricity to Kyrgyzstan in September 2008. However, the head of the parliament committee on fuel-energy sector Yury Danilov suspected that the price of Kazakh electricity will make 3-4 soms per 1,000 kilowatt hours.

A shuttered and vacant school in Bishkek. Until heat and electricity becomes more reliable, students cannot learn.

The Role of Multilateral Development Banks

Major donor agencies like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) consider the present energy situation in Bishkek is continue to be a concern. The ADB is believed to be agreed to allocate $20 million for black oil, coal and gas purchasing for the Bishkek heating plant in the first quarter of 2009. The World Bank immediately sanctioned an emergency assistant to rehabilitate the Bishkek Heating Plant.

The ADB has a strategy called Central Asia Economic Cooperation under which a project named CASAREM (Central Asia/South Asia Regional Electricity Market) has been implemented for allowing energy export to Afghanistan and Pakistan as a market for the Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s energy. Maya Eralieva, Central Asia and Caucasus Coordinator of NGO Forum on ADB, says, “The MDBs [Multilateral Development Banks] especially the ADB has been cajoling the Kyrgyz government to export energy to far Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the situation at home is very grim, why the ADB is suggesting to exporting energy to outside the national border.”  Like the ADB, the World Bank is also planning for an export market for the Kyrgyz hydro power with emphasising privatisation of the energy sector in Bishkek. The privatisation of Kyrgyzenergo (the State electric agency) has been stalled at the parliamentary level since 1997, when sell-offs of large monopolies were suspended following allegations of price rigging and corruption. However, during this present emergency situation many international agencies like USAID have been re-opening the public debate on privatization. According to the senior human rights activist, Natalia Ablova of the Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law, privatization would be a very dangerous experiment at least for the Kyrgyzstan as there is non-transparency, no legal system to protect consumer rights, and no judicial control over private companies.

The Elusive Yet Abundant Hydropower in the Kyrgyz Republic

It’s interesting to note that the national Flag of Kyrgyz Republic carries the glowing sun, but the country is pressed with increasing energy shortages. In the flag there is the tunduk positioned in the center of the glowing sun. This image of the tunduk, which translates as rooftop, refers to the top of the boz-youi – the traditional house of nomadic Kyrgyz people.  So far, this scenic and beautiful landlocked country is looking for ways and means to harness the full potential of its hydropower. To pacify the anger of citizens of Bishkek, the Minister of Industry, Energy and Fuel Resources Ilias Davydov said that the government will consider writing off of citizens’ debts in early 2009. However, Mr. Guljan Ibraeva, citizen of Bishkek says, “Joint effort can resolve all the energy crisis, lack of water resources, food crisis in this region. We have to put all our efforts together and back to Soviet time designed system which is suitable and more sustainable.” This winter may decide the future of Kyrgyzstan’s energy sector and its bilateral relation with the neighbouring countries on water and energy. The Country must pay attention to hydro-energy diplomacy seriously.

THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

About the author: Avilash Roul, who recently completed his doctoral research on international environmental negotiations, particularly in the area of water security, has been writing, advocating, researching, and publishing on issues of the Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. Earlier, he worked with Down To Earth (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India). He also contributed regularly on 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), that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank and regional development banks. He has served on advisory boards for many research institutions and community based organizations. He is core advisor on energy and environment for the Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (www.sspconline.org), a New Delhi based think tank. Presently, he strategically supports many community groups and CSOs across Asia to build their capacity for research and analysis, project investigation, and strengthening community participation in Asian Development Bank (ADB) projects, programs and policies while working with the Manila based NGO Forum on ADB (www.forum-adb.org). He contributes his free time on researching and empowering and building capacity of various communities on environmental risk management, climate change, forest, mining, water and wildlife issues.

TWP is a non-profit organization based in Fort Collins, Colorado with a mission to improve people’s lives by helping communities to protect, conserve, and manage the natural resources upon which their long-term well-being depends. Trees Water & People was founded in 1998 by Stuart Conway and Richard Fox in order to establish reforestation, watershed protection, appropriate technology, and environmental education programs in Central America, the Caribbean, and the American West. Since its inception, TWP has achieved notable successes in its programs that have been recognized in many ways, including receiving the prestigious Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy in 2005. Additionally, TWP has received media coverage by the BBC, CNN International, National Geographic, Worldwatch Magazine, and National Public Radio, among others. The organization’s efforts are guided by the principles that natural resources are best protected when local people play a substantial role in their care and management, and that preserving local trees, wetlands, and watersheds is essential for the ongoing social, economic, and environmental health of communities everywhere. 

Using this approach, TWP has established local tree nurseries and reforestation projects across Central America, which help to combat the area’s severe deforestation. Also in this region, TWP has introduced fuel-efficient stoves into numerous communities. TWP’s improved stoves are an alternative to traditional 3-stone open fire cookstoves.  Traditional cooking methods threaten the health of families due to toxic smoke that is trapped inside the kitchen.  Furthermore, traditional stoves use more firewood than necessary.  The stoves that TWP has developed with Aprovecho Research Center use 50% - 70% less firewood.  To date, TWP has built approximately 27,000 stoves and planted 2.5 million trees in Central America.

TWP also works in the American West. An important project currently expanding across North American reservations is the Tribal Lands Renewable Energy Program.  This program involves local residents in the production, installation and maintenance of solar heating systems in order to reduce exorbitantly high utility bills common in reservation communities.  Additionally, TWP volunteers and community members plant shade and windbreak trees at homes on the reservations. The benefits of this program are extensive.  In particular, the program reduces the reliance of native peoples on harmful fuel sources, frees up limited family income to be used on other necessities, and provides a link between the people and their traditional beliefs of harmony with nature and responsible stewardship of Mother Earth. 

