Are we falling out of love with wind turbines?

Rising concerns over global warming and climate change, energy security, on-going tension in the middle-east, gradual depletion of fossil fuels while the global demand steadily increases, also in hindsight society’s increased green consciousness led to search for alternative sources of cleaner energy. It is easy to see why the interests have shifted to viable and all available forms of renewable energy. The world has started acknowledging that getting energy from wind is a viable, cost effective and reliable option with the help of the advancement of renewable energy technologies. We are now experiencing an obvious reflection of that in the world market for wind turbines, which set a new record in the year 2011 and reached a total size of 42 Giga watt, after 37,6 Giga watt in 2010 (World Wind Energy Association, 7 February 2012). Steve Sawyer; General Secretary at Global Wind Energy Council in 2011 stated that ‘The success of wind power over the past 15 years is truly extraordinary. With nearly 240,000 MW of installed capacity at the end of 2011, this is more than 30 times what it was in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.’

On the other hand, growing public discontent with the wind turbines commonly described as 'Not in My Backyard' syndrome has also grown along with the use of wind turbines. Many people may want off-shore wind turbines, but not necessarily they will want wind turbines in their own backyards. It is perfectly understandable and decision makers, developers and pro-green groups should acknowledge it and take all necessary steps to avoid local public opposition and uneasiness.

However, in saying this, public participation process in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the key and first step in an application process where interested and affected parties are brought together to discuss the possible negative impacts and benefits and if necessary alternative projects are considered on proposed controversial sites. Therefore, the notion of imposed large scale commercial wind turbine sites by the developers particularly in the built areas would simply be an immature argument. Usually large scale wind turbines wouldn’t be considered in the first place in the built areas where it is obvious that tall buildings and big trees can prevent natural wind flow that in turn would reduce the efficiency of the wind turbines. The gaps or passes of the mountains, coastal areas, hill tops and often open plains are the most preferred places for installation of wind turbines.

Wind turbines vary in different sizes according to the amount of electricity they produce, for example 100 watts to 6 kilowatts. Even larger wind turbines are available which can produce up to 50 kilowatts of electricity for the bigger community projects. Technologically it is therefore viable and available according to needs of different sites such as private housings, schools, shopping centres, car parks, business areas, community centres etc.

However, up until now, there have been many common myths around wind turbines and public perceptions that have naturally followed and concentrated where the controversial proposed sites made the bad news coverage. But, are wind turbines really bad for the birds? Are they noisy, unsafe, decrease the property values, loss of agriculture lands, also an eyesore for many that destroy scenic views of the pristine nature? However, most of these common myths are based mostly on misunderstandings and old wind energy technologies.

New technologies and tighter environmental regulations have changed many things over the past decade. A typical annoyance such as noise emission is not a problem anymore as the noise from the gearboxes and generators are significantly curbed by using insulations. So, left with only aerodynamics noise from the rotor blades, which have also been optimised using modern technology such as using pitch control and minimising rotational speed under 65 m/s at the tip (Barrios and Rodriguez, 2004).

It’s true that many birds died in California and Spain in the 1980s due to poor planning and technologies that were used at that time but the mass killing is simply not happening at present due to better understanding of bird’s behaviour, knowing flight patterns of migratory birds and vigorous EIA processes. According to a new study conducted by British researchers from the environmental group The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Natural Heritage and British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), there is no evidence of long-term damage to bird populations as a result of wind turbine operations (Schrader, 2012).

May be wind turbine is an eyesore and annoyance for some people but it’s a tiny problem compared to its positive contribution to the greater good of our planet and the society. The benefits from the wind turbines definitely outweigh the disadvantages. I think wind turbines are viable and an effective option - let’s not fall out of love with it just because some people are uncomfortable.

Climate Change: A case for Bangladesh-India solidarity

It’s no fairy-tale, but a harsh reality that climate change is a growing threat to both India and Bangladesh, above all to the whole Southern Eurasia. Maintaining the status quo of living together-apart and longstanding antagonism between these two countries will certainly not help to tackle a common threat, which outweighs the other disparities that may exist.

