On Climate Change

One of the highlights of Clinton's visit to India was India's stern no to any legally binding emission cuts. India's position is that India's per capita emissions are among the lowest among the world, and even with current growth rate of GDP, they are not going to rise significantly. If millions of Indians have to be lifted out of poverty India needs high GDP growth rate and any restrictions placed on India as a result of climate change pacts or protocols is only going to hinder India's growth. Consequently the poor are going to suffer. Secondly it is the developed countries who are solely responsible for this mess. So they have to do be the main agent of change.

Some experts have suggested that instead of using per capita emissions as a parameter, emissions per GDP (or GDP per emission) could be considered. This could be the right strategy which should be accepted by the developing as well as developed countries. Whatever nations or people say the fact remains that climate change is a real threat and something needs to be done about it sooner. The ill effects of climate change are going to be felt across the world and they are not limited to one region or country.

Carbon emissions per GDP is supposed to measure the efficiency of an economy, where as carbon emissions per capita is more a measure of industrialization than anything else. In modern economy energy use is high. Virtually all the economic activities depend on some kind of energy source , whether electrical or mechanical. Most of this energy is derived from fossil fuels which are the chief emitter of carbon. Thus emissions per GDP measure the kind of technology being used to fuel the economy. For eg, by having tougher emission standards, carbon emissions by vehicles can be controlled. Similarly for coal fired power plants (coal is less cleaner fuel than petrol when it comes to carbon emissions), by using effcient technology and techniques such as carbon capturing we can reduce the carbon emissions. Adoption of new and efficient technology will also fuel GDP growth. Moving towards renewable sources like solar and wind will create new jobs and help in cleaner GDP growth.

Let us compare the ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions for some countries.(source: wikipedia)

Sweden 6.591

France 5.373

Italy 3.842

UK 3.670

Germany 3.390

US 1.936

Kuwait 0.596

India 0.497

China 0.450

Iran 0.372

The higher the ratio the better it is. The value for UK is almost double that of US. So though both the countries have developed economies, UK's economy is much more carbon efficient than US. This is generally true for all major European economies. Most of the developing countries fare poorly on this front. India is slightly better than China. As can be seen developed countries in general are much better placed in the list. Also the gulf countries where petroleum is available in plenty are performing pretty poorly.

I am not sure how the carbon emissions are calculated. I assume that these emissions are calulated on the basis of fossil fuels burnt plus the carbon emissions by the industries which are of non fossil fuel origin such as by cement industry. Livestock are also major cause of carbon emissions. Cows emit methane which is 20 times as potent than CO2 in absorbing heat.

So it can be clearly seen that there is large variation of emissions per capita across countries. It can be clearly established that developing countries lag far behind the developed ones. The clean technology transfer from developed to developing countries can mitiagate this difference. This is something the diplomats should look at. There is large scope of cooperation between the countries on clean energy front. The other trend is the variation among the developed countries. This may be because that European countries have done much more than US on this front. For eg petrol is cheaper in US than in Europe. This is reflected in the petroleum consumption per capita. US consumes around 24.8 thousand barrels(bbl) per year per capita whereas the same for UK is 10.9 and France is 11.9.Bigger cars are more popular in US than in Europe. This is also a lifestyle thing. One of the reasons for bankruptcy of US carmakers was the increasing market share of Japanese car manufactureres like Toyota and Honda whose small cars are becoming more popular than SUV's like Hummer. Another example is of trains. High speed trains are very popular in Europe for long distance travel. On the other hand people in US rely mainly on airways for the same. Energywise railways are more efficient than the airways.

One more important factor is the role that forests play in fighting climate change. The role played by forests in maintainig the ecological balance of the planet is well established. By absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen they help in maintaing the balance of gases in air. So if we have to fight climate change effectively the treaties related to climate change should give adequate incentives to preserve forests. The forests world over are facing the wrath of increasing population. A case in point is that of Brazil. The large Amazon forests of Brazil are being cut to make way for farms. In recent years Brazil has become a large exporter of foodgrains. This has brought prosperity to many Brazilians. But it has come at a heavy cost. Each year large tracts of Amazon forests are being cleared to make way for farms. Any efforts to stop deforestation brings opposition from local people and govt.

Read more »

Fighting an Alien War

To begin with a question from Indian history.
As part of their job who were the first Indians sent by their organisation to go to Europe to do their job onsite in large numbers ?
No, it weren't the software engineers. Much before the software boom happened, there was a large contingent of Indians sent to Europe. The organisation was the Indian Army and the work assigned was to fight in the World War 1 including the Western Front which was the most important theater of the war.
Well the working conditions exactly were not as good as one would like. Official figures of Indian soldiers death in WW1 were 64,449. More Indians volunteered to fight for British than the sum total from all the rest of Britain's colonies and dominions.