In following their guiding principles for conservation and protection efforts, TWP has developed programs specific to each participating country that promote active local participation in projects. 

Tree Nurseries in Nicaragua

An innovative example of one of TWP’s community partnerships in Nicaragua is the Forest Replacement Association (FRA). Currently, TWP is working with a partner NGO in Nicaragua, PROLEÑA, to assist in the establishment of these cooperatives.   The emergence of FRAs has been significant in their ability to provide a sustainable local source of wood instead of relying on the destruction of forests for wood resources FRAs operate as partnerships between farmers and fuelwood consumers such as local industry and domestic stove users.  In running an FRA, the first step is the establishment of a local nursery to raise tree seedlings. Farmers participating in the FRA partnership are then given seedlings from the local nursery to grow on their own land.   The farmers are motivated to participate by a guarantee that once the seedlings have matured, the local fuelwood consumers will provide a market for the resource at a fair-market price. By providing fuelwood to consumers on a local level, FRAs supply an alternative so that the devastating environmental effects of deforestation can be avoided.  Additionally, they create an opportunity for income generation for local farmers.  So far the FRAs have sold over 1,750,000 tree seedlings to farmers to be grown for sustainable firewood.

Improved Woodstoves in Honduras

In Honduras, TWP’s Micro-Enterprise Stove Project was designed to address the adverse effects of traditional open cookstoves in the homes of Hondurans.  The traditional cooking methods produce significant toxic smoke, which is trapped inside the kitchen, leading to severe Indoor Air Pollution (IAP), which can lead to respiratory disease, cataracts, low birthweight babies, and miscarriage.  In addition, traditional cookstoves consume large amounts of fuelwood and this contributes to the rapid depletion of native forests.  TWP, Aprovecho Reseach Center, and the Honduran Association for Development (AHDESA), have jointly developed several fuel-efficient, healthy stove designs, ranging in price from $10 to $120, that address these problems across Honduras. 

Besides offering concrete solutions to the problems of deforestation and IAP, TWP’s Micro-Enterprise Stove Project in Honduras involves community members in stove production, installation, and advocacy to increase opportunity and gain local involvement.  Together with a local community, TWP is implementing plans that are making a difference in the lives of many Hondurans. To date, TWP and AHDESA have built more than 13,000 Justa and EcoStoves in Honduras.

Improved Charcoal Stoves in Haiti

In recent news, TWP has initiated a similar stove program in Haiti.  Less than 2% of Haiti’s native forests remain today.   A cycle of perpetual political and economic instability has led to severe depletion of the country’s resources and has left the vast majority of the population living in extreme poverty.  TWP is addressing the situation with an affordable version of the Rocket stove.  In Haiti, the traditional cooking method utilizes charcoal.  With an understanding that it is best to develop a solution that is locally appropriate, TWP has modified their designs and come up with a clay version of the Rocket stove to use this traditional fuel.  The charcoal is burned more efficiently in these stoves and the pressure on natural resources is reduced.

Renewable Energy for Tribal Lands

Within the U.S., TWP has established the Tribal Lands Renewable Energy Program to serve Native American families on reservations.  The program began when we learned of the extremely high utility bills on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.  Many residents of the reservation often spend more than 70% of their cash income on electricity or propane to heat their homes – expensive and environmentally damaging choices inconsistent with traditional Native American beliefs about responsible stewardship of the Earth.  This channeling of their income towards utilities limits their ability to provide other family necessities such as food, medicine and clothing.

In response, TWP collaborated with local community members at Pine Ridge to implement a comprehensive conservation project.  One part of the program is the strategic planting of trees to save families up to 20% in utility costs by sheltering homes from the winter wind and summer sun. Another component of the Tribal Lands Renewable Energy Program is the installation of supplemental solar heating systems.  By harnessing the sun’s natural power through solar energy, these heaters are an important sustainable part of the TWP program. The heating systems provide relief from high utility bills, supply an environmentally-friendly heating alternative, and contribute to the well-being of families on the reservation by providing warmth. 
 
TWP’s partnership with one community leader in particular, Henry Red Cloud, has led to the creation of one of America’s first and only 100% Native American-owned renewable energy company – Lakota Solar Enterprises (LSE).  LSE has taken the initiative to begin manufacturing and installing solar heating systems. Local heating system production is important because it keeps the revenue from these units on the reservation, and jobs are created in a location where unemployment exceeds 80%.

TWP’s Tribal Lands Renewable Energy Program has already had considerable success and is gaining momentum in Native American communities all across the Great Plains. In 2006, TWP joined the Clean Energy Education Project of the nearby Rosebud Reservation – a demonstration of the potential for harnessing solar and wind energy through small-scale applications. As part of this pilot project, TWP and LSE helped install a residential-sized wind turbine and solar electric system for a Rosebud family in 2007. Through a partnership with Winona LaDuke and her Honor the Earth organization, TWP has now conducted solar heat workshops and installations in ten reservation communities in seven states across the Great Plains. To meet the increasing demand for practical knowledge and training in renewable energy applications among Native Americans, TWP and Henry Red Cloud established the Red Cloud Renewable Energy Center at Pine Ridge in 2007. The Center will serve as a residential training facility, resource center and information clearinghouse where tribal leaders can come to learn about renewable energy developments from other Native Americans.