Mangroves or Mukesh? You must choose, Jairam

Is the Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance SEZ more important to the Maharashtra government than mangrove conservation?

Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has suggested that if the State government and the Union Civil Aviation Ministry want Mumbai's second airport to come up at the proposed site in Navi Mumbai, they should use some of the land allotted to the Special Economic Zone which abuts the site to the south, rather than destroying mangroves on the north.

This was among the suggestions made in pursuit of a compromise solution after the Prime Minister's Office asked for a quick decision on an environmental clearance for the airport project. On September 3, the PMO sent a note to the Environment Minister, forwarding a letter from Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan who urged a speedy clearance. Mr. Ramesh says, he replied the same day saying that “we will find a way out, providing there is cooperation from the Civil Aviation Ministry and the State government.”

The two major obstacles blocking the way to an environmental clearance are the 400 acres of mangroves that will be destroyed and the two rivers which will have to be diverted.

While land has already been acquired and allotted to the SEZ projects being developed by the Reliance and CIDCO, Mr. Ramesh says “if the State government is really serious, it can take back some of those thousands of hectares and use it for the airport, rather than destroying mangroves to the north.”

“If they really want to, they can certainly do it,” he said. “I am willing to accept their argument that no alternative site is possible…They must also give way and compromise on some of these things…I have made several suggestions.”

Another suggestion is related to the “non-essential” parts of the project be shifted to minimise the environmental damage. “What is the need for a five-star hotel at the site? What is the need for a shopping mall there?” he asked.

The developer CIDCO has been asked to come back to the clearance panel with a modified proposal incorporating the compromises on September 13. “CIDCO has finally come off its high horse,” said Mr. Ramesh. “We are now working to find a solution.”

The Minister refuted the accusation that the Environment Ministry was dragging its feet on the project. “It was only on July 6, 2010 that the final [Environment Impact Assessment] report and the [Coastal Regulation Zone] approval was submitted,” he said. “So that is when our clock starts ticking. It is just two months since then.”

He added that the timeline submitted as part of Mr. Chavan's letter to the Prime Minister was incomplete. “The project actually started in November 1997, when the Airport Authority of India's expert committee recommended Rewas Mandwa as the best site for Mumbai's second airport.” It was only in December 2000 that, on the recommendation of the State government, the Civil Aviation Ministry shifted its proposal to the Navi Mumbai site instead.

For seven years, the project proponents ignored the fact that an airport at Navi Mumbai would violate the CRZ notification of 1991. Finally, after the Cabinet approved the project in May 2007, the process of amending this notification started. On May 15, 2009 — “exactly two weeks before I took office,” said Mr. Ramesh — the amended notification was issued, permitting the airport to come up provided that measures were taken to reduce the environmental impact.

Incidentally, environmental activists point out that the notification has been amended 25 times in its two decade-existence, mostly to allow “exceptions” for various development projects.

In another obstacle facing the project, a Union government environment clearance may not be enough. According to a Bombay High Court ruling in January 2010, even if a project is cleared by the competent authority on land which includes mangroves, the State government will have to seek the permission of the Court before implementing the project.

 The Hindu

Sea level likely to rise up to 70 cm by 2100

Ocean levels could significantly rise up to 70 cm by 2100 due to climate change and even the most extreme geoengineering approaches would not be able to stop sea levels from rising, according to a new study. The study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS) proposes that as many as 150 million people could be affected as ocean levels could rise by 30 cm to 70 cm. 

Scientists led by John Moore from Beijing Normal University, China, said that to combat global warming, people need to concentrate on sharply curbing greenhouse gas emissions and not rely too much on proposed geoengineering methods. "Substituting geoengineering for greenhouse emission control would be to burden future generations with enormous risk," said Svetlana Jevrejeva of the UK's National Oceanography Centre, a co-author of the study. 

Jevrejeva and colleagues from China, Finland and Denmark wanted to see how five geoengineering solutions will affect sea levels. Geoengineering falls into two main types: limiting the effect of the sun's rays, or changing the carbon cycle in some way. The former doesn't change atmospheric CO2 levels in any way, whereas the latter does. 

The team used a well-established model to look at the effect of firing a large amount of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, putting mirrors in space, planting huge numbers of trees, biochar (turning plants into a type of charcoal in soil where they boost crop productivity) and switching to bio-energy. 