Like Bangladesh, India is also affected by the impacts of climate change. Impacts are already being felt by unprecedented heat waves, cyclones, floods, salinisation of the coastline and effects on agriculture, fisheries and health (Mehra, 2009)  Destruction of India’s climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries will inevitably put a knock-on affect on its global ambition of economic growth and huge development imperatives.

Being the largest country in the South East Asia and living with the impacts of climate change; India seems to acknowledge that the sub-continental challenges caused by climate change will most likely to be cross-border migration and the water scarcity. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how India will cope with the regional challenges generated by climate change beyond 2030 (Indian National Intelligence Council, 2009).

It says power and responsibilities go hand in hand, being an economic power house in the South East Asia India’s behaviour towards its neighbours particularly Bangladesh suggests otherwise. India’s piece-meal diplomacy, ongoing geo-political disputes, lack of economic dynamism within the region, ignorant behaviour and lack of effective regional institutions to adapt and mitigate the climate change impacts are making things more difficult in cross-border engagement and cooperation. As a result, both countries are fighting alone in the face of looming threat of climate change.

One of the most pressing issues in the region is the fresh water related challenges in the river basins, which will definitely dominate the socio-economic and political arena for many years to come. In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) assessed three trans-boundary river basins which included the largest in South Asia: the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) river basin (which spans Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal), the Indus river basin (in Afghanistan, China, India, Nepal and Pakistan) and the Helmand river basin (which covers Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan). In their report, it was highlighted that over-exploitation, climate change and inadequate cooperation among countries threaten some of the world's greatest river basins, which sustain around 750 million people.

It is absolutely paramount that there is a need for fresh approach in cohesion and solidarity among bigger and smaller nations in combating climate change and water scarcity in the region. Particularly with Bangladesh [the ground zero of climate change], India shares so many common ecological and environmental issues, for example mangrove forests of Sundarban, hill forests, trans-boundary river basins, tidal flooding, cross-border pollution, land and maritime boundaries, and cross-border natural resources. These are complex and inter-related issues; therefore India cannot ignore the fact that the negative impacts on these issues wouldn’t create any problems for them. If you ask Indian side, most likely the answer will be clear unequivocal ‘yes’, it is affecting them as much as much as it is affecting on Bangladeshi side.

‘India’s look east ties’ (Ved, 2010) policy towards Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is great for them to achieve their dream of economic growth and prosperity but the question is - what India is willing to do within their own backyards? It is shocking that India's trade is just 5% with its neighbours (Economist, 30th July, 2011), which manifest that the economic super power in the South East Asia is not keen to facilitates intra-regional trade, thereafter establishes a vibrant and prosperous mutual economic region that may then empower smaller countries further developing on their strategic adaptation and implementation to the effects of climate change.

Strengthening existing agreements are easier than creating new one, therefore I think the possible way forward in closer cooperation is to promote and strengthen of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Environment Plan.  16th SAARC summit (28 - 29 April 2010) in Thimphu; Bhutan was one of the important milestones towards promoting and strengthening regional cooperation where member states welcomed the signing of the SAARC Convention on Cooperation on Environment. 16 statements on climate change were adapted in Thimphu and member states agreed that those declarations should be undertaken. Time and again deep concern was expressed in various SAARC summits over the global climate change and its impact on the region, however in retrospect, things had move forward at a snail's phase with regard to regional cooperation.

Nevertheless, most recent visit by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh from 6-7 September 2011 demonstrates India’s willingness to engage to find newer avenues for cooperation. India and Bangladesh need more this kind of joint initiatives to improve first of all bilateral relationship, also being in the forefront of further development of the SAARC Environment Plan - a very common and important cause that none of the countries can afford to ignore.

India respects China's growing power and influence, which regard as a threat to its own interest in the region. India will inevitably fall behind China if it doesn't response to the call for regional cooperation; therefore India has got more chance of winning than losing if they become a true and trustworthy partner with its neighbours.

