How about a non-carbon global economy?

Right,
This is a very delicate question.
Please, ask www.mospay.com Shantanu Dash about this issue.
He has the US, Europe, India experience.

Global warming is psuedo science and equating with pollution is very clever way of mixing a very genuine concern with unproven global warming science and its effect on climate. Just some years back people were talking about iceage and Earth wobbling.today nobody talks about it.
global warming is taking place but it is due to carbon emissions is a big hoax .Global warming is taking place due to SUNS IRRADIANCE.Mars is getting heated up due to same reason and also in same proportion as earth.No humans and carbon emissions in Mars!!!
Also it was found by ISRO that glaciers in sikkim has grown fourfold from 21 to 84(during 2001 to 2007), a welcome thing for India.The recent extended coldweather and snowfall in himalayas is beneficial to India.
Sir, If global warming is realy a concern, then americans would have taken up the issue during the presidential debates.It is only for foolish browns like us and that is why it is not concerning americans and its leaders.If gore/Pachauri got their nobel, it is OK but let us be prudent.

First of all, we all need to get into habit of using less energy, as in recent years we have taken the energy generation for granted.

While lately more and more distribution and transmission issues are arising, we certainly look forward to great Engineering, Infrastructure and IT companies to put their brains together to optimize the generation, transmission & distribution of power and fuel.

We also need to look into why the costs of clean energy are so high. Every time subsidy or incentive should not be an answer to bringing the costs down. We must take a proper look at the value chain optimization for clean energy to bring down the costs.

We look forward to accomplished leaders like Mr. Nandan Nilekani to play more aggressive role in the global clean energy sector.

Thanks.

Geetanjali Patil Choori
Energy-Guru.com
Enable global adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Can India lead on Carbon capping? Lose the colonized dependent mindset.
Chithra Karunakaran, Feb 15, 2008

Nandan Nilekani's response about equitable carbon capping is excellent.

But I am going to mess with Nilekani's dependent mindset. Why is Nilekani being a crybaby and holding out quote, for a "GLOBAL CONSENSUS" on this issue? Are you saying Nilekani, that INDIA cannot act on its own to reduce its own carbon emissions with innovative public mass transit and other strategies? Why doesn't India LEAD (with action, not merely empty words from Infosys and TERI and others) in capping its own carbon? Why can't India, the world's largest democracy develop a model for carbon capping that is the envy of the world?

Why should India wait until everyone else agrees that carbon capping is a desirable strategy? Carbon capping is in the interest of India's own long-suffering masses who have to put up with India's own endlessly consuming elites with their excessive carbon emissions from their SUV's and AC's.

India has the knowhow, the resources and the public awareness to cap carbon NOW. Let India LEAD, let India's self-professed leaders lose their colonized, caste-hierarchical mindset and produce a benchmarked carbon capping model -- and then implement it.

India cannot afford to produce, much less dispose a paper cup and yet we are on a path of allegedly cheap (cheap for the environment?) private transport (the Nano is a no-no), mindless consumption following the US model of predatory capitalism, when India's historical model should be Gandhian innovative pro-poor, pro-public self-reliance.

Who's denying India and China the "right to develop" as you wrongly say? Nobody.
But what kind of developmentcan India afford?

I suggest Indian leaders like Nilekani,Tata and Pachauri use their positions of power, status and privilege in India and the world, to go ahead and show the world what India can do to cap carbon.

Nilakani, put your carbon capping solutions where your mouth and your profits are.

Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York
http://www.ethicaldemocracy.blogspot.com
www.calicutnet.com
The Rise of the Car Nazis: Ratan and the Tata Wannabes

================================================

Sir,

Should we not worry about economic stability first and then may be of low-carbon economy!

For me, Global warming is more of an exaggerated hypothesis than facts. How much should you rely on the scientists who can't accurately predict the weather ahead of 24 hours, on something they talk of 10, 100 or 1000 years down. What if the Global warming is not there, or if the human contribution is only an ignorable percentage, or if it is another phase of evolution on earth? At the back of everything is what Darvin said; the fitter of you and I will withstand the environmental selection.

Economy is the backbone of human sustainability in the world. It gives us better odds in any kind of natural selection. There are bigger problems to solve in the world today. AIDS kills millions, so is Cancer and poverty. A stable economy can invest better on cancer research, poverty eradication and making AIDS medicines affordable for the hundreds of thousands who need it. An approach providing stable and sustainable economic conditions can save these millions.

You talk of reducing carbon footprints which is the driving force for economic growth. Any such reduction, without finding an alternative to fuel the economy, will have an adverse impact on growth potential of every country in the world. Finding renewable sources of energy is the need of the hour for sustainability and growth. Carbon foot-print reduction should not be at the cost of reversal of economic growth. Renewable sources of energy makes sense if it can lower the overall energy cost to the end customer. Similalrly any standards on emmission and carbon reduction should target heigher efficiency of fuel consumption at no heigher cost to the end user.

Infosys is one of the premier institutions in India. You get to hire the best intellectuals from India's universities. Also you mentioned that india and china are spearheading the economic growth in this century. Dont you think there is a responsibility that comes with the privilege you enjoy? Does it limit to asking your investors to use electonic media to paper based communication? How much of carbon footprint do you think this is going to reduce? You should rather spend on a paper recycling plant at infosys campus because that sounds a more responsible way of doing it. The 80K human capital that you own can make a lot more difference in India.

Dont you think infosys has enough economic potential to fund a

- A Non-profit Cancer research center in Bangalore. OR
- An organization to spread AIDS awareness in India and for rehabilitation of families affected.

