Rising Wisely

While much of the press at COP15 dealt with “Leakgate,” the focus is now shifting to India and China.  Should they accept binding agreements at Copenhagen?

First of all, there is no “India and China” – they are different, not only in emissions (China is the world’s largest emitter, and India is FAR behind), but in their drivers. As pointed out in an Opinion piece in the Financial Times last year, India’s main driver is increased supply of modern energy services to its population (some 40% +/- of homes lack electricity).  In China, air pollution is a major concern.

Analysis indicates that to give a small supply of electricity to every home in India that lacks power will only require some 10 GW of capacity (if supplied from central generation stations).  If one chooses to use distributed/renewable generation, the number would come down slightly.

Given India aims to add hundreds of GW in the coming decades, this is a very small number.  Thus, one of India’s goals, of universal electriciation (China is over 98% already), can be met with modest carbon impacts, a level that can be mitigated elsewhere through efficiency and/or other means (e.g., the ambitious national solar mission).

The broader goal of increased energy consumption to fuel economic growth is another matter.  Given per capita consumption levels are multiple times lower than even the world average (let alone W. Europe), India will necessarily need space to grow its energy consumption. As the FT Opinion piece points out, the past matters.

“Green” energy is not yet cost-effective, not in the scale that India needs. Even efficiency, a vital activity that differentiates, say, Denmark from the US by a factor of 2 (energy intensity per GDP unit), can only do so much.  Energy intensity improvements have been only about 2.1% per annum in the long run in the US; even something vastly better will be dwarfed by the overall growth requirements).

It’s premature to say what India should do. A negotiation, with ramifications of legally binding limits is different than what its actions should be with good intentions.  India is certainly decades behind China in terms of certain infrastructure (at the current pace) – catching up will take energy and resources. Of course, it should be done in the best manner possible, and for this selected new technologies may be required. The experience of IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) indicates that China may be ahead of the US when it comes to commercializing such a technology.  India may need to embark on its own R&D, picking and choosing technologies from wherever they may be available at a fair price.

Coming back to an underlying sentiment about “Leakgate.” A major concern was whether a few countries were making decisions that would harm other otherwise impact others. In some ways, there are 4  sets of countries: Developed, China, India, and Other Developing.  One might want to recall the Swahili phrase: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” In this particular case, we might say, “When elephants fight (or make love), it is the grass that gets trampled.”

– Rahul Tongia