Climate change sceptics got a taste of their own medicine

I have always had my suspicion about climate change sceptics’ real intentions of undermining the climate change science. Now, the hard evidences have come forward, in which point to the fact that my curiosity and suspicion were not just a baseless assumption. I wrote about it in my earlier blog 'Climate Change myths: Common misperceptions and sceptic’s incorrect assertions’, which was posted on 21^st January, 2011.

On the Valentine's day 2012, Heartland Institute - a US based conservative and libertarian public policy think-tank came under the spotlight  when a dump of leaked documents were posted online by the climate news website DeSmogBlog. It was a staggering revelation of previously unknown facts. Heartland Institute has been so far at the forefront of efforts to discredit climate change science and now the revelations about its efforts have been proven to be true. Most shocking thing was that a document called ‘2012 Fundraising Plan’ in where was described strategies how to insert doubt on teaching of climate change science particularly to the elementary and secondary school curricula, some documents also confirm on future projects such as a $100,000 campaign to discourage teachers from teaching science.

This is not the end of the stories. Heartland Institute has also received donations from many big corporations which have publicly supported climate change actions. But shamefully these corporations have supported sceptics behind the scenes to push forward corporate agenda to undermine the basics of climate change science. Along with tobacco giants Altria and Reynolds America, and drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilley, major corporations have given over $1.1m in the past two years to the institute, and are planning to give another $705,000 this year (The Guardian, Thursday 16 February 2012). To me it’s the hypocrisy and double standards at its’ highest level.

I have written numerous times about the importance of social responsibility, social sustainability and the ethical business practices. Business organisations can no longer ignore their social and environmental obligations. Ignoring these values will put any big business organisations vulnerable to competitive threats. Leadership and commitment across the company to reduce negative environmental impacts cannot be based on some shaky beliefs and contradictions. Big corporations who are at the centre of this storm have allowed themselves funding a climate change sceptic institution; in response they probably have destroyed consumers' trust and corporate image which may take years to rebuild. They have shot themselves in the feet.

Many observers may suggest that it’s all now equalised with the revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK in 2010. In which there were evidences of preventing scientific data from being released, also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report was mistakenly claimed that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2030. Climate change denials got the perfect ammunition to [re]load their guns then. But, now we cannot perceive this analogy as tit-for-tat or the pressure and the burden have been equalised, therefore business should be as usual.

It’s far from it. These revelations from both sides of the camps have fundamentally changed the way proponents and the opponents of climate change will work in the future. Sceptics have particularly a big job on their hands to convince people in arguing with credible science that would prove that climate change is not happening. Otherwise, we don’t have to wait too long to see climate sceptics are getting the taste of their own medicine again.           

Damn it! Building Tipaimukh dam is not the way forward

Public pressure and disagreement on both sides of Bangladeshi and Indian borders are growing against India’s decision to build highly controversial Tipaimukh dam on the River Barak in Manipur district. Amid mounting international protests, India is still embroiled with its egoistic plan to go ahead with the venture. Burying head in the sand attitude by India is not something new. Wounds are still fresh from the Farakka Barrage fiasco since its construction began in 1961 and later was operational in 1975. As if Farakka Barrage wasn’t enough now we have the Tipaimukh dam. The pain keeps getting worst when another dam controversy goes on, Karl Marx once famously quoted ‘History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce’. Well, it looks like its happening again. However, questions arise why India is so stubborn to build another huge dam, which will undoubtedly affect downstream riparian Bangladesh.

Dig a little deeper then you will get the answers. The present socio-economic and political circumstances in the North-Eastern part [particularly Assam, Manipur & Nagaland] of India are affected by the rebellion of [so called] left-wing activists with over five decades of long history of insurgency. So far central government in Delhi couldn't manage to get a grip on the rise in rebellion by force. Offering 10% free electricity to local people from the Tipaimukh dam project is a dirty trick to calm the situation and along the line it is possible that Bangladesh is on the line of fire in Indian internal political manoeuvring. Maybe it is an over-simplistic view of the current situation. Whatever the real reasons are, it doesn’t make any sense to me why India is so desperate to build a dam, by knowing that the area is one of the most dangerous places on earth for earthquakes and landslides. Honestly, have the decision makers in Delhi gone crazy?

