Subject: Re: Carbon Credits: Some Meandering Thoughts
First, the easier part, ie wherein I fully agree. I firmly believe that the energy security lies in the nuclear option. Countries like India have to tap their reserves of the fissile metals. As of now the state is not very encouraging as the nuclear power installed capacity runs at 50%PLF, primarily due to shortage of the fuel. This is where the nuclear deals wrangles in. The deal ensure that India get uninterrupted supply from the OPEC, I mean UPEC, cartel. But actual cost of the UPS of U through the deal is a matter of dispute.
One, india will have to throw open the doors to the international community, of its most nuclear installations. There would be a few decalared as military, to which access is denied. Incidentally I am doing a bit role in one such:-)
But is this not a compromise on sovereignity of the country? Moreover, as of now, credentials of intenational auditing agencies are not beyond doubt, learning from their role in the recent history. They are known to be puppets in hands of power centres.
However, The overall picture has to be evaluated, factoruing in the balance of power with our covertly hostile/otherwise neighbours. The deal means an enhanced level of relations with the US. Hence it is not just about nuclear fuel, rather also about the diplomatic relations and a paradigm shift from dependence on Russia for most of the nuclear technolgy to more and more so on the US and allys.
So,The deal is a fifty fifty one.
Now coming to my efforts to defend my meanderings of the moment:)
> Whether that is causing atmospheric changes in earth is debatable
> (believe me, it still is).
> Consider earth's temperature: The earth was actually cooling until 1970,
> meaning thru an era of some of the rapidest industrialization, that
> was one of the worst guzzler of organic fuels.
> Since 1970 to present, day, based on collected data, the earth's temp
> has grown by an avg of 0.5 deg F. Not really a calamitous increase.
> Earth has been going thru heating and cooling cycles since it came into
> being.
Well, not only that, The man made contribution to the entire CO2 cycle is neglegible. Trees not always reduce global warming, they sometiimes add to it too. If the tree cover from the snow capped areas is removed, it would reduce the heat load on earth due to higher reflection.
> Again, I believe global warming / climate change is not the best argument
> to put forth. To take an analogy - its like a large group sitting down
> to a dinner, the cost of which would be shared among them equally. Do
> you really think that with a really large group, individuals would be
> interested in ordering inexpensive dinners so that the collective bill
> is lower? No, the basic human nature would dictate that majority of
> people would order the most expensive item on the menu.
> Instead of a global climate phenomenon, a more local approach would
> generate a better response from people. Nobody wants trash in their
> own backyard.
I feel CO2 is taken just as a covenient measure of how many units of fossils are being burnt. Global warming is not just contributed by CO2, it is also due the 70% of the heat of fossil burning, directly adding to the atmosphere, (the rest too comes off as heat in the end, but is more distirbuted and localised) On that count, even the nuclear power is not innocent. 70% of the fission heat is dumped into the atmosphere.
So, the CO2 handle works on the overall heat generation, with the exception of nuclear power.
To your analogy, I would add that that is fine as long as the actual costs of the items is known to the individuals. May be the cheapest item has a heavy hidden cost to it that eventually everyone has to share.
> Is there a harm in mankind taking itself seriously?
> We take ourselves seriously because we can think and imagine. Due to
> which we attach more meaning to our existence, and therefore to our
> offsprings as well.
Man thinks that everthing other than his self is negotiable. Man is ready to pay the costs but not mend his ways.
> And if we were taking this feeling to its logical
> conclusion (rather than a short-sighted one) we would actually think
> about leaving them a sustainable environment in which humanity continues
> to survive and thrive rather than mere monetary fortunes and assets.
For most of them a lifetime is not enough to develop that kind of far-sightedness.
>> The basic idea is that acceleration of work has got a cost to it. Now the
>>benefits of acceleration must outweigh this overall cost.
> Let us now talk about acceleration of production or work as you put it.
> It almost sounds like a cliche (esp in US media) but up until now, a
> small portion of the world's population (about 15%) was living in the
> developed world and consuming resources. Now huge chunks of population
> are adding to it from the erstwhile developing world. So, the acceleration
> is not a conscious decision of one or many, but the demand is from a huge
> and growing mass of people. I agree about the costs part.
My original idea was to audit whether a relaxed paced as against the frantic one currently in place would be as if not rewarding in the end. Whether, we can let the car climb gears on its own, without having to press the race pedal much!
