Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
Article in Times of India, Mumbai on 14th Jan, 2008
US co to invest $300m in Indian carbon market
Namrata Singh | TNN
Mumbai: New York-headquartered Green Ventures International, an emissions commodity fund management company, has dedicated its first Asian fund of roughly $300 million (around Rs 1,150 crore) to India, with the primary objective of monetising carbon credits from clean development mechanism (CDM) projects across the country.This comes at the onset of the second phase of Kyoto Protocol (the UN treaty regulating the reduction of global greenhouse gases) which lasts up to 2012. India—a signatory to the protocol—is expected to generate carbon credits of a larger proportion during the year as compared to 2007. This is attracting a number of global buyers of carbon credits to the Indian market.
“Green Ventures has adopted a different approach to the whole business of carbon. To meet the global demand, we decided to go to the source of certified emission reductions (CERs), or carbon credits, rather than accessing the same from the general markets,’’ Green Ventures, managing director, Krish R Krishnan told TOI. The objective is to source carbon credits from India and sell them to other global buyers. Since the process does not involve intermediaries, Green Ventures feels that this will enable the buyers to get a better price realisation.
Green Ventures also plans to assist in developing and funding initiatives that reduce carbon emissions, in addition to accessing technology from its global network. As part of its business plan in India, the firm is exploring setting up an integrated renewable energy project on its own.
Green Ventures is in the process of building a global carbon trading enterprise in Asia, with the India fund being the first to be launched.
The expected average annual CERs from India is currently at over 28 million, which is 15% of the overall CERs generated globally.
Article in Economic Times, Mumbai on 11th Jan, 2008
BREATHE EASY People’s car not that polluting
Going by evidence & maths, environmentalists can relax
Shishir Prasad & Ashish Kumar Mishra
IN SPITE of what Ratan Tata might say, Sunita Narain and RK Pachauri would have spent an uneasy night. The prospect of hundreds and thousands of Nanos trundling down the roads of various Indian cities spewing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide would have been nightmarish for them. Are their worries justified? Not really, if the evidence and maths are taken into consideration. But that is getting ahead of the story.
For some experts, Tata Nano is actually a good thing. After all, had the Tata Nano not come along, there would have been another car to take its place. “India is a growing economy and so people will buy cars. It is a good thing that they will perhaps be buying a smaller car which is complying with more stringent norms rather than a much larger car or a two-wheeler that follows less stringent norms,” says Krish Krishnan, managing director, Green Ventures, a venture fund that invests in green initiative. Mr Krishnan has been an entrepreneur in sustainable environment development.
But let us get to the heart of the argument and look at it clinically. After all, how much pollution will the Nano cause? Automobiles produce many pollutants: carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. To
make things simple, all of these
have to be converted into equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) — the Mr Evil of environment today. Now Euro IV compliant cars, which the Tata Nano is,
produce one (1) gramme of carbon monoxide and 0.08 gramme
of nitrous oxide. To convert them
into CO2 equivalent, a conversion factor recommended by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of which Mr Pachauri is chairman) is applied. It is 3 for carbon monoxide and 310 for nitrous oxide. Once all the maths is done, we get 30 grammes per kilometre.
So each time the Tata Nano moves a kilometre, it will release 30 grammes of CO2 equivalent material into the atmosphere. This is 40% less than what all others cars produce (50 grammes/kilometre or more) — and there are more than 5 million cars in India today. But let us take the argument into a zone where the naysayers would be comfortable: on the total amount of CO2 equivalent that Tata Nanos will produce over the next five years. This involves a bit of some assumptions.
So assume that Tata will from the next year sell 1,00,000 cars a year for five years and reach a total of 5,00,000 — half the size Mr Tata thinks a car at one-lakh price point may sell. Now let us take a range that the Tata Nano runs between 1,000 kilometres and 8,000 kilometres a year. If all those half-a-million cars run 1,000 kilometres then the total CO2 produced will be 15,000 tonnes annually. If they all run 8,000 kilometres then the total CO2 equivalent will be 1,20,000 tonnes. In reality, the figure should be closer to 25-30,000 tonnes because our assumptions of car sales and annual mileage are on the higher side.
So are these numbers large? Taking the worst case — 5,00,000 on roads and each running 8,000 kilometres annually — the total CO2 equivalent will be less than 8% of India’s total CO2 emission. And if we take a more realistic assumption then it will be less than 1% of India’s total CO2 emission. Environment guys would do well to go after the other 99%.