By ignoring all agreements and international laws and conventions on the customary international law of Trans-boundary Rivers and Lakes, India is up for its regional hegemony and dominance in the South Asia, a reckless and irresponsible behaviour only to be confronted if Bangladeshi government wishes to wage an international legal war. India is violating her international obligation under the expressed provisions of the 1996 thirty-year Ganges Water Sharing Treaty signed by the heads of state of Bangladesh and India valid until 2026. India is under an international obligation to respect the provisions of this Treaty in the light of the 1969 Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, as it was signed by the heads of state of Bangladesh and India (Khan, 2012).

I wonder why the Central Government in Delhi is not looking into an alternative way to produce electricity in the area. Investment in the renewable energy technologies in India is growing faster than anywhere in the world. India will exceed its Five Year Plan (2007-2012) target, installing 14.2 gigawatts (GW) of renewable compared to its target of 12.4 GW, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The Manipur district has renewable resources in abundance - wind, sunlight and hilly landscapes are a perfect match to harness renewable energy.

However, having said that, the Manipur Renewable Energy Development Agency (MANIREDA) is at the forefront in the promotion of renewable energy technologies the Manipur district. MANIREDA is dedicated to achieve their targets to install many renewable energy technologies, for example providing 10,000 solar water heaters under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Energy Mission, setting up 200 KW solar power plant at Moreh, 165-gram panchayats were electrified and 5736 solar street lighting sets with a capacity of 444 Kilowatts were distributed (Green Technology News, 21 June, 2011), MANIREDA also aims to set up lights, cells, biogas plants and windmills in the region in pursuit of this goal. The heaters that have a capacity of 100 litre per day, cost around 25,000 each, 75 per cent of which will be provided by central and state subsidy (Panchabhutha, 15 July, 2011).

Renewable energy technologies are rapidly spreading all over the subcontinent. However, the idea of building a dam to produce electricity no longer fits ‘going green to save green’ in the 21st century's green movement and environmental consciousness; considering its adverse ecological impacts and the impacts on human health and their livelihoods. In the past, lack of appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) processes, immature international laws and agreements on trans-boundary water sharing and regional hegemony and dominance of powerful countries were the main reasons why many countries around the world got off the hook as no one was there to oppose them.

The alternative clean technologies are now available to produce electricity and where ever possible country like India should seriously consider endorsing an alternative route. India should be looking into larger scale deployment of renewable technologies to fill the electricity gap in the area. Building the hydroelectric Tipaimukh dam is definitely not the way forward.

Bangladesh needs to sow more seeds with renewable energy technologies while the ground of nuclear energy is yet to be implanted

Bangladesh is not alone in finding difficulties to fulfil its domestic energy demand; many countries around the world are facing similar problems. It’s an enormous and daunting task to find the new sources of energy in the face of ever increasing energy demand and price hike. Bangladesh is very vulnerable to many natural disasters and the impacts of climate change due to its unique geographical position, but as a whole, the country is very fortunate to have year-round sunlight, which is in no doubt a matter for jealousy of those who live in the Northern Hemisphere.  Not only year-round sunlight in Bangladesh but also strong wind which blows in the South of the country. In the summer Bangladesh has strong south-westerly wind and sea-breeze and in the winter gentle north-easterly wind and land-breeze blow through one of the longest coastal lines in the world.

The demand for power will rise to 20,000 MW by 2020 in Bangladesh (Barua, 2009). In the face of such massive energy demand, Bangladesh has got enormous potential to harness the solar and wind power to produce electricity. Energy that come from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, geothermal heat, rain, tidal waves are called renewable energy and they are naturally replenished, therefore considered as green or clean energy sources.

Over the past 20 years, installations of wind turbines and solar panels have grown faster than any other energy technologies around the world. Countries, for example Germany, Denmark, Iceland and the Maldives have set the targets to fulfil their 100% energy demand from renewable sources by 2050. Brazil has set their target to achieve 75% of electricity by 2030, China 15% by 2020 and India 20GW solar by 2022. Over 85 countries had a policy target by 2009, up from 45 countries just four years before (Teske and Chisholm, Greenpeace, 26 August, 2011).