> Can you imagine how difficult it will be to build a powerplant after this
> and how expensive? More on the necessity of electricity later. This is going
> to hit India the hardest, especially since we cannot get our house in order
> and get the nuclear deal. (would love to hear your position on that :-)
In fact it will not cost more for installing, but will for producing the carbon based power and using it. So the more one consumes, the more one has to pay. In context of India, the per capita consumption is much lower, for us to burn heart on the cost. I am for the nuclear power, nuclear deal or no nuclear deal.
> And what about the psychological shadow costs of not doing anything.
> I mean, any project is undertaken not merely for the financial aspect,
> but for a real-life reason. To provide electricity, irrigation, water etc.
> If it means getting electricity to a rural school, hospital etc, I would
> say implement it yesterday, whatever the cost.
I would as well. But, frankly, such projects like irrigation, water, school, hospital have never seen any accelration, probably because, there is no financial return on them, for someone to expedite their Commercial Operation Declaration date. Yes electricty has got now, as their is a purported market. Even if the prices are going to be subsidised.
> How likely is that to happen in real-life? :-)
> I mean, let's not discuss utopia here just for the sake of discussion.
Well, Utopia is a cliched dysphemism, a word, to run down or limit discussion on better existence. Here we are in any case discussing so many things which may or may not happen in real life. Doom for one.
> R....., I know of our penchants for simpler times, but would you
> be willing to live in such a house today that has no electricity?
That precisely is the point. We have 'evolved' so much that we would no more be able to walk, least play in the sun. And neither we would call it a life without electricty. I know, as we have put up 2MVA generating capacity in our society for power backup. The extrnsion of this is things like we cannot drink tapwater and carry bisleri, like the German engineer from Mannesman back in '95 who would carry a crate of bisleri with him at the site. So, mankind has lost its immunity to weather. Because we do not weather ourselves.
> I certainly won't do it. What does one do after sun-down?
> I completely disagree with this point of yours. The infrastructure
> problem cannot be a factor in determining the legitimacy of
> people's aspirations. And like it or not, but a stable dwelling,
> electricity & water supply and sanitation are non-negotiable requirements
> at the very least.
Add TV, desert coolers and AC to the list and we have a developed India. After all knowing how and by whom Aarushi was murdered is vital fo their development as is the knowledge which actress is current live-in partmner of which actor and whether a particular actress has reduced herself to size zero now, whatever that means, and that Saas bhi kabhui bahu thi...
Luxury has an inherent propensity to evolve into a need. That is how the world has developed. And there is no regulation as to what luxury who could afford. As long as one can pay he got it, setting in a vicious cycle of greed.
Millions blog today. What their aunts pet had in dinner and what colour s... it did becomes a matter worth sharing because it aint got any cost to it, except for the broadband hours which are anyway slowly turning 'on the house'. I will leave this one here for another time though...:-) The point here was that every activity of man has got energy implications, of which most of time he is unaware or subsidized.
Coming back to topic in hand, no one denys that basic needs are to be fulfilled, but is there a dividing line between basic and non-basic?
> If it has put the nation into a tizzy to install
> powerplants then well so be it! This might well be our chance to
> prove to ourselves that we can truly achieve something great.
> And no, our teeming poor masses should not be subjected to the
> ecological costs argument, before their first ever brush with
> a better life. That is something for our govt to deal with as they
> deem fit. (I would still inject an appeal for nuclear power here)
I am trying my best ;-)
True, the teeming poor should no be subject to the eco-cost, but it should be in the books, and it should be known to them that such a cost exists borne by someone else.
> why should we worry about equitable distribution? After all, any
> renewable energy source displaces a carbon based energy consumption
> rightaway.
That comment was in view of the idea that usage of energy has to be done responsibly, even if it comes for free, because, even if we have made its generation eco-friendly, a lot depends on how it is used. Both sides of the equation will have to be addressed in the long run.
> Here is an idea: provide a heavy subsidy so people can
> install their own solar panels at home and replace even part of their
> demand. I know, that the poorest of poor will never benefit from this
> unless you make the panels practically free for them, but at least
> it will free up some capacity on our grids - which will only grow
> with time.
The Kyoto probably provide ground to the governments/industry to subsidise the ecofriendly processes which can replace eco-averse ones. I am sure, in the time to come, handles other than carbon will also come into picture.
