May
20
While whole world is blindly running for the goal of being green, the latest annual survey of National Geographic Society has announced India as the winner. The Greendex of Indians is 59.5 and India is at the top. The Greendex indicates the consumer behavior of a certain region or country and compares the sustainable power consuming behavior of the consumers.[1]
For some environment crazy folks, this might prove to be an encouragement and they might feel great about the fact that Indians have been declared as the forerunners of the campaign Green Earth, yet, the question that is to be asked is, what keeps India at the topmost position of that green index? How come one of the most populous country is the least power consuming too?
Some will believe that Indians are naturally environment friendly and they care for earth, some may say that Indians are well-mannered about their consuming habits, yet the reality is different. The topmost position of India on that Greendex also indicates the poverty ridden situation of Indian power sector and the consumers’ plight.
Despite an ambitious rural electrification program, some 400 million Indians still have no access to electricity. While 80 percent of Indian villages have at least an electricity line, just 44 percent of rural households have access to electricity. According to a sample of 97,882 households in 2002, electricity was the main source of lighting for 53% of rural households.[2]
Now the reality comes out to be clearer, Indian consumers are not consuming lesser power by will or because of their habits, rather they have no electricity to use, their nights are as dark as they were before Edison invented the first electric bulb. They cannot use fans, coolers or heaters, they cannot imagine of an air conditioned bedroom for their kids.
The situations are no better in urban India. Even the most busy and important metropolitans of India constantly suffers 3-4 hours blackout everyday.
All Cities in Maharashtra like Pune, Pimpri Chinchwad, Navi Mumbai,
Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, UlhasNagar, Nashik..the list is endless have 20 hours per day electric supply. Pune is the 7th largest city in India and Navi Mumbai and Thane are also very large cities too. Most of villages in Maharastra face power cuts for 16 hours a day. In some states like UP, Haryana and Bihar even cities are no better than villages and suffers heavy power cuts for 6-8 hours every day. Almost all Indian cities suffer a minimum of 2 hour power cut. Even Delhi and Mumbai suffer power cuts, can we expect a power cut of 4 hours in Las Vegas or New York?
Obviously when there is no electricity, how can anyone consume electricity?
That is obviously one of the reason of why India lacks domestic consumption of electronic appliances too.
The result is the higher position of India on that Greendex.[1]
Electricity is not the only issue. Indians are the most frequent consumers of self-grown food, with 35% eating what they grow several times a week or daily. No wonder there is lack of awareness of nutrition content and that is the reason why India faces maximum cases of malnutrition, Indian mothers faces maximum cases of miscarriage and infanticides.
Indian consumers obviously are least likely to own a car or any private transporting system, rather they uses public transportation system. One can check the troubles of local trains and blueline buses. Would not any Indian prefer to have his own car if he could? With the advent of Nano and other smaller and cheaper cars, things will change fast. So yes, Indians are most likely to use a scooter or motorcycle or at the most, a compact car and hence the mileage of Indian consumers is pretty lower than the average of consumers of other countries.
All this proves that the Indian Green-ness is driven out of compulsion rather than conviction. India is green because Indians do not have access to electricity, Indians cannot afford to have personal vehicles although they want to, and the luxurious cars are still beyond the reach of common Indians. Indians are greener because they are addicted to malnutrition.
Now the question is, should Indians try to remain green, or will Indians like to remain green? Should not all Indians have access to electricity, nutritious food better health-care system? Should not a middle class or lower middle class Indian have the potential to buy a car or a motorcycle?
Green is synonymous of poor. Yet crazy environmentalists keep shouting for Go Green and for their crazy ideas of global warming catastrophic fear mongering[3] they tend to implicate poverty and malnutrition on masses.
Basically, the major carbon dioxide emitter is the power sector of any country. In India, 63.3% of electricity is produced by coal or oil or gas based thermal power plants. Merely 7% of power is produced by renewable source of energy, and that cannot be increased anyhow because of geographic positions and inconsistency of solar power or wind mills, the options left are either hydro power or nuclear power. Hydro power is obviously dangerous as they pertain to increase tectonic tensions and cause massive earthquakes as one was seen by China[4] recently. Hence, the remaining is nuclear power, and that too is not so proper, as nuclear wastes are much more hazardous than any waste the thermal power plants can produce.