Bangladesh also has a target to fulfil its 10% energy demand from renewable energy technologies by 2020. It is possible if good initiatives and right policies are in place, however bear in mind that having the right policies and initiatives are not often good enough in Bangladeshi context, its simply because at the operational level it loses the sight of its original purpose due to the politics and behaviour of bureaucratic organisations , corruption, negligence and bribery.

Nevertheless, the Renewable energy revolution has already started in Bangladesh. To date, there are more than 500,000 installed stand-alone Photovoltaic (PV) systems, generating over 25 megawatts of power (Kamal, New Age, 22 October, 2011). In this journey, government and non-governmental organisations such as Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), Rural Electrification Board (REB), Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL), Gameen Shakti, and Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) are few examples who have been contributing towards renewable energy technologies - making this a reality in Bangladesh to achieve the overall goal towards a sustainable future in energy supply.

Government has also removed all VAT and taxes from solar panels. Bangladesh Bank has created a special fund of 200 crore Taka to facilitate renewable energy technologies. Bangladesh recently signed a $300 million loan agreement with the Asian Development Bank and this loan will be used mainly to install new generators in Bangladesh's aging power plants, while new facilities will be built for renewable energy (AP News, 4 January, 2012). Also, IDCOL plans to install 10 lakh solar home systems by 2012 (Kamal, New Age, 22 October, 2011).

Indeed, things are looking very promising. But, with these big opportunities there are also many problems. High upfront cost is still too much for people to bear. Let alone financial costs for the general people to obtain solar panels or the wind turbines - what about tackling the waste issues? PV or solar panels usually have their lifespan about 30 yrs, which means there will be an end-of-life situation in the foreseeable future for presently installed solar panels. Disposing the older green technologies in a profitable and environmental friendly manner will be a big challenge for Bangladesh. Manufacturing, distribution, installation, recycling and disposing green energy technologies have potentials to create green jobs from where local economy could hugely be benefited but it is still a long way to go. At the same time, a proper, well organised and effective waste management and recycling system in Bangladesh is still shaky and remotely achievable in many years to come.

Bangladesh has a big plan for its energy future. In 2011, an agreement was signed with Russia for setting up a nuclear power plant which will cost up to US$1.0 billion. Normally, it needs eight to nine years to set up a 600-1000 megawatt (MW) power plant. The country plans to set up at least a 1000MW nuclear power plant within a decade (Khan, 2009). It is feasible to build a nuclear power plant with the help of a supper power of the world, yet an unsafe response per se, considering issues related to cost, disposal of radioactive waste, country’s health and safety records and above all adverse climatic conditions. If Bangladesh goes nuclear then one of my concerns is that the advancement of renewable energy technology will eventually slow down or even in worst case it will come to an end.

Besides nuclear ambition, I believe that there need to be parallel policy measures for further development and deployment of renewable energy technologies in every corner of Bangladesh. Once Bangladesh starts this nuclear journey, it will be practically impossible to transform back and we can now see how developed nations are struggling to set up their own green energy infrastructures as for many years they have been dependent on nuclear energy.

Energy-starved Bangladesh needs renewable energy technology, even if it fulfils the tiny percentage of energy shortfall – at least for now but over time it needs to get mature, therefore let the renewable energy revolution grow much further.

Durban 2011 climate change deal: The world could have achieved same results ten years ago or more

It is nearly the end of two weeks of meeting in Durban; The UN Climate Change Conference. While only two more days of negotiation to go, this piece of writing contains a searing exposé of my expectations and disappointments on recent progress and the future of climate change treaty.

As I predicted with my utmost disappointment even before the negotiation began that a legally binding treaty would be certainly off the table. May be at least for now - but, would that even be possible by 2020? Of course, it is a matter of future negotiations as opposed to the world’s economic situation and for the developed and developing nations to share the responsibilities to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. But for now, conference outcomes are very clearly indicating red lines on the issues of legally binding global treaty. It comes as no surprise to me. It’s simply because world’s economic situation is presently going pear-shape. Many governments around the world have introduced austerity measures to come out from the recession and no countries want to bind themselves in a legally binding commitment which will potentially hinder the way out from this looming economic crisis.