> Solar/Wind/Geothermal/Tidal power/Hydro are all naturally renewable
> and also non-storable powers. Meaning, what you don't harness today
> is not available for tomorrow. Use as much of it as and where you
> can capture it.
True.
> Putting a rather socialist idea of equitable distribution on the table
> at the outset would bog down the details in short order :-)
Ideas are never socialist, communist, capitalist, rationalist, any -ist. It is the perspective that is. As long as the idea goes for a more sustainable life, its -ism hardly matters as long as it is conveyed and understood correctly.
What do you say?
Regards
Good to hear back from you :-)
> Mankind is unabashedly depleting resources that it cannot replenish. That it
> is leading to irrevocble changes in the earths atmosphere is a corollary.
I agree Mankind is definitely depleting resources. More significantly
IMHO, capitalism looks at everything as a resource or a raw material.
This to me, amounts to an objectification of nature and its beings
including humans in certain cases. Objects are replaceable and expendable.
I think the basic underlying philosophy needs reworking.
Whether that is causing atmospheric changes in earth is debatable
(believe me, it still is).
Consider earth's temperature: The earth was actually cooling until 1970,
meaning thru an era of some of the rapidest industrialization, that
was one of the worst guzzler of organic fuels.
Since 1970 to present, day, based on collected data, the earth's temp
has grown by an avg of 0.5 deg F. Not really a calamitous increase.
Earth has been going thru heating and cooling cycles since it came into
being.
Again, I believe global warming / climate change is not the best argument
to put forth. To take an analogy - its like a large group sitting down
to a dinner, the cost of which would be shared among them equally. Do
you really think that with a really large group, individuals would be
interested in ordering inexpensive dinners so that the collective bill
is lower? No, the basic human nature would dictate that majority of
people would order the most expensive item on the menu.
Instead of a global climate phenomenon, a more local approach would
generate a better response from people. Nobody wants trash in their
own backyard.
> Mankind takes itself very seriously. Man can leave a financial fortune for
> his offsprings but does not have common sense to wonder if he will leave
> them with anything to use that fortune as a barter for.
Is there a harm in mankind taking itself seriously?
We take ourselves seriously because we can think and imagine. Due to
which we attach more meaning to our existence, and therefore to our
offsprings as well. And if we were taking this feeling to its logical
conclusion (rather than a short-sighted one) we would actually think
about leaving them a sustainable environment in which humanity continues
to survive and thrive rather than mere monetary fortunes and assets.
> The basic idea is that acceleration of work has got a cost to it. Now the
> benefits of acceleration must outweigh this overall cost.
Let us now talk about acceleration of production or work as you put it.
It almost sounds like a cliche (esp in US media) but up until now, a
small portion of the world's population (about 15%) was living in the
developed world and consuming resources. Now huge chunks of population
are adding to it from the erstwhile developing world. So, the acceleration
is not a conscious decision of one or many, but the demand is from a huge
and growing mass of people. I agree about the costs part.
> I am no supporter of ecoterrorism, but I support the Kyoto thing for the
> fact that it has tried to make the ecological costs of any process also a
> component of its overall cost.
Can you imagine how difficult it will be to build a powerplant after this
and how expensive? More on the necessity of electricity later. This is going
to hit India the hardest, especially since we cannot get our house in order
and get the nuclear deal. (would love to hear your position on that :-)
> So when I look at the benefit of a speedier execution of a project, the only
> benefit is that it starts delivering returns on the investments that much
> faster. But the faster execution would definitely come at a higher overall
> cost. The finacial cost is in terms of incentives for faster execution, more
> air travel involved and so on. It may be that in classical economic
> sense, the benefits (many of which are lending linked, hence artificial) may
> outweigh the convenntional cost. But What about the ecological costs? In
> absense of a quantification method it is not easy to put a figure, but not
> correct as well to rule out their very existence.
And what about the psychological shadow costs of not doing anything.
I mean, any project is undertaken not merely for the financial aspect,
but for a real-life reason. To provide electricity, irrigation, water etc.
If it means getting electricity to a rural school, hospital etc, I would
say implement it yesterday, whatever the cost.
> And If speed can be achieved with lower overall and ecologiacal costs, like
> in the case of your microwave example, is there anythiong better? But one
> should not just turn the flame of gas table full on, even if the flame
> overflows the bottom of the vessel!