Nobody want to remain poor, nobody really want to remain without electricity too, they do want to own a TV, a computer, a fan, an air cooler and other simple electric and electronic appliances and they do have a right to have one if they can earn and afford. Thus, even though India is at the top of Green Ladder at present, it is not going to last long.
Should we worry for it? Or ask, should we keep Indians to remain poor always with no access to electricity, and a better life, or should we just forget about the crazy idea of “Go Green” and global warming?[5]
Climate is meant to be changed, evolution and technology makes it possible for us to bear any sort of change.
- Indians are world’s greenest, Times of India [↩] [↩]
- Indian Power Sector, Wikipedia [↩]
- Global Warming is cooling down to ice Age, Reason for Liberty [↩]
- China, Communism, Corruption and Earthquakes, Reason for Liberty [↩]
- The Catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark age, Reason for Liberty [↩]
Related Posts
1 views12 Responses to “The Cost of being Green”
Leave a Reply
renegade_division Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 11:08 amI have a completely different approach to this issue.
We must all drive hybrids because its cheaper to drive a hybrid, not because its more green to drive hybrid.
We must consume less electricity because its you can save more money that way and spend on other things.
We must get our cars and automobiles converted to CNG not because its more environmental friendly to use CNG but because its cheaper to use CNG(I know in India it was mandated by the govt, but in Pakistan the private vehicles were voluntarily converted to CNG because of cost issues.
I am not denying that Green movement is hijacked by anti-Capitalist leftists or eco-nazis who wanna impose their understanding of being environment friendly on everyone. But at the same time going green if cheaper will benefit people more than anything.
In India, there is no amount of law other than govt tilting the cost through subsidies can change consumer preferences. Nobody really does the uneconomical thing just to be more green.
All these things are consumer preferences, and they simply follow the most economical path.
Take for example imagine there is a Green Desktop Computer, which supposedly is more environment friendly by using a wind turbine on the top of it. Now unless in a long term usage that actually lowers the total cost of ownership of a computer than a non-green computer, there is no way people in India are going to adopt it.
Another thing is even if people say that the green desktop computer after rigorous analysis and testing proves itself to have a smaller carbon footprint than a non-green comp, if the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership that is including its power usage and average usage time of that comp) of Green desktop is more than the non-green one, it is a TOTAL LIE.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the above corelation(that is eating self-grown food leads to malnutrition and subsequently miscarriages). The people who eat self-grown food, do not do that just to be green, rather they do it because its more economical to grow your own food.
I am not sure whether eating self-grown food is considered to be more green or not, or if its more or less nutritious than eating from the market. But if it is more economical to eat self-grown food, then partly it could be because of the massive govt intervention in the agricultural commodities market.
Although in a completely free market economy or in an economy where govt is insensitive to green movement, all the above things will be true, and there will be no need to worry about people not being green and eco-friendly enough, most of these things can be easily distorted by providing asymmetrical subsidies to the “green initiatives” and green products.
All the above things are only applicable to consumers and consumption pattern of consumer goods.
For capital goods(like factories, and companies) its a whole togather different story.
If Government puts a cap on maximum emmission standards or other things like that on the industries, then yes it will rather do more harm than good, because industries usually are easier to be forced to follow a rule.
To promote environment friendliness in the Capital good Sector what is need is not more govt intervention but more property rights in general. If pollutants from a neighboring industry is polluting my river or my land, then I will sue them for the damages. If a neighboring railroad track caused a fire in my farm then I will sue the railroad company.
In America there is an exactly opposite approach used by the govt. There used to be cases when individuals sued the industries for polluting their properties. But then govt decided to ban class action lawsuits against industries in order to promote them, and instead a statutory approach to curb the pollution was chosen.
gopi Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pmMost of the stuff I wanted to say has been posted above.. question to renegade - u can privatise river and land.. how do u propose to privatise air? how wud ne company polluting air be punished? (would smokers be punished too?) r u saying that every citizen will be given blocks (cubic metres) of air space? i don’t think anyone here (including me) favours taxing such a company..