Indeed, for many, the timing of this climate change discussion has seen as inappropriate when world is facing worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. But, when is the right time, place and context to have the right discussion on the right topic? One thing in common with all the Government's representatives; where all of them, mutely thinking not to be similar to Greece which has been on the verge of default on its huge economic debts. I believe economic and ecological debts are both equally important and closely interlinked; therefore need to be tackled simultaneously. Provision for any future ecological austerity by the nations will be bitterly fought against by its own people, therefore possible that it will get nastier than economic austerity that we are experiencing today.

This time in Durban discussions, India has been seen as acting as a 'bully' and 'spoiler', however denied by its negotiators that India's position as 'clear, consistent and compassionate' (Daily News and Analysis, December 02, 2011) on the issue that New Delhi will not accept any new legally binding carbon emission cuts. None of the other two biggest polluters in the world, for example USA and China are willing to commit to any new legally binding deal. Nothing is new; it’s all old same manifestation of denial and blaming each others for their responsibilities.

United Nation Environment Programme’s (UNEP) executive director Achim Steiner told Indo Asia News Service (IANS) that ‘Voluntary measures by countries and legally binding emission cuts are to condition each other and should not be put into competition against each other. Both are important and it cannot be either/or.’ ‘You cannot totally rely on voluntary measures but they are necessary as they show the commitment of the countries at regional level to deal with adverse impact of climate change. Similarly legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’ he said (Eco News, December 06, 2011).

I agree with Achim Steiner’s comment on ‘legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’. My strong view on this is that there has to be a change in culture and attitude - people should perceive nature as sentinel who guards and guides the humanity; not only seen as the provider of natural resources. Therefore, individual responsibilities are far greater than ad hoc legal instruments, which can strongly be strapped with voluntary measures, but in the reality only voluntary measures will barely protect the environment and biodiversity. That means there has to be a combination of all three – legally binding targets, voluntary measures and increased consciousness in green living.

The lengthy climate change conference has NOW ended after a last-minute quid-pro-quo arrangement between European Union (EU), India and China. Proponents, denials and critics are all rushing to the conclusion about its possible effects on tackling global warming and climate change. In the agreement, EU agreed to extend Kyoto Protocol for the second round, which secured a lifeline beyond 2012. All other countries in return agreed to draft a roadmap for new legally binding agreement by 2015 and will make it operational by 2020.

I have to say it is too little too late to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. My anger dwells inside of me as such prototype deal could have been agreed much earlier. I suspect that in the future UN will have to allow a 3°C or 4°C global temperature rise. An increased global temperature up to 4°C would bring ecological as well as financial catastrophe around the world. I am not forecasting doomsday scenarios, on the contrary, I believe that the mitigation and adaptation costs will be higher and certainly far greater than it is now, society will have to adapt with the changes, while doing so there will be an enormous pressure on the planet and people’s livelihoods. It looks like the world is going to that direction.

I am being cautiously optimistic about the new agreement that may be reached in the future. Arguably, it appears that all are not bad news, other areas, where the deal has been progressed, are the rich countries which have promised to provide global green climate fund worth $100 billion to the developing nations by 2020. Critics are saying global green fund is good in principle but low in substances as it is not yet clear from where the money will come and how it will be spent. However, the US and the EU said that they have mobilised $5.1bn and $6.3bn, respectively, in the past two years (Aljazeera, 02 December 2011). I think it will be difficult to assemble more money at the time of worst economic downturn. But it’s better than nothing; at least the process has begun to help developing nations tackling the impacts of climate change. Fund receiving countries need to be highly cautious and need to show enormous responsibility of being transparent, accountable and free of corruption while utilising the global green fund. I am worried about the dishonesty, negligence, bribery, corruption, victimisation and influence peddling that go on in the developing nations. Will the funds be applied for the right cause and for the right people?