> If I get a vehicle which runs faster at equal or lower overall costs, how
> can there be a case against it?
I agree with you here.
> To your extreme case of manual rickshaw, I would say that it is
> perfectly fine if I also man the rickshaw half the distance, a kind of
> rickshaw pool. This will also burn carbon but in the mitochondria and it
> will be highly energy efficient arrangement due to almost non-existent
> overheads. It would be running on a biofuel which will not throw the
> foodgrain farming out of fashion.
How likely is that to happen in real-life? :-)
I mean, let's not discuss utopia here just for the sake of discussion.
> So hermit like quest was not a path divergent from the normal living. It was
> about living with abstinence and self-control. So the consumerist quest is
> equal and opposite to the herimt like quest, which is supposed to be
> embedded in the everday life. Even if it was not so perfect and all hunky
> dory, they knew that the organic fertilser was way better than the earth
> poisoning chemical ones and that is why they treated the cowherds organic
> parts of the settlements.
And all I am saying is that it is not an eastern vs western cultural
thing to seek material comforts. Every being does so.
> I do not know much from the pre english era, but have sure lived in houses
> built in 18th century, which had a metre thick mud walls and did not need a
> fan even in the severest of summers. One could sleep on the terraces without
> a fan or electricty on dew moist beds under a soothing moonbeam. This was a
> prosperous household, with a couple of GC holders back in the eighties.
> Now go to the same village and every household has got electricity
> connection. This might have improved their lives, but has generated a demand
> that has put the entire nation into a tizzy to install powerplants. No one
> cares whether there is a real sustained market at the prices of elctricty
> when the ecological costs are also factored in.
Rajeev, I know of our penchants for simpler times, but would you
be willing to live in such a house today that has no electricity?
I certainly won't do it. What does one do after sun-down?
I completely disagree with this point of yours. The infrastructure
problem cannot be a factor in determining the legitimacy of
people's aspirations. And like it or not, but a stable dwelling,
electricity & water supply and sanitation are non-negotiable requirements
at the very least. If it has put the nation into a tizzy to install
powerplants then well so be it! This might well be our chance to
prove to ourselves that we can truly achieve something great.
And no, our teeming poor masses should not be subjected to the
ecological costs argument, before their first ever brush with
a better life. That is something for our govt to deal with as they
deem fit. (I would still inject an appeal for nuclear power here)
> I cannot agrre more that consumption can be controlled by pricing
> mechanisms. This was the idea behind the "Aabkari" departments for liquor
> control and teeh ecise mechanisms. And the funds generated so should be used
> for research on altrnatives. But even if we have a solar based energy system
> in place, there has to be mechanism to regulate consumption for equitable
> distribution of the available resources acorss the times and spaces. Money
> should be just a part of the purchasing power.
Why should we worry about equitable distribution? After all, any
renewable energy source displaces a carbon based energy consumption
rightaway. Here is an idea: provide a heavy subsidy so people can
install their own solar panels at home and replace even part of their
demand. I know, that the poorest of poor will never benefit from this
unless you make the panels practically free for them, but at least
it will free up some capacity on our grids - which will only grow
with time.
Solar/Wind/Geothermal/Tidal power/Hydro are all naturally renewable
and also non-storable powers. Meaning, what you don't harness today
is not available for tomorrow. Use as much of it as and where you
can capture it.
Putting a rather socialist idea of equitable distribution on the table
at the outset would bog down the details in short order :-)
>
> On 6/12/08, ... wrote:
> >
> > Hate to dent your train of thoughts there :-) but ...
> >
> > Right off the bat, I should tell you that I may disagree with
> > the idea that actions of man are causing climate change, but
> > I completely agree with conservation of resources just for its
> > own sake. (and I do my own bit towards it, every way I can)
> >
> > You have hit upon an idea - I will grant you that, but universal
> > application of
> > that is what I dont necessarily agree with.
> >
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > Microwave oven - fast yet tremendously energy efficient.
> > Same goes for Pressure cooker, Gas-burners and a host of
> > other improvements. Hope you will agree here that the slow
> > chulha or angithi, burning wood/coal of yore wasn't really
> > a better choice.
> >
> > A Rickshaw pulled by a fellow being is much slower and maybe
> > less carbon consuming than one driven by a combustion engine,
> > but is it really a better choice on a moral scale?