@ diva - if a renewable energy project is financially viable, whatever little energy it creates is good for an energy hungry nation like ours.why oppose it? did u oppose de US nuclear deal? nuclear waste is handled in a much better and safer manner (using lead, which does not allow radioactive emissions to pass through) than waste frm coal plants (which r emitted into de atm directly) - so u cannot compare them directly.however, what i do not support is govt subsidizing these projects to MAKE it viable.. Cheaper options like jatropha diesel blend will make power less costly for the consumers (jatropha does not need farmlands and so price of edible crops won’t go up, they need less fertilizers,less rainfall etc), if they can be grown on a large scale. the fact that it pollutes less is only a bonus.
renegade_division Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm@Gopi
hmm interesting question. Usually the rights on the air depend upon the homesteading done on the air. That is if you live in a single story house you cannot claim the air a mile above your land. You cannot shoot airplane flying above it(unless say you actually homestead it all by say Lasers or by building a skyscraper).
When your property receives polluted air, then you can actually sue the polluter. Like you have forensics for crimes(like CSI etc) there will be pollution forensics which can determine which industry’s waste is polluting your air.
About smokers getting punished, then smokers pollute very limited air, pretty much all the properties are big enough to hold the smoker’s smoke confined, so it all depends upon what property owner wants.
In any case because of proportionality of punishment and crime, the fine for smoking a cigar without the consent of the owner cannot be more than a few $100s(unless you created a fire hazard which is different.
One thing I wanna make it clear here, you don’t have to actively plan the property rights, once you remove the govt and all statutes, the property rights emerge by themselves.
For example before FCC came into the picture, there was a big issue of radio station getting in conflict for airing at each other’s frequencies. The courts at that time were developing the idea of homesteading the airwaves and were giving decisions based on who homestead the airwaves first., but then the govt stepped in and gave typical bureaucratic solution of creating a licensing system.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pmNot I, but the geography and reality opposes it. India at present is using maximum of renewable resources, its not viable for India to increase its energy content on grounds of renewable resources.
What I do oppose is the government forced extra money on behalf of tax payers lot to discover some magic for increasing viability of renewable resources.
About nuclear energy system, I do not oppose Nuclear energy option if it is in independent hands and not in governmental hands.
About nuclear wastes, you are almost wrong there, there is still no way to discard the nuclear waste in proper ways with safety. Even US opposes it, that is why above 90% of power production in US is based on coal thermal plants.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm@renegade
You missed the chasm of this article. It is not about whether using lesser energy is profitable or not. This article is about, whether the lesser use of electricity is self conviction or is it a condemnation because of inability of Indian power sector. Obviously if you do not have any electricity, you cannot use any.
Solar cells and solar energy is much more expensive than thermal energy, and about wind energy as you mentioned for wind driven laptops or desktops, Will you try to mention any part of India apart from Tamil Nadu, some parts of Orrisa and coastal lines where Wind energy can be viably used for producing energy?
Now consider the question of How many dwellers of villages of Orissa and TN coastal lines need laptops and even if they need, how many of them can own them?
It is not about thriftiness on behalf of energy consumption, it is about lack of energy, the people do need electricity, they cannot have it.
About self-grown food and malnutrition, that question is also based on the issue of self conviction or forced decision.
If you have money and you want to eat only self grown food, you will grow the variety of food with proper nutrition content, if you do not have money and you are forced to eat whatever you can produce, then there is no question of nutrition content.
gaurav Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pmOh grt ! Finally our poverty gave us somethin to be proud of, and yes we are green because we can’t afford any other color, But i really feel that to a certain extent we are inherently green in nature . We in India have still most part share of our population in villages,and yes Villages in India are deprived of facilities to consume power, but one of the fact is the life style of people in our villages due to culture there is very much green centred . There is a very established mindset which believes we Human beings are designed to live near to the nature and which makes us more Human. There is an underlying rage against the machine in villages of India.
talking about govt. and statastics, article i read once vindicated the amount of sunshine being experienced in rajasthan is enough to produce around 9% of india’s electricity needs, and also at an affordable prices, the key lies in the fact that till now solar energy has been produced in very intensive way , i.e, not for commercial purpose but just for research , and yes in last tenure of congress party the distribution of solar cells in villages was one of the major success. the truth also lies in the fact that with non-privatisation of soalr energy production , government is still holding onto it not allowing for maximizing effect by changing it into profit making industry.