For some experts, Tata Nano is actually a good thing. After all, had the Tata Nano not come along, there would have been another car to take its place. “India is a growing economy and so people will buy cars. It is a good thing that they will perhaps be buying a smaller car which is complying with more stringent norms rather than a much larger car or a two-wheeler that follows less stringent norms,” says Krish Krishnan, managing director, Green Ventures, a venture fund that invests in green initiative. Mr Krishnan has been an entrepreneur in sustainable environment development.
But let us get to the heart of the argument and look at it clinically. After all, how much pollution will the Nano cause? Automobiles produce many pollutants: carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. To
make things simple, all of these
have to be converted into equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) — the Mr Evil of environment today. Now Euro IV compliant cars, which the Tata Nano is,
produce one (1) gramme of carbon monoxide and 0.08 gramme
of nitrous oxide. To convert them
into CO2 equivalent, a conversion factor recommended by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of which Mr Pachauri is chairman) is applied. It is 3 for carbon monoxide and 310 for nitrous oxide. Once all the maths is done, we get 30 grammes per kilometre.
So each time the Tata Nano moves a kilometre, it will release 30 grammes of CO2 equivalent material into the atmosphere. This is 40% less than what all others cars produce (50 grammes/kilometre or more) — and there are more than 5 million cars in India today. But let us take the argument into a zone where the naysayers would be comfortable: on the total amount of CO2 equivalent that Tata Nanos will produce over the next five years. This involves a bit of some assumptions.
So assume that Tata will from the next year sell 1,00,000 cars a year for five years and reach a total of 5,00,000 — half the size Mr Tata thinks a car at one-lakh price point may sell. Now let us take a range that the Tata Nano runs between 1,000 kilometres and 8,000 kilometres a year. If all those half-a-million cars run 1,000 kilometres then the total CO2 produced will be 15,000 tonnes annually. If they all run 8,000 kilometres then the total CO2 equivalent will be 1,20,000 tonnes. In reality, the figure should be closer to 25-30,000 tonnes because our assumptions of car sales and annual mileage are on the higher side.
So are these numbers large? Taking the worst case — 5,00,000 on roads and each running 8,000 kilometres annually — the total CO2 equivalent will be less than 8% of India’s total CO2 emission. And if we take a more realistic assumption then it will be less than 1% of India’s total CO2 emission. Environment guys would do well to go after the other 99%.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Global Warming: Predictions for 2008 Equals Wild Weather
We can expect some very wild weather in 2008 and you can be assured that if it is hot or cold, wild or mild it will be the fault of America and human caused by global warming. Certainly it is all our fault and if that asteroid happens to slam into Mars that will be the fault of human beings on planet Earth. Everyone except Al Gore of course, who has purchased carbon credits to offset his massive use of fossil fuels in the American state of Tennessee.
That seems to be the message from John Tierney of New York Times. Of course if he is talking this type of nonsense he must be in the pocket of Big Oil. That always seems to be the argument that is put forward to debunk any debunker, no matter how light.
Al Gore spoke earlier and declared from his throne that the "Debate is over." Looks like some people missed the memo. The crowd that is pushing global warming as the end of the world as we know it always sees the answer as giving them control over other people's lives with taxes and changes in behavior. They usually exempt themselves from any behavior modification, though.
Global warming may soon leave the language lexicon as frigid temperatures make it the butt of jokes. But don't worry, the "Chicken-Little" crowd won't go away. They have already started using "Climate Change" so that when the patterns don't fit their view of Armageddon they can move their behavior modification agenda forward under the new umbrella.
That seems to be the message from John Tierney of New York Times. Of course if he is talking this type of nonsense he must be in the pocket of Big Oil. That always seems to be the argument that is put forward to debunk any debunker, no matter how light.
Al Gore spoke earlier and declared from his throne that the "Debate is over." Looks like some people missed the memo. The crowd that is pushing global warming as the end of the world as we know it always sees the answer as giving them control over other people's lives with taxes and changes in behavior. They usually exempt themselves from any behavior modification, though.
Global warming may soon leave the language lexicon as frigid temperatures make it the butt of jokes. But don't worry, the "Chicken-Little" crowd won't go away. They have already started using "Climate Change" so that when the patterns don't fit their view of Armageddon they can move their behavior modification agenda forward under the new umbrella.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)