> > When we talk about transportation, it's not just speed, but
> > in fact being connected itself that requires ships or air-travel
> > these days. Yes, ancient Indians held the taboo that human being
> > would melt at the touch of salt-water. Not really the most
> > sensible idea won't you agree? ;-)
> >
> > These were just two examples to illustrate two points. I could bore
> > you some more, but will desist.
> >
> > The one logical fallacy of your argument is to compare a common
> > man's (western-styled) consumerist quest, with the spiritual quest
> > of a hermit/saint. We do need to acknowledge that an ordinary being
> > (like me or you) only seeks food, shelter and comforts that he/she
> > can think of or imagine. Now I whole-heartedly agree that we could
> > do far better in terms of curtailing our "needs" and curbing our
> > "desires" and seeking pleasures and gratification in ways that are
> > not energy intensive, but to somehow imply that this was the
> > traditional Indian way, until westernization clouded our basic
> > instincts is disingenuous.
> >
> > IMHO all the global conferences and complex models to battle climate
> > change are a lot of bull.
> > Heavily tax energy to make it more expensive and invest that into
> > researching newer alternatives. You will see people responding to
> > their pocketbooks faster than they ever would to any moral exhortation.
> >
> > Example: In USA, gasoline(petrol) was selling 79c to a gallon(3.78 l) 11
> > years ago. Car companies were competing to come up with the largest
> > and most gas guzzling monstrosities around (Hummer: roughly 5km/liter).
> > Today - gas is selling at $4/gallon. People are scrambling for smaller
> > cars and motorcycles. I know people bicycling 16-20 km to work.
> >
> > A similar example is relevant to food. Here, at one point, food was so
> > cheap that it was an inconsequential expense for practically anyone.
> > With current food prices, it makes people think twice and opt for less
> > meat (v.carbon intensive).
> >
> > Your thoughts? :-)
> >
> > --- R..... wrote:
> >
> > > By economic theories (fallacies?) in vogue, fast completion of any work
> > is
> > > cardinal. Therefore, speed has become the hallmark of all economic and
> > > industrial activities and has become synonymous with efficiency. But when
> > we
> > > are talking of carbon credits, Kyoto Protocol and sustainable
> > deveolpment,
> > > it is time to review how acceleration in our lives has contributed to
> > higher
> > > energy consumption.
> > >
> > > Some examples of accelerated life and their Ecological Implications:
> > >
> > > We drive faster car for faster 0 to 60kmph to save a lot of time in the
> > stop
> > > and start city traffic. It is considered time wasting to be driven
> > in/drive
> > > a vehicle with sub 1000cc engine. Ecological Implication: We burn more
> > > carbon for the same distance.
> > >
> > > We travel by air to save time. EI: Consumption of fuel per passenger for
> > > same distance is substantially higher in a jet aircraft than in train.
> > >
> > > We want to cook faster to save time. EI: More energy is wasted.
> > >
> > > We do not want to waste time in turning off the tap in between our usage.
> > > EI: Water, with huge amount of energy invested, is wasted.
> > >
> > > High speed trains are being developed with heavy investment. EI: Total
> > > Energy needed Per passenger per KM will increase.
> > >
> > > It is not that always increasing speed has resulted in lowering energy
> > > efficiency but, I think it is time someone weighs the advantages of
> > > accelerated life with the extra costs incurred in doing so.
> > >
> > > Apart from speed, climate control is also adding to the avoidable energy
> > > consumption, a major chunk of the total. Measurement of being well to do
> > is
> > > how much one can control and manipulate the nature for immediate bodily
> > > comfort. This is basically due to the fact that everyone is copying from
> > the
> > > western philosophy of life. The westerners have thriven on unbriddled
> > > selfish-in-short-term manuevering of the surroundings, whereas in India
> > the
> > > civilization was sustainble and nature friendly as against being nature
> > > averse. Indian philosophy was weatheirng the self to become resistant to
> > > external vagaries of climate. Here, the basic ethoes were to produce only
> > as
> > > much as needed for consumption and consume as much as necessary to live.
> > >
> > > Production is probably the word which has lead to the depletion of the
> > > earths crust in a nonrenewable manner. And production is at the centre of
> > > all development as we know it.
> > >
> > > But the fear is that in living life like there is no tomorrow we just
> > might
> > > ensure that.
No comments:
Post a Comment