So what was the motivation for Indians to join the Army and fight for cause which was alien. It could not be patriotism. The soldiers were fighting an alien war. Well it could be the same which provokes the s/w professionals to seek opportunities outside India ie money. Though for the soldiers working conditions were not good and salary for infantrymen was a meager Rs 11 ,but it could be a incentive enough for poor and may be promotion could bring a decent increment. For some it was just a professional duty. WW1 was not the first war in which Indian Army fought for the British. But it was the first war the Indian soldiers served so far from India and in different climatic conditions (climate was much colder than in India).
About WW 1 it is said that it was a war fought 20th century weapons and 19th century strategies resulting in large number of casualties. For most Indian soldiers it was the first time they were participating in a modern war. For some it came as a shock. The soldiers in Western front spent a considerable time in trenches where life was very difficult. Soldiers in trenches not only died of enemy bullets but also of disease. It would have been more difficult for Indian soldiers who were not acclimiatised to cold weather to serve in trenches. As a result two Indian divisions were withdrawn form the Western front in Dec 1915 and sent to Mesopotamia (Iraq) to fight the Ottomon empire (which later on Muslim soldiers of Indian Army resented and some of them mutined. Well religion has always been a strong factor for Indians.) The pschycological effects of fighting in war lasted even years after the war ended . Many soldiers suffered form shell shock. Indian soldiers had the added stress of living so far away form home at a time when the only means of communication with home was through letters. Consequently many suffered from depression and low morale. The war lasted 4 years which was considerable long time to be away from home.

Even conditions in Mesopotamia were not much better. According to an entry in Wikipedia

"Some 11,800 British Empire soldiers, most of them Indians, became prisoners after the Siege of Kut, in Mesopotamia, in April 1916; 4,250 died in captivity. Although many were in very bad condition when captured, Ottoman officers forced them to march 1,100 kilometres (684 mi) to Anatolia. A survivor said: "we were driven along like beasts, to drop out was to die." The survivors were then forced to build a railway through the Taurus Mountains."

Muslim soldiers who refused to fight Turks were court martialled and were were imprisoned.

Similar to Indian National Army later on, some Indian revolutionaries tried to organise a force from Indian troops to fight British in India.

After the war British built the India Gate to commemmorate the soldiers who died fighting for British. In mainstream Indian history the Indian contribution to the British war effort for the 2 world wars is largely ignored.

A test , a bailout and more

A test match has begin between India and England even though England team was reluctant to tour India after the Mumbai terror strikes. This probably is due to the clout that BCCI exercises in the world of Cricket has in spite of what the English team says.
In other news The US House of Rep has agreed for a bailout of US $15 billion for the US auto industry .There is a article by Thomas Friedman titled 'While Detroit Slept' . Friedman has been critical of Detroit auto giants. The US auto industry still relies on gas guzzling large cars whereas the the rest of the auto world is moving towards small cars and developing renewable and more environmental friendly versions of transport.
In his new book Hot, Flat and Crowded, Friedman has argued that America's dependence on petrol not only harms the environment but also strengths the hands of dictatorial governments in the petroleum rich nations. May be here there are lessons for Indian auto industry too.
There is a article in NY Times on two new books on nuclear weapons proliferation . According to them no country other then US has developed Nuclear wapons on its own. Spies have played their part in transferring the technology. as the article says "All paths stem from the United States, directly or indirectly". China and France have actually helped five other other nations to develop nuclear weapons. It is actually not easy to develop the nuclear weapons . Here is an excerpt from the article.
"The book, in a main disclosure, discusses how China in 1982 made a policy decision to flood the developing world with atomic know-how. Its identified clients include Algeria, Pakistan and North Korea.
Alarmingly, the authors say one of China’s bombs was created as an “export design” that nearly “anybody could build.” The blueprint for the simple plan has traveled from Pakistan to Libya and, the authors say, Iran. That path is widely assumed among intelligence officials, but Tehran has repeatedly denied the charge."
Interestingly there is no mention of India's nuclear weapons program in the article.

On Recent Violence .....

In the last few days India has witnessed lot of violence. Whether it is the bombs exploding ,the churches burning or the riots between the local population and the migrant Bangladeshis the geographical spread of these unfortunate events has covered all parts of India. If a person ,say a non-Indian was to draw conclusions on these basis ,India would seem to be society in conflict with itself. It seems we need a reason to fight.

Many of these incidents have been one sided affairs where mobs have targeted a particular community ,while the others have been a fight between equals. On the other side are the terrorist attacks where the attackers have no face. Interesting thing about the terror attacks by the IM is that there is acknowledgement by the authorities that these are home grown terrorist outfits and not some 'foreign hands' .

