Russia and India has recently signed up a pretty big deal for a bunch of nuclear plants. Though this of course is just lesser (in the current partial order over the set of current alternatives) evil. India has major share of world's thorium, so once somebody learn how to use it (unfortunately Russia who has been long-term India' partner in nuclear is of no help here) it would be a big boost for India.
Of course, the developed world, if they took heads out of their bottoms, would be just installing solar panels in India like crazy and on their own dime just to avoid India building new coal plants - in the long term it is cheaper to build solar for somebody than that somebody building coal for themselves.
I hope this remains true though, Japan has some of the most rigorous safety regulations but Fukushima still slipped through. Indian government is largely corrupt, incompetent and not known for following safety precautions. The risk will be multiplied by every new nuclear plant built there.
> the most rigorous safety regulations but Fukushima still slipped through
The Fukushima plant was overdue for a complete upgrade. The seawall was also supposed to be raised. It was an ancient 50 year old plant that got hit by not just one of the largest earthquakes Japan has ever seen, but also a massive, catastrophic tsunami. The fact that it took all those factors to knock the plant out gives me great confidence in nuclear power. Newer plants would not be susceptible to those kinds of issues. Short of a meteor crashing down on one (or an actual act of God), newer plants are completely safe. Safer, in fact, than any other.
> to the planned construction of an ultra-deepwater natural-gas pipeline across the Arabian Sea, from Iran to India’s west coast.
Pakistan's exclusive economic zone extends 370km (200 nautical miles) from its coastline except where it runs into another nation's EEZ. Given that the distance from the easternmost coastline of Iran to Oman is 340km, this pipeline is going to have to run through Pakistan's exclusive economic zone unless they take great pains to stay within Oman's and then run out past the continental shelf. Even then, I would be shocked if Pakistan's navy lacked the ability to cut a pipeline that was only 400km off its shores. That doesn't seem like a prospect that would make any of the three countries happy.
The threat is probably not so much as the Pakistani navy cutting the pipeline as much as insurgents/terrorists. Its much harder to damage a pipeline deep underwater (I would assume) than one in plain sight. Especially since the westernmost areas of Pakistan (bordering Iran) are semi-independent and governed by tribals.
For decades there have been continued, sporadic albeit unsuccessful attempts to get a land based pipeline for Iranian gas built supplying both Pakistan and India. The idea of India paying transit fees to Pakistan for the gas is well established. The hold up is in other aspects of the effort. Furthermore according to Wikipedia:
"As there are concerns over the pipeline being attacked by Baluchi insurgents, an alternative offshore route from Iran to the maritime boundary between India and Pakistan off Kutch was proposed. According to this proposal, from there one branch was to run to Pakistan while other branch to run to Kutch". So Pakistan is already part of these discussions around a underwater pipeline.
Well, you simply can't stop one and just hope starting on the other will fix all your problems. A gradually transition from one to the other is what's needed.
I remember in college my professor was telling me about villages in Siberia where they mined asbestos. Even decades after every industrialized country had stopped using it, they were still mining it since it was the only way the village could survive.
Sometimes survival is more important then saving the environment to some people.
Even in the United States, 39% of the electricity comes from coal. Coal power plants are one of the cheapest to build and India may not have the luxury to support their growth with cleaner power plants.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
> Even in the United States, 39% of the electricity comes from coal
Exactly. Put another way: the US emits over 9 times as much carbon dioxide per capita as India does. (The EU is better, but not by much - nearly four times as much carbon per capita as India).
When the India is already emitting 33% less carbon per capita than the EU despite having a population that's nearly three times as large, it's a bit silly to place the burden for global climate impact on a country that's already doing so well despite struggling to keep the lights on in many towns (literally).
Unfortunately, the people who run the Indian and Chinese economies don't agree. If only the world was run by people who have deep thoughts on the Internet. If you read through most comments in this thread, we have no real answers. That indicates things will get much worse.
Not true. The people who run the Indian economy acknowledge the dangers of Coal. However, transitioning is hard and it takes time.. time which we unfortunately don't have. That is the reason India demanded the developed nations to acknowledge it's role in contributing to the problems of climate change and help the developing countries counter it via aid (100 billion USD per year) that will be used for R&D and building the necessary infrastructure to move away from coal as a primary source for energy production. Quoting the COP21 Agreement Section III, 54: "Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per
year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries" (Read more about it here:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/how-can-world-secure-100-bil...)
"Democratic India must grow rapidly to meet the aspirations of 1.25 billion people, 300 million of whom are without access to energy.
We are determined to do so, guided by our ancient belief that people and planet are inseparable; that human well being and Nature are indivisible.
So, we have set ambitious targets. By 2030, we will reduce emissions by 33 to 35% per cent of 2005 levels, and 40 per cent of our installed capacity will be from our non- fossil fuels.