They investigated how these methods would affect climate change under different CO2 emissions scenarios. They found that using bio-energy for power while capturing the emitted CO2 and storing it deep underground is likely to be the least risky and the most publicly acceptable solution to tackle climate change. This would also lead to fewer fossil fuels being burnt for energy. But this solution wouldn't be as effective as using aerosols or giant mirrors in space at slowing sea level rise.

Link PTI

Warming could reduce rainfall

Scientists have warned that global warming could reduce rainfall, contrary to the belief that rising temperatures lead to increase in overall precipitation levels.

Previous studies have shown that rainfall will increase globally by 2-3% for every degree Celsius that the Earth's surface heats up.

But, scientists at the University of Leeds who looked at a range of climate change scenarios, found that rainfall may actually decline if temperature in the atmosphere continues to increase. "Clearly there's something else going on," said lead author Timothy Andrew.

"We found that precipitation isn't just affected by temperature change at the surface. It also responds directly to increased heating in the atmosphere," Andrews said.

And because the atmosphere responds to heating much more quickly than the surface the effect on rainfall is also much faster, Andrewssaid.

Link TOI

Rs 25,000 crore kitty for tackling climate change: Ramesh

India is going to be affected "the most" by climate change but the government has made a provision for Rs 25,000 crore to mitigate its impact, environment minister Jairam Ramesh said.

Replying to a debate on a private member's resolution for setting up a fund for dealing with climate change, the minister said money is being raised through cess on coal and compulsory afforestation fund. Besides, the finance ministry has sanctioned Rs 5,000 crore as recommended by 13th Finance Commission.

"Climate change is a reality...It is a serious issue. We are going to be affected the most by climate change. But we are taking steps to mitigate it," he said. The country is witnessing Monsoon extending to the last week of August, "which is unusual".

About 220 scientists from 120 research institutions are working on assessment of the impact of climate change on agriculture, water, health and forest. The research covers impact on the Himalayan glaciers, North Eastern region, Western Ghat and coastal areas. Their report will be available in the next two months, Ramesh said.

Giving a break-up of the fund plan, he said Rs 10,000 crore is already available under the Compensatory Afforestation and Management Planning Authority (CAMPA). "The first tranche of Rs 10,000 crore will be distributed to the state government," he said. Contributions to the CAMPA come from business establishments taking up activities in forest land.

Another fund of Rs 10,000 crore would be generated by 2015 from clean energy cess on coal. The cess has become operational and Rs 3,000 crore would be available under it this fiscal. The funds (Rs 5,000 crore), recommended by the 13th Finance Commission would be released in the next five years to states according to their forest cover. Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh will be the major beneficiaries under the scheme.

Link TOI

Guruvayur shrine bids adieu to plastic bags

Pilgrims travelling to the Guruvayur shrine in Kerala's Thrissur district will be charged Rs 500 if found littering plastic on the streets. The Guruvayur Municipal Corporation (GMC) and the temple administration have joined hands to rid the temple town of plastic waste. 

"We have introduced a total plastic ban in Guruvayur. Plastic carry bags will no longer be used. Other plastic products like toys will be phased out gradually,'' said GMC chairperson Geetha Gopi. Pilgrims should not dump plastic bottles on the road, she said. GMC health squads and the police will watch out for violators. On its part, the temple has decided to forego plastic bags used in 'prasad' distribution. "For the time being, we have bought carry bags made of clothes and other bio-degradable material. We will soon float a tender to buy material for the next year,'' said Dewasom Chairman Thottathil Raveendran. 

However, plastic cans used to carry 'prasad' cannot be replaced immediately but the temple will work out a plan to introduce environment-friendly cans, he said. Everyday thousands of these cans and carry bags are used by pilgrims visiting the shrine. 

According to Gopi, "Normally, we have about 12 loads of garbage. This doubles during the pilgrimage season, a large portion of which is plastic waste.'' Last year, in spite of 140 labourers working to clean up plastic waste, the pile increased choking drains. 

"The state government had approved of a GMC garbage treatment plant over a year ago. But the plant cannot handle plastic. Around three months ago, we called a meeting of all stakeholders to decide on a plan. Everyone supported a total ban,'' said Gopi.

Link TOI

New Delhi among 10 worst cities for commuters

If you think your drive to work is bad then spare a thought for commuters in the cities of Beijing, Mexico City and Johannesburg which have come top in a global poll of the worst driving commutes in the world.

An IBM Commuter Pain Study of 8,192 motorists in 20 cities, released on Wednesday, found mostcommuters -- 67 percent -- said traffic has got worse in the past three years and it is making them sick and affecting how they do their job.