Why does communal violence occur ? Is religious hatred the only reason behind this violence as the political parties tell us or there is more to it ? No religion teaches to murder innocents or to rape. So religious texts can not be the reason. How do communal riots start in India ? They generally start with rumours . But are these rumours the real reason . Of course not. The immediate reason for the start of WW1 was the killing of Archduke Ferdinand but it was not the real reason . It was just a spark for the simmering tension between European countries which had reached a flash point. Similarly it is inherent tension between communities which lead to the violence. What are these inherent tensions that community leaders and the political parties ostentiably exploit for the vote bank politics .? Is it the fault of only one community( say Hindus in case of riots and Muslims in case of terrorist activities) or both are to blame for the violence . What are the real reasons for the violence in the Indian context ? Let us try to answer these questions.

To begin with answering any of these questions is not easy ,for there are as many opinions as there are mouths. There seems to be little common ground between different schools of thought.

So let us take the factors one by one.:

Economic factors: This factor is most visible in violence in Kandhamel and in Assam. In Kandhamal the attacking Hindu ST community grudge the fact that the converted Christains(who are mostly SC) are still holding on to their SC status despite converting.

In Assam It is the local versus the migrants(in this case it is the illegal Bangladeshi migrants). The locals rue that the migrants are depriving them of the resources.

The same factor is being exploited by the MNS in Maharashtra(though I would say that the two situations can’t be compared.)

Many times in such riots economic reasons are involved which are simply ignored because these factors are not as visible as others. But we should not forget that economics plays a very important role in our day to day life.

Rule of Law(or rather it's failure) : The people who indulge in arson and killing during riots are, simply put ,criminals. They should be dealt as criminals. But unfortunately in our country very few culprits are punished after such riots. As a consequence these goons have no fear of law as they know that they will have to face no grave consequences for their heinous acts. This is true irrespective of which political party is in power.

Role of Political Parties: The political parties play quite a negative role in riots. Such incidents give them a golden opportunity to indulge in vote bank politics .How many political parties in India have sincerely tried to solve the root cause of such conflicts ? It is to their advantage if such conflicts linger on and wounds are not healed. This holds for so called ‘secular’ parties as well as ‘Hindutva’ parties.

Historical factors : There have been some historical factors exploited by political parties like BJP and for that matters like SP to increase the communal divide. The factors like minority appeasement, Uniform Civil Code and issues like Babri Masjid have never been looked at logically but always with passion on both sides of the divide. If a sincere effort is made then definitely these issues can be solved. These issues are always raked up by BJP then and now ,but no one has done anything to find a possible amicable solution.

Finally a more fundamental reason is the cultural factors. You can’t take religion out of Indians .It is so much part of our daily lives. Hindu fundamentalists believe their country is being overwhelmed by non Hindus .The Islamic fundamentalists believe that they have to support terrorism to fight the Hindu fundamentalists and to establish ‘Islamic values’. Neither of them is correct . The fact is we need religion to for our spiritual and cultural needs and not to create divide between communities. We need it for the welfare of civilization ,not for destroying the very fabric of civilization. Everybody has to understand that.

Fundamentalism breeds fundamentalism. Traditionally the Hindu fundamentalism was born in response to the Islamic fundamentalist forces.Now in present day India it thrives on anti Islamic fodder. The Islamic fundamentalists have to understand that they are not living in a Islamic country . They have to adapt the values to the traditions and the culture of country they are living in . They are only providing fodder to Hindu fundamentalist forces.The Hindu fundamentalism in turn gives further credence to Islamic fundamentalism among its followers. So both complement each other. When somebody dies in riots the fact is not a Hindu killing a Muslim or vice versa . The real fact is an Indian killing another Indian ,a human eliminating one of his own race.

To end this a note from history. In the aftermath of India’s partition the north India was ravaged by Hindu Muslim riots . Gandhi was working towards bringing peace but his efforts were not bearing any fruit. During this turmoil Gandhi was assassinated . AIR made the announcement that Gandhi has been killed and that his killer was a Hindu(this was done deliberately to quell the rumors that he was killed by a Muslim which would have given validity to Hindu rioters to carry on their acts.) After this news spread across India, suddenly peace descended and all the riots stopped. What Gandhi couldn’t achieve in his last days of his life ,he achieved in death.