We will achieve it by expanding renewable energy – for, example, by adding 175 Gigawatts of renewable generation by 2022. We will enlarge our forest cover to absorb at least 2.5 billion tonnes worth of carbon dioxide.
We are reducing dependence on fossil fuel through levies and reduction in subsidies; switching sources of fuel where possible; and, transforming cities and public transportation."
Is this your only argument? Because western countries haven't figured it out no other country can? Do you imply that western countries have exclusive power over knowledge that is unavailable to other countries? Necessity drives innovation. Don't forget that! Today the fully developed Western countries have no necessity to figure out the solutions that are unique to developing countries who are poised to take over as developed countries of the future. Once upon a time, the "fully developed countries" of today were developing countries who faced problems of similar magnitude and tackled them because it was necessary to do so. Today the "fully developed countries" have no "necessity" to move to solar on a massive scale but developing countries do. Don't think even for once that all the innovation happens only in "fully developed western countries".
I think the argument would be that a country that is trying to modernize a massive population isn't likely to go the route of spending a massive amount of money to R&D a new technology when it isn't really needed.
It's not that they can't, it's that probably won't.
I disagree. How did you come to the conclusion that we don't need to fix this problem? Do you live in any developing country?
We are already spending a good amount of money on building solar power grids. Some portion of that money will be funded by developed countries based on the deal signed at the COP21 summit (100 billion USD per year). But obviously this isn't reported in the Western World. Read more about it here: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-why-is-western-media-so...
If anyone will be most affected by Climate change it is going to be India and neighboring countries. The recent Chennai floods is a grim reminder of the impact of climate change. Not to mention receding coastline that is impacting the livelihood of fisherman and causing relocation of villages. Not just India but even Bangladesh is also being heavily affected by the receding coastline problem (Read more about it here: http://www.academia.edu/4066475/Changing_Face_of_Bangladesh_...). Maldives (another neighbor) won't even exist by 2100 if this continues (read more about it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-it-too-late-...). And you expect us to work towards modernizing the country by ignoring this imminent threat? What will be the point of modernization if it's going to be destroyed by floods or earthquakes?
But is the West concerned about these problems? Obviously not! And we don't expect you to. This is a problem of the developing nations and we have to find the solution ourselves. The only help that developing nations asked from the developed nations in COP21 summit was monetary aid to carry out building the necessary infrastructure and R&D to tackle this problem and I think we are headed in the right direction.
This article is very informative but at the same time heavily biased towards the opinions of Jairam Ramesh who happens to be a member of the Indian National Congress (the party that lost power in 2014 after a 10 year misrule in India). For instance he says “We cannot afford to say, ‘We’re going to have 25 years of 8 percent GDP growth, then do a cleanup act later.’”. This is wrong on multiple fronts. The GDP of India was at 8.5% during the NDA rule (1998-2004) and after the INC came to power the GDP tumbled to an abysmal 5.3%. After NDA came back to power in 2014, the GDP is now up to 7.4% which is in itself an impressive feat. If this continues, we'll be seeing a GDP of 12% with some reports (Centre for Economics Business and Research (CEBR), United Kingdom) even projecting India to become the 3rd largest economy by 2030 right behind US and China. But obviously this is something the opposition (INC) doesn't want to acknowledge.
The Village of Modern India is not the same as Ancient times. Today people live in villages not by choice but out of necessity. The high cost of living in the cities coupled with high rate of unemployment forces this large chunk of the population to live in slums and villages. India is poised to have, via the Smart Cities Mission lead by Narendra Modi, 100 smart cities (with some already in the pipeline: Dholera SIR in Gujarat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOFpWFLSqgU) and Amravathi in Andhra Pradesh) and rejuvenation of 500 others in the next 15 years which would facilitate movement of the unemployed population from villages/slums to these Smart Cities. We have seen this happen, for example, during the real estate boom in Bangalore, where entire population of some villages in North Karnataka moved to Bangalore because of employment opportunities in the construction sector. This will put less pressure on the power companies to supply power to the remotest corners of India when it's population relocates more and more towards cities.
That is an interesting point. It seems similar to when the rural workforce of the US transformed into an urban middle-class (before transforming into the suburban-middle class). It seems like in India, this transformation (and the resulting prosperity) was stunted by the inability of Indian cities to accommodate this kind of population transfer.
Absolutely! Once the cities are able to accommodate population by providing employment opportunities the burden on providing power, water and other basic amenities to remote villages reduces freeing up the Government to focus on reforms in other sectors. Luckily we have a Government today that works towards this goal.
27 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 61.5 ms ] threadOf course, the developed world, if they took heads out of their bottoms, would be just installing solar panels in India like crazy and on their own dime just to avoid India building new coal plants - in the long term it is cheaper to build solar for somebody than that somebody building coal for themselves.
Let's look at deaths per kW of different power sources! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
You'll find that nuclear is the safest option, even when we include Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Nuclear also has the benefit of being an "always on"--- wind and solar create stresses on power grids.