Bill gates who has a lot more money than infosys does something like this. Probably he should do much more than that.

Sir,

Should we not worry about economic stability first and then may be of low-carbon economy!

For me, Global warming is more of an exaggerated hypothesis than facts. How much should you rely on the scientists who can't accurately predict the weather ahead of 24 hours, on something they talk of 10, 100 or 1000 years down. What if the Global warming is not there, or if the human contribution is only an ignorable percentage, or if it is another phase of evolution on earth? At the back of everything is what Darvin said; the fitter of you and I will withstand the environmental selection.

Economy is the backbone of human sustainability in the world. It gives us better odds in any kind of natural selection. There are bigger problems to solve in the world today. AIDS kills millions, so is Cancer and poverty. A stable economy can invest better on cancer research, poverty eradication and making AIDS medicines affordable for the hundreds of thousands who need it. An approach providing stable and sustainable economic conditions can save these millions.

You talk of reducing carbon footprints which is the driving force for economic growth. Any such reduction, without finding an alternative to fuel the economy, will have an adverse impact on growth potential of every country in the world. Finding renewable sources of energy is the need of the hour for sustainability and growth. Carbon foot-print reduction should not be at the cost of reversal of economic growth. Renewable sources of energy makes sense if it can lower the overall energy cost to the end customer. Similalrly any standards on emmission and carbon reduction should target heigher efficiency of fuel consumption at no heigher cost to the end user.

Infosys is one of the premier institutions in India. You get to hire the best intellectuals from India's universities. Also you mentioned that india and china are spearheading the economic growth in this century. Dont you think there is a responsibility that comes with the privilege you enjoy? Does it limit to asking your investors to use electonic media to paper based communication? How much of carbon footprint do you think this is going to reduce? You should rather spend on a paper recycling plant at infosys campus because that sounds a more responsible way of doing it. The 80K human capital that you own can make a lot more difference in India.

Dont you think infosys has enough economic potential to fund a

- A Non-profit Cancer research center in Bangalore. OR
- An organization to spread AIDS awareness in India and for rehabilitation of families affected.

Bill gates who has a lot more money than infosys does something like this. Probably he should do much more than that.

Hari

very nice article....Need of the hour is awareness for climate by nice articles like these...

I will not reinforce the validity in the link between carbon and climate, for I simply do not know. However, carbon is an essential element to this hugely complex ecosystem within which we live, as is the energy from the sun. Carbon is the common denominator between life and the sun. The sun drives our climate. There are systems of the Earth which constitute 'carbon sinks' I subscribe to the opinion that in all probability climate and GHG emissions from the extraction of carboniferous material from those carbon sinks are causally linked. That's my starting point.
'Peak Oil' - in the very least, we HAVE no choice but to address our insatiable appetite for this rescource.
We have to trust in someone on this causality thing. I go with the link. We have to move to carbon neutral energy sources.
We spewed out a lot of GHG already. It may be prudent to invest in carbon capture technology.
Photosynthesis is an excellent carbon capture (natural) technology. Evolution ought to confer some predictability in these matters. Plants emerged first before animal life. Diversity and higher order life (animals) increased as the Earth sequestered carbon into the 'sinks'.
I'm sold on the idea of sequestering carbon from low tech solutions involving photosynthesis.
'Peak soil'; GHG emissions are not new. They are a part of a natural carbon cycle. When human activity began to grow crops for food, humus in the soil was depleted. Humus in topsoil is a valuable sink. Intensively farmed topsoils of the world are now so depleted in fertility they are, in effect, a sterile medium that can only be rendered fertile by the addition of masses of (energy) expensive fertiliser. We depleted the soil of stored energy (humus) that was was captured from the sun. Now do you get it? The energy cycle is imperative to life; carbon is a component of the energy cycle.

Economy.
Economies grew out of the need to trade basic human needs (food) once agrarianism was adopted and people divided their labour to become more specialised.
'Food' was capital. It still is in poorer parts of the world. Money is the instrument to trade. 'Money' becomes capital when a society is wealthy and efficient enough not to have to think twice about food availability. 'Finance' displaces money as capital when a society is wealthy enough to want more out of sheer greed. 'Oil' becomes capital when we face the prospects of running out.
Wealth and the major economy is the ability to do work and produce goods other than food. Wealth is built on energy. Wealth has been built upon the human exploitation of the Earths' natural energy reserves. This status quo has a finite shelf life. It cannot go on indefinately. We HAVE to accept accountability.
Can you see how we might do that?

Sure, low carbon local economies could contribute to a reduction of GHG emissions, but would this be incentivised in practice? When low carbon local economies become established and common throughout the world then the world benefits from a low carbon economy.
Boffins speak of the need, not just to cut carbon emissions, to CAPTURE carbon. Seemingly, boffins advocate it is necessary to clean up our mess. This simply means we have to stop exploiting the worlds energy depositions and live in balance with the extent of energy we can capture from the sun. It turns out, 'energy' is the real 'capital' after all. Not food, or money, or finance or 'oil'.
There is no choice but to tie the global economy in to the energy cycle of the earth. If the world accepted 'carbon' as capital, there is incentive to be economical with carbon positive fossil fuel consumption AND there is the incentive to drive carbon NEGATIVE technology and reward economies for so doing.
It may sound radical; in practice it simply means accepting accountability for the disruption human activity causes, then clean up as we go along. I feel more optimistic already.

The questions on my mind is can the world get to grips with carbon capture and would 'carbon as capital' stabilise economies and address economic inequalities of the magnitude that make me feel self conscious about my being born into a developed western nation?