Also published here

Global Warming and Responsibility

Recently Indian PM spelled out the approach to fight the global warming.
One argument given by Indian govt. to reduce India's responsibility on carbon emissions is that India's per capita emissions are very low.
I wonder if per capita emissions are a good yardstick to measure a country's carbon footprint. Let's examine this in some detail.
Before we start the arguments one thing is clear(something which is often emphasized in climate change campaigns) that global warming has no boundaries. It's effects are universal and not limited to one country ,that is to say carbon dioxide emitted in one part of a world has it's effects on whole of the planet.
When we are taking the effects of emission of a country as a whole we have to consider things other than population. Countries differ in sizes. Therefore one good measure to compare emissions would be emissions per unit area of the country. But in such a case countries like Russia will unduly benefit who have a large area but small population because of hostile climatic or geographic conditions.
Another factor that can be taken into account is the area covered by forests in a country. That can be used for offsetting the carbon footprint of the country. This can be included in carbon trading.
One more factor that can be taken into account is the historical contribution of a country in carbon emissions(for this the start date can be set as the beginning of industrial revolution). This will definitely put more responsibility on developed nations as historically they are the largest emitters.
Now I come to my original point. Why emissions per capita is not a good point ?
Firstly it gives advantage to those countries who have large population.( a large population is not such a good thing for the environment,we all know that).
Secondly in a country like India which has a large percentage of population below poverty line and where wealth is unevenly distributed only a part of the population is responsible for so large emissions (this a general rule. Emissions are proportional to wealth for any nation). Such arguments only promote inefficient technologies.
Therefore a good parameter would be the one which combines all these parameters. (and may be few more that I have missed.)

Well after all is said and done it is the responsibility of every country to fight global warming. The developed countries are best equipped because they have the resources for the R&D efforts required. It's also an opportunity for developing countries like India who are knocking on the door. India and China are rapidly growing economies. It's the time for them to decide what kind of growth they want and what stake the environment has in that growth. This is the time for them to implement solutions to growth needs which are in sync with the environment and nature. In this regard they are better placed than developed countries who have to convert ineffecient infrastructure to be more environment friendly. It is also an opportunity for businesses across the world to come with innovative solutions. As the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention". It's for the governments and the media to make the companies realize the necessity of action on this front.

On illegal migrants in India..

There has been a debate in India after Jaipur blasts on illegal migration from Bangladesh. The Rajasthan gov. and the Delhi CM have already come out in support of these immigrants.Here is my take on the issue.
Why illegal immigration is not good for India ?
1> India's huge population and large internal migration: India has a large population which is already more than what our natural resources can cater to. A large section of India is still living below poverty line. As a nation it's our duty to look after their needs first.
Secondly India experiences huge internal migration from state like Bihar ,UP and Orissa ( and on smaller scale other states too) .A case in point is the recent controversy generated by MNS in Maharashtra against Maharashtra. Our plate is already full .Where is the need for migrants from outside!!!!
2> Threat to India's security. Bangladesh is no friend of ours. We have al
ready had border skirmishes with BangladeshIn the long term Bangladesh immigrants can pose danger to India's security. There are parts bordering Bangladesh in Assam where illegal Bangladeshis outnumber the locals .It's not difficult to fathom where there loyalties lie. The Indian security agencies have repeatedly pointed fingers at these illegal immigrants for their role in terrorist strikes in India.
3> Economic logic : Immigration makes sense when the country lacks manpower and talent. We have more than sufficient manpower. Anyways the illegal immigration that happens is of unskilled labour which doesn't make much economic sense. In Maharashtra we have a situation here we have a conflict between locals and outsiders .one of the major reason for such conflicts is economics of employment. The locals think that outsiders are taking their jobs ,such conflicts arise. So if India can't provide quality jobs to it's own citizens can we afford immigration.
4> Comparison with the west: One argument in favour of immigrants is that Indians themselves immigrate in large numbers to west. Then why stop Bangladeshis coming to India ? The case of Indians immigration to west can't be compared to the western countries because of the following reasons:-
a) When the immigration started to the west ,the west was much ahead in development than in India.
b) It required skilled and semi-skilled labour force.
c) The immigration to west from India has been of two types. The legal way which mostly included the highly skilled immigrants(the term brain drain was used in India) and the illegal immigration which mostly included semi-skilled and unskilled labour. So west has largely benefited from the immigration.
d) These Indian immigrants have never been a security threat to the countries to which they immigrated. India also doesn't share any border with these countries.
5>Helping the neighbour: There are better ways than illegal immigration to help the neighbours. Most of the immigrants are involved in low skiled jobs(rag picking etc) which may be good fore survival in short term but is not going to help in long term anybody(neither India or Bangladesh). We can share our technology with Bangladesh and collaborate to solve problem like poverty which affect both the countries. But this not politically rewarding ,so no political party will take this course.
Unfortunately many political parties consider the Bangaladeshi immigrants as vote banks. By not acting against this illegal immigration Indian government is silently encouraging the immigrants.