And in the end i really want to say one thing , i found my agony being explained in that article becasue i live in mulund in mumbai, a class A suburban locality , but there’s a power cut for everyday two hours.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 21st, 2009 at 5:18 amTo use Solar Energy, you need Solar cells, Solar cells are even more expensive than Nuclear energy systems. Plus, solar cells creates much dangerous pollution because Lead Selenide is immensely used in making of a solar cell. Lead is not cheap and Lead Selenide or any other salt of lead or selenium are extremely poisonous, they are not like Carbon Dioxide which MAY effect environment, they are certainly able to kill lots of human at any instance.
renegade_division Says:
May 21st, 2009 at 5:24 am@Gaurav Said:
Well I read somewhere that human farts have enough energy to power 10 times the population of China, only if Indian govt would make it feasible to convert it all into energy.
But the facts are simple, if it cannot be economically made cheaper than fossil fuel based energy without govt externalizing the loss on the tax payers, irrespective of what the scientists say, that alternate energy resource IS NOT MORE EFFICIENT than its equivalent conventional energy source period.
gaurav Says:
May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pmThis is Anand Mahindra’s article dated 23 august 2008 , happy Farting
You won’t win any prizes for guessing what the world’s current preoccupation is: how to cope in a world where oil prices have risen dramatically. One might think that India would be as obsessed as the rest of the world is with finding alternate energy solutions. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough evidence of that. But why aren’t we willing to grab this potential inflection point, and with our low-cost innovation skills tip the world into the widespread use of viable alternative energy sources?
Let me focus on our approach to solar power, as an example. The good news is that the issues of solar power are definitely on the government’s radar. While releasing the National Action Plan on Energy recently, the prime minister described solar power as having the potential to change the face of the nation. There is a goal to increase production of photovoltaics to 1,000 MW/ year and generate at least 1,000 MW of solar thermal power. This is a step in the right direction. But is this the best that can be done?
Thinking small would be tragic, given that the world’s most abundant energy resource bestows itself generously over most of our country. Pundits say that dedicating just 0.3 per cent of India’s land area for solar power could meet our entire electricity needs. Solar Thermal Electricity Generation (STEG) is a simple technology that consists of curved mirrors that concentrate sunlight onto a receiver tube to heat a working fluid flowing through it. The remaining part of the plant is very similar to a conventional power plant.
There are many reasons why STEG is surya’s gift to us. STEG is one of the cleanest technologies available today. A 50-MW plant would save around 90-120 million kg of greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, its energy payback is merely five months compared to a useful life of more than 25 years. Most importantly, STEG technology is the only solar technology that provides “firm” power and allows plants to dispatch power when demanded. It can also work in a hybrid mode enabling solar heat to be backed by co-firing with natural gas or coal. Waste heat from the combined generation of heat and power can be used for industrial applications, district heating and cooling and seawater desalination.
What then is the rub in implementing STEG in a big way? First, it costs between Rs 7.50 and Rs 17 per kWh to generate electricity through STEG, compared to Rs 1.40 for certain coal-based plants. In India, however, many consumers make their own arrangements for back-up power. The installed capacity of captive power plants in India is more than 20,000 MW, approximately 40 per cent of which are based on diesel generator (DG) sets. The real cost of generation of diesel power, therefore, comes to around Rs 17/kWh if we add the subsidy component. So while STEG may cost more compared to conventionally generated power, these costs are competitive with peak load power costs generated by DG sets.
The cost of generation from a STEG plant is also higher compared to, say, wind power. But here, scale will reduce costs. The US Department of Energy estimates that the cost of STEG power generation may come down to Rs 1.50-2.50/kWh in the next 15 years, which would be comparable to conventional power.