A modest progress was made in Durban on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Including forests in combating climate change were the strongest areas where the international community had moved to the right direction in 2010 Cancun climate change conference. In Durban, progresses have been made on setting the baseline emissions and how to measure the reduction of emissions by including the forests in combating the climate change. According to Lars Lövölde, the head of the Rainforest Foundation of Norway – ‘The Durban has delivered progress on fundamental issues such as social and environmental safeguards, and strict rules to ensure that the global deforestation is reduced’. But as we know that the progresses were not made on long-term funding for REDD.

In Durban, negotiators also agreed on a technology-expert panel to start their work. This expert panel will be hosted by the institution ‘Climate Technology Centre, which will lead a global network of information sharing on cleaner energy technology among developing nations in climate change mitigation. This is a big step forward in the right direction.

Finally, opinions are divided on the deal that was struck in Durban. But it is very important to acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol is still alive even though [for time being] no penalties can be enforced against those who overshoot their emission targets with impunity. Exceptional credit goes to European Union that it was committed to continuing Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 and it helped to facilitate a roadmap that China and other countries were agreed.

In my view, the world could have achieved the same results ten years ago or more.

       

Eco driving: Save fuel, money and the environment!

Ever since green consciousness has steadily increased in last thirty years, society seems to be more aware of pollution prevention, resource conservation, recycling and using clean sources of energy. Ideas and best practises of green driving are not new, on the contrary, it have been there for years. People have realised that simple changes on their driving habits can save money, reduce wear and tear on their cars and above all save the environment. However, in many cases people may well still ignore smarter driving techniques or simply do not know about it.

Plethora of opinions and advices are floating around, however carrying out ten good green driving tips are far better than following thirty techniques – it is simply because ten techniques are easy to remember and can be easily incorporated into someone’s habits. Frequently, it is augured that best practises of green driving are subtle, which may or may not signify the benefits that you seek but the cumulative actions will certainly provide the benefits that people normally wish for.

It is often said that you cannot manage what you don’t measure. Monitoring fuel consumption is therefore very important in the first place to find out the ratio between the fuel consumption and the distance driven. Here are the easy steps that can be followed to find out consumption rate in litres in every100 kilometres.

Step 1: While filling up your car’s fuel tank, note the distance (in kilometres) from the odometer.

Step 2: When you fill up the tank next time, note the amount of fuel required (in litres). This gives you the data for the amount of fuel consumed.

Step 3: Note the distance immediately from the odometer and subtract it from the previous noted distance. This gives you the data for the distance driven.

Step 4: Perform the following calculation:

Amount of fuel consumed (litres)

__________________________ X 100 = Consumption rate (litres/100km)

      Distance travelled (kilometres)

Step 5: You can repeat above steps when you fill up the fuel tank to compare the consumption rate with the previous one.

(Source: Eco mobile –motoring fuel consumption 

http://www.ecomobile.gouv.qc.ca/en/ecomobilite/tips/monitoring_fuel_consumption.php)

Here are a few simple tips to help you save fuel, money and the environment:

• Plan your routes ahead especially for the longer journeys. You can avoid the known road constructions or congestion areas. If you do not have any satellite navigator then look for road maps to avoid to get strayed off course.
• Drive smoothly and drive in the right gear. Unnecessary change of gear or driving in the wrong gear would burn more fuel. Change up gears as early as possible when accelerating.
• Try to avoid idling – switch off the engine when you are going to be stationery for a while.
• Avoid driving with under inflated car tyres and keep your car well serviced.
• Avoid keeping heavy items in the car. Try to remove empty roof racks if you don not use it.
• At higher speeds, close your windows – opening the windows at higher speeds will increase the turbulences. More turbulence will burn more fuel.  
• Avoid using air conditioning system unless it is necessary.
• When ever possible travel during the off-peak hours and avoid bad weather.
• Stick to the speed limit – more speed will burn more fuel that leads to more pollution.
• Avoid buying bigger cars and more cars than you need.
• Take the shortest route but do not take the rough roads, however make safety your first priority.
• Consider car sharing while going to work or for your leisure.