The Fukushima plant was overdue for a complete upgrade. The seawall was also supposed to be raised. It was an ancient 50 year old plant that got hit by not just one of the largest earthquakes Japan has ever seen, but also a massive, catastrophic tsunami. The fact that it took all those factors to knock the plant out gives me great confidence in nuclear power. Newer plants would not be susceptible to those kinds of issues. Short of a meteor crashing down on one (or an actual act of God), newer plants are completely safe. Safer, in fact, than any other.
Pakistan's exclusive economic zone extends 370km (200 nautical miles) from its coastline except where it runs into another nation's EEZ. Given that the distance from the easternmost coastline of Iran to Oman is 340km, this pipeline is going to have to run through Pakistan's exclusive economic zone unless they take great pains to stay within Oman's and then run out past the continental shelf. Even then, I would be shocked if Pakistan's navy lacked the ability to cut a pipeline that was only 400km off its shores. That doesn't seem like a prospect that would make any of the three countries happy.
"As there are concerns over the pipeline being attacked by Baluchi insurgents, an alternative offshore route from Iran to the maritime boundary between India and Pakistan off Kutch was proposed. According to this proposal, from there one branch was to run to Pakistan while other branch to run to Kutch". So Pakistan is already part of these discussions around a underwater pipeline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Pakistan_gas_pipeline
I remember in college my professor was telling me about villages in Siberia where they mined asbestos. Even decades after every industrialized country had stopped using it, they were still mining it since it was the only way the village could survive.
Sometimes survival is more important then saving the environment to some people.
Exactly. Put another way: the US emits over 9 times as much carbon dioxide per capita as India does. (The EU is better, but not by much - nearly four times as much carbon per capita as India).
When the India is already emitting 33% less carbon per capita than the EU despite having a population that's nearly three times as large, it's a bit silly to place the burden for global climate impact on a country that's already doing so well despite struggling to keep the lights on in many towns (literally).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
The Indian Prime Minister made it clear in COP21 summit that India is looking towards moving away from fossil fuels to clean energy. You can read his full speech here: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/12/01/narendra-modis...
I'll quote the relevant parts:
"Democratic India must grow rapidly to meet the aspirations of 1.25 billion people, 300 million of whom are without access to energy.
We are determined to do so, guided by our ancient belief that people and planet are inseparable; that human well being and Nature are indivisible.
So, we have set ambitious targets. By 2030, we will reduce emissions by 33 to 35% per cent of 2005 levels, and 40 per cent of our installed capacity will be from our non- fossil fuels.
We will achieve it by expanding renewable energy – for, example, by adding 175 Gigawatts of renewable generation by 2022. We will enlarge our forest cover to absorb at least 2.5 billion tonnes worth of carbon dioxide.
We are reducing dependence on fossil fuel through levies and reduction in subsidies; switching sources of fuel where possible; and, transforming cities and public transportation."
It's not that they can't, it's that probably won't.
We are already spending a good amount of money on building solar power grids. Some portion of that money will be funded by developed countries based on the deal signed at the COP21 summit (100 billion USD per year). But obviously this isn't reported in the Western World. Read more about it here: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-why-is-western-media-so...
If anyone will be most affected by Climate change it is going to be India and neighboring countries. The recent Chennai floods is a grim reminder of the impact of climate change. Not to mention receding coastline that is impacting the livelihood of fisherman and causing relocation of villages. Not just India but even Bangladesh is also being heavily affected by the receding coastline problem (Read more about it here: http://www.academia.edu/4066475/Changing_Face_of_Bangladesh_...). Maldives (another neighbor) won't even exist by 2100 if this continues (read more about it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-it-too-late-...). And you expect us to work towards modernizing the country by ignoring this imminent threat? What will be the point of modernization if it's going to be destroyed by floods or earthquakes?
But is the West concerned about these problems? Obviously not! And we don't expect you to. This is a problem of the developing nations and we have to find the solution ourselves. The only help that developing nations asked from the developed nations in COP21 summit was monetary aid to carry out building the necessary infrastructure and R&D to tackle this problem and I think we are headed in the right direction.
The Village of Modern India is not the same as Ancient times. Today people live in villages not by choice but out of necessity. The high cost of living in the cities coupled with high rate of unemployment forces this large chunk of the population to live in slums and villages. India is poised to have, via the Smart Cities Mission lead by Narendra Modi, 100 smart cities (with some already in the pipeline: Dholera SIR in Gujarat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOFpWFLSqgU) and Amravathi in Andhra Pradesh) and rejuvenation of 500 others in the next 15 years which would facilitate movement of the unemployed population from villages/slums to these Smart Cities. We have seen this happen, for example, during the real estate boom in Bangalore, where entire population of some villages in North Karnataka moved to Bangalore because of employment opportunities in the construction sector. This will put less pressure on the power companies to supply power to the remotest corners of India when it's population relocates more and more towards cities.