Second, we give STEG only half-hearted policy support. Other countries, many of which receive half the sunlight we get, are taking the lead in successfully commercialising solar power technologies. Germany is becoming the largest PV market in the world. The US and Spain are hot spots in the global STEG market. All this is due to policy and incentive support. However, India has a timid and incremental policy support. The MNES incentive scheme provides a maximum incentive of Rs 10 per kWh to STEG plants provided these plants are in the 1-5 MW range. This is a nice gesture, but it can hardly be said to open the floodgates for speedy development. STEG plants are cost-effective in more than 50 MW range — where the incentive doesn’t apply. The policy incentive is also unavailable to plants that operate in the hybrid mode, with the back-up support of fossil fuels like natural gas. The policy kills entrepreneurial viability that can lead to quick commercialisation.
We are not ambitious enough. The National Action Plan speaks of a quantum leap in the share of solar energy in the national energy mix. However, the plan has set a goal of installing 1,000 MW of STEG capacity by 2017, as against India’s need of 3,00,000 MW additional capacity. Such a modest goal would not significantly impact the energy mix in favour of solar power and reduce the carbon footprint.
What could be an alternative scenario? We plan around future imperatives and leapfrog to STEG. We leverage our skills of frugal innovation to make it affordable and scalable, not just for India but the rest of the world. We focus our policy support on scale and commercialisation and attract public-private partnerships. We put all plans on the fast track, and become STEG technology leaders and suppliers to the world. And get ourselves plenty of clean energy in the bargain.
Let’s not revert to our old pre-reform avatar, and wait for a beneficent western power to find the solutions, and then go around with a begging bowl for ‘technology transfers’. As we try to address global issues of climate change, energy security and snowballing oil prices, a commercially viable technology that is clean, scalable and utility-friendly is staring us in the face. We are endowed with abundant sunshine and a 1,70,000 sq km desert which is a natural energy generator waiting to be harnessed. What on earth are we waiting for? The time is ripe for a public-private partnership to help this technology — and India — attain its place under the sun.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 amthe answer of all your why’s is, its not viable. Even money can be made out of thin air, but magic doesn’t happen everyday. By the way keep dreaming for some Anand Mahindra doing magics for you. But please don’t try to loot me in form of taxes for the cause of some sunny ideas. You yourself however can surely donate every penny you earn to some scientist evoting his life on solar energy studies and research, you may advertize for his works and prospects and enthuse other people too to freely donate for his success.
Once that scientist (doesn’t matter Indian or American or Briton or Saudi Arabian) gets success, he will surely get benefits from his work, and you being his whole hearted investor and financer will also reap huge profits.
If you want government to force taxes on us simple Idiots who know that magics cannot happen no matters how much you want them to happen, then oh guy, you are planning to loot us.
By the way, your comment shows that you are highly racist/nationalist and consider Indians as different from other humans. In my dictionary, such racist ideas are shameful.
shumit Says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 amHello, thanks for another well written article! I like the thought that went into this. Just because yet another system is invented to index, order and rank countries, doesn’t mean that it shows anything worthwhile. Certainly the result for India needs to be explained and you’ve tried to do that well.
One thought though: I don’t think that ‘green’ is synonimous for ‘poor’. Granted that in your analysis you show that Indians score high on the greendex purely because they don’t have access to cars and electricity on the same scale as many other countries, but that doesn’t mean that any country which tries to be more green is forcing poverty on it’s population.
I think that the ‘green’ concept can only apply to more established countries where the infrastructure and population is not so large or in flux. Most countries in the west, for example, are trying to make their energy use more efficient. They are not trying to make people poorer, but they are just trying to reduce the energy (and costs as renegade_division mentioned) of their everyday life. This should be something that countries should be aiming for, but clearly it’s not possible for developing countries that are still struggling to secure it’s basic infrastructure (electricity, clean water, health care etc) for it’s populous in the first place.
I think that Indians who have guaranteed access to high energy consuming items (cars, applicances, etc) should try to act responsibly by choosing more energy-efficient items where possible. It clearly makes no difference to anybody else who does not have access to these things.
But, again, it is the responsibility of those selling cars, coolers etc to Indians to ensure that their product is as efficient as possible and the responsibility of the government to ensure that the cheapest options are available and actually are cheaper than regular options (such as LPG or CNG cars and goods vehicles and the fuels required for them) .
Jason Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 3:18 pmIt is very much strange to hear that India, the most populous country is being counted as most green. Thanks for giving the stats to let us understand that India can show path to the world.
Jason´s last blog ..How Much is Car Insurance for a 16 Year Old?