Rounding out the top 10 of the worst cities for commuters were Moscow, New Delhi, Sao Paulo, Milan, Buenos Aires, Madrid and London, with scores determined by up to 10 factors including commuting time, time stuck in traffic, and stress levels.

The survey found 65 percent of people driving to work every day say the journey makes them stressed, angry and reduces their sleep and family time while 29 percent said traffic was adversely impacting theirperformance at work or school.

Some cities came out worse than others with 22 percent of commuters in Mexico City taking more than an hour a day for a typical one-way trip to work compared to only two percent of commuters in New York or Madrid taking that long.

"Cities like Beijing and Mexico City have very long commutes and the uncertainty of the commute is high as one day it can take 45 minutes and the next day two hours," IBM's Global Lead for Intelligent Transportation Naveen Lamba told Reuters.

"This means a lot of time stuck in traffic and on occasions people just give up and go back home ... and it is not just the individuals affected but there is a cost for businesses and for the cities themselves. You have a cascading affect."

Lamba said this was the third annual commuter pain survey but this was the first global poll as the previous two had focused only on U.S. cities.

"When we focused on the United States, the cities you expect - like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago - came up as some of the worst commutes as these are cities where congestion is bad and commutes are long but in a global context they looked very efficient in terms of transportation," he said.

"Developing cities are growing so fast that you are seeing congestion building up very quickly as opposed to large cities in developed countries where congestion has taken decades to build up, giving officials more time to address the problem."

For example the number of new cars registered in Beijing in the first four months of 2010 rose 23.8 percent to 248,000, according to the Beijing municipal taxation office.

He said although Beijing topped the list, most commuters in the Chinese capital said the situation was improving after rapid growth in the city caused enormous congestion.

"In fact Beijing had the highest number of people who said the situation had got better in the past three years (48 percent)," said Lamba.

"Beijing has invested in adding to its transport infrastructure and subway system so we can see why travellers feel it is getting better."

The survey found the top frustrations among commuters were stop-start traffic, which bugged 42 percent of people, and rude drivers, who irritated 32 percent of commuters.

But despite the frustrations and the economic downturn, few commuters had changed the way they go to work with 84 percent saying the financial crisis had not stopped them driving to work.

"Even though commuters say the traffic is getting worse, for some reason people seem fond of their cars," said Lamba who hoped the information from the survey could be used by transport officials to better understand and manage traffic flow.

The other 10 cities involved in the survey were Paris, Toronto, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Berlin, Montreal, New York, Houston, Melbourne and Stockholm.

Link:IBN

Every Breath You Take

First the bad news: More than half of 130 Indian cities being monitored for air pollution are at critically polluted levels. 

Now the good news: Air pollution in Indian cities has been proved to be reversible, with improvements in public transport or changing over to greener fuels, reducing pollution levels. 

But, now the really bad news: With industries being relocated to the peripheries of cities, growing urbanization and poor scrutiny outside big cities, small towns are emerging as India’s pollution hotspots. 

According to WHO estimates, roughly 0.1 million premature deaths annually can be attributed to air pollution. Exposure to air pollution causes both short-term and long-term health effects, from eye irritation and headaches to reduced lung capacity and lung cancer, with vehicular pollution being particularly harmful. The poor are the worst off, facing higher exposure and being unable to afford high healthcare costs. A 2005 World Bank report estimated that 13,000 lives and $1279 million were saved annually between 1993 and 2002 in five cities Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai and Hyderabad — as a result of measures taken to improve air quality. 

A look at data for 2008 recorded by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) shows that Indian cities are choked. Of the 130 cities monitored, 70 have hit levels defined as critical for the presence of PM10, tiny particles of less than 10 microns in size regarded as the most dangerous pollutant as they can go deep into the lungs. However, the top five cities are Ludhiana, Khanna (both in Punjab), Ghaziabad, Khurja and Firozabad (all in UP). Delhi, the city where judicial activism for cleaner air has led to the ejection of polluting industries, comes in at sixth place. 

The improvements in some major cities and the simultaneous emergence of several smaller towns as pollution hotspots shows that what we are seeing is national policy failure, says Anumita Roychowdhury, associate director of the CSE. 

Northern India is far more polluted than the south, with Gobindgarh (Punjab), Kanpur (UP), Indore (MP) and Raipur (Chhattisgarh) rounding out the top-10 list. Some cities in south are showing rising PM10 trends — Hyderabad, Tuticorin, Bangalore and Coimbatore in particular. While particulate matter comes from a variety of sources, PM10 is largely from vehicles. 

Eastern India, meanwhile, shows high levels of nitrogen dioxide which is fast emerging as a national challenge, according to the Centre for Science and Environment. In 1998, only five cities exceeded the national standards for presence of NO2. In 2008, 15 cities showed violations, most of them in eastern India: Howrah, Asansol, Durgapur and Kolkata have India’s highest NO2 levels. Increasing numbers of diesel cars, particularly in Delhi, is also a major cause of rising NO2 levels, according to the CSE. 

The pollution control efforts in Indian cities show, however, that air pollution is not irreversible and this is not a lost battle. Public and judicial activism have resulted in eight cities — Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, and Sholapur being directly monitored by the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority under Supreme Court orders. Mumbai and Kolkata are under the scrutiny of their high courts. According to a CSE report, Ahmedabad has reduced its PM10 levels by nearly 50%, Solapur (Maharashtra) by 57% and Chennai, Pune and Kolkata have stopped its growth. 

Pollution levels have stabilized to some extent in some of these cities, but in the absence of aggressive action, these gains are in danger of being reversed. In Delhi, for example, the significant gains made from decades of public activism have been reversed and PM10, NO2 and ozone levels are rising fast according to CPCB data. 

At the heart of the matter lies the fact that the bulk of pollution in Indian cities is caused by cars, and despite changes to greener fuels and improvements in public transport, direct curbs on number of cars on roads seems to be inevitable to manage pollution. In Delhi alone, 1100 vehicles are being added to the city’s five million every day, with car ownership growing at 10% annually since 1995. 

Public ridership, meanwhile, has dropped from 60% in 2000-1 to 43% in 2008. In addition to investing in public transport, restraints on car ownership and usage are unavoidable if pollution is to be brought down to acceptable levels, says Roychowdhury.

Link TOI

JERSEY CORNER

Soccer teams to wear recycled bottles!

How many plastic bottles will Ronaldo or Robinho wear during the World Cup football? This is no yarn. They will wear jerseys made of recycled plastic bottles. Say yes to plastic is the message in the bottle. This may sound outrageous, but is precisely the message nine countries in the football World Cup in South Africa are spreading. 

With five-time world champions Brazil leading the charge, as it were, the Netherlands, Portugal, United States, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Serbia and Slovenia are using plastic to tell the world that it is the best way to end its adverse environmental impact. 

    

In an email interview, a top official of Nike, which manufactured the jerseys, said many of the world’s leading players, including Cristiano Ronaldo, Robinho and Ji-Sung Park, will take to the pitch in South Africa wearing environmentfriendly jerseys. The jerseys are made entirely from recycled polyester, each one produced from up to eight recycled plastic bottles, said the official. 13M BOTTLES USED FOR JERSEYS 

Nine teams taking part in the World Cup in South Africa will be outfitted with jerseys which are environment friendly. With each team fielding a 23-member player contingent, it automatically means 184 bottles are used up per team at a time. With each player given an elaborate kit, the number of bottles consumed is mind-boggling as it is heartening. 

    As it is, the jerseys have helped in diverting around 13 million plastic bottles, totalling nearly 254,000 kg of polyester waste, from landfill sites. This amount would be enough to cover more than 29 football pitches, the official pointed out.

    And if the recycled bottles used to make the jerseys were laid end-to-end they would cover more than 3,000 km, which is more than the entire coastline of South Africa. 

    To manufacture the kits, the sports goods manufacturer’s fabric suppliers sourced discarded plastic bottles from Japanese and Taiwanese landfill sites and then melted them down to produce new yarn that was ultimately converted to fabric for the jerseys. This process saves raw materials and reduces energy consumption by up to 30 % compared to manufacturing virgin polyester, the official claimed. 

Football teams: 9 Team members: 

23 per team 

1 jersey: 8 recycled bottles 

Jerseys: available in retail too 

Total bottles: 

13 million

With the jerseys available in retail, the idea seems potent enough to significantly lower plastic’s impact on the environment. 

    The manufacturers also claim that there will be no adverse body reaction to the plastic as the product has been tested carefully. 

    Whether Nike will source bottles from India is not known. But with the country being known for its extensive use of plastic, it may well strike it rich here. In any case, the jerseys are available in India. That will be good news for all those worried about the environment. 

    Time then to take on plastic, eight bottles at a time.

Time is Right for Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

This week, governments will meet in Korea to decide whether to establish an intergovernmental panel on biodiversity services.

Though it is easy to forget in the city-centered 21st century, human well-being is utterly dependent on the natural world. To state the obvious, we cannot survive without fresh water, food, and fuel. Yet every day, countless decisions are made whose ripple effects will degrade or destroy the vital goods and services that nature provides to people.

Asian forests are cleared to boost timber exports leading to erosion and landslides and the release of stored carbon that fuels climate change. Over-grazing by goats reared to meet overseas demand for cashmere clothing degrades grasslands in Mongolia. Intensification of farming practices in northeastern France has led to reduction of pastures and forests that had filtered water, threatening the purity of the mineral water which supplies Vittel’s global business.

Unlike the impacts of climate change, biodiversity and the ecosystem services it harbors disappear in a mostly silent, local and anonymous fashion. This may explain, in part, why the devastation of nature has triggered fewer alarm bells than a warming planet. Once felled, dug up, polluted or filled in, however, such complex systems as rainforests, wetlands, coastal estuaries and mangroves are very difficult to restore.

If the true value of ecosystems services – economic, social and spiritual - were factored into decision-making, wetlands, forests, and reefs would be viewed and treated very differently. For there is mounting evidence to show that the value of preserving ecosystems can far outweigh that of destroying them. Some companies – although too few of them – are also becoming aware that factoring biodiversity into their policies is important to their survival. The above-mentioned Vittel, for example, has launched a project to preserve water quality through the management of ecosystems and farmlands.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB) , part of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Green Economy Initiative, has compiled a database of more than 1,000 examples showing a high ratio of economic benefits to the costs of conserving ecosystems and biodiversity. In Vietnam, to give just one illustration, planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares of coastal mangroves cost US$1.1m but saved the government $7.3m annually on dike maintenance. Environmental NGOs including the World Resources Institute are also developing information and tools to make nature’s services visible for decision makers, including business risk assessment, valuation, mapping, and indicators.

Unfortunately, government officials, local planning authorities, international development banks, corporations and a myriad other decision makers rarely have access to such data and tools. As a result, they lack the necessary information to weigh accurately either the trade-offs among ecosystem services that stem from development choices, or the resulting consequences for people. And every day the world’s ecosystems, and the essential life support services they provide us, are further degraded by human activity.

If we are to preserve the world’s dwindling natural assets, accounting for ecosystem services must become second nature for decision makers. Just as they now weigh up economic and social factors, decision makers at every level of government and business should be able to answer the following three questions:

• What ecosystem services do I depend upon?
• How will my decision affect ecosystem services?
• What is the condition of these services and how will this create risks and opportunities for me?

This may sound like a tall order given that the phrase “ecosystem services” is not even part of most policy makers’ lexicons. But urgently needed help may be on the way.

A proposal for a new body, modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is in the making. This week, governments from all regions of the world will meet in Busan, Republic of Korea, to decide on whether to establish a new Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The effort is championed by France and Japan – whose leaders have made it a personal priority – and strongly supported by environmental and conservation groups, including the World Resources Institute.

The new panel would provide a long overdue forum in which scientists engaged in research on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their links to economics and human well-being can provide policy makers and other stakeholders with the independent, authoritative, peer-reviewed scientific information needed to promote more sustainable, nature-friendly development. The panel would provide regular assessments of the condition of, and trends in, biodiversity and ecosystem services, and develop a common terminology and indicators. It could also organize information by biome, enabling research and exchange between scientists and policymakers for ecosystems such as grasslands, mangroves, woodlands, or deserts. Such a panel could also improve knowledge on the links between climate change and ecosystem change, and facilitate sharing of ecosystem management and climate change adaptation strategies.

To be truly effective, however, the panel must bridge the institutionally divided worlds of environment and development. Rather than just preaching to the converted (environment ministries), the information it generates must serve the decision making needs of national ministries of finance, planning, agriculture, forests, fisheries and energy. In France, the ministry of environment is also that of energy, transport, and the sea. But in times of economic crisis, issues such as biodiversity conservation may be put aside, even where environmental ministries have a broader scope. The fate of ecosystems, therefore, does not lie primarily in the hands of the environmental ministries who will be at the table in Busan. Rather it is the world’s finance and development ministries who must learn, and act on, the lesson that mounting devastation of ecosystem services jeopardizes economic development goals.

How to ensure cross-governmental participation and buy-in is therefore the key question for countries gathering at Busan. The future health of the natural world, and humanity’s wellbeing, may depend upon it.

 Link WRI