| |
| March 2010 |
| Vol. VI Issue. 41; 30 March 2010 |
| The Copenhagen Accord: Real progress through 2020 emission goals? - 30 March 2010 |
|
|
"Some American businessmen and environmentalists will complain that the reductions in carbon intensity that China and India are talking about are not much different from the efficiency improvements that they would probably be achieving anyway, under Business As Usual. This is true. But it is not reasonable to ask much more than this from the poor countries in their first budget period. Nor is it necessary to ask any more than this, in order to forestall leakage to developing countries. Fears of leakage and lost competitiveness have probably been the number one obstacle to a legal agreement, for example in the US Senate. Much more serious is the critique that China and the other developing countries are not yet prepared to commit legally to these numbers. But, then, that is equally true of the United States..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 40; 23 March 2010 |
| Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill: Yet another Crutch to the Nuclear Industry - 23 March 2010 |
|
|
"These circumstances are important because they represent a type of public involvement in the emergence of an energy industry that is very distinctive. In no other regime are market forces and competitive processes so systematically set aside even in the determination of what liabilities the industry will be subjected to. When competition finally emerges in the industry it will only be over who would get a chance to profit from the construction of a technical system developed under Government direction - under strong political pressure to produce something of perceived value in terms of energy and environmental security, not over which company, which fuel or which technology could provide the most economical means of generating clean electricity for masses of impoverished people in India..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 39; 16 March 2010 |
| The Two Sides of the Nuclear Liability Bill - 16 March 2010 |
|
|
"Financial liability for a nuclear accident will be capped at only Rs. 2142.85 crore. Beyond this cap, the affected people will not get any compensation for either loss of life, health damages or damages to property and environment. The liability of the Indian operator of nuclear plants will be limited to only to Rs. 500 crore. The Central Government can decrease the amount of liability to a minimum of Rs. 100 crore. The difference between the two - Rs. 2142.85 and Rs. 500 crore, i.e. of about Rs. 1642 crore - is the Government's share of the liability. There is no legal liability of the foreign reactor supplier even if it supplies faulty and substandard equipment. Any liability for foreign reactor suppliers can at best be included in private contracts between the suppliers and the Indian operator..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 38; 09 March 2010 |
| Politics of Climate Change: Why India Wants to Support to IPCC Now? - 09 March 2010 |
|
|
"There is some poetic justice in this whole drama. Countries like India, which were always apprehensive of institutions like the IPCC, now might prefer the shadow of that institution. They might believe that a weak IPCC will have to allow them to draw up their own science and pursue their own interests. The rich countries that gave birth to the idea of IPCC cannot afford to disown it without exposing their own underlying design. They could try and replace its head, in the hope that the new face might be able to rebuild the credibility of the institution. But having tested blood, there is no reason why the other set of countries will let the current advantage pass so easily..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 37; 02 March 2010 |
| Responsibility Cast by Electricity Act, 2003 - 02 March 2010 |
|
|
"The Preamble says it is an Act for the "promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies." Similarly Section 23 requires the authorities to regulate supply, distribution and consumption of electricity "for maintaining the efficient supply, securing the equitable distribution of electricity and promoting competition." The pivot of efficiency here is national economy, not producer's profits, hence efficiency has to be assessed as per social equilibrium. CEA must determine the total electricity to be produced after taking into account the externalities. The focus on 'equitable distribution' is a clear statement that objective of the Act is social welfare and not producing companies' profit..."
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| February 2010 |
| Vol. VI Issue. 36; 23 February 2010 |
| Sliding along on oil - 23 February 2010 |
|
|
"What's important is that even as it leaves the oil companies' bleeding balance sheets unattended, this garners Rs 30,000 crore more for the government in FY 2010-11. Therefore the shadow boxing being done by UPA's friends and foes for a rollback of "prices" actually lacks a killer punch - simply because what they are demanding is not so much a rollback of prices but one of taxes meant to collect revenues for the UPA's flagship social sector schemes. So when the PM and the FM declare there is going to be no rollback, they can do so with a moral authority lacking on the other side. Had they actually raised prices that would have not been the case. So the UPA has the last laugh on this one..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 35; 16 February 2010 |
| Will Meeting Electricity Shortages Lead to Economic Development? - 16 February 2010 |
|
|
"The environmental and cultural costs of nuclear, thermal and hydro power are often admitted. Question raised then is this: "Yes, these costs are there. But we need to supply electricity to our villages that are facing power cuts of up to 16 hours or more. We also need cheap electricity for our industries in this era of global competition. Therefore, we have to bear some of these costs in order to push economic development." It is argued in this short note that a tradeoff is involved here between short- and long term economic growth. Under-pricing of electricity for economic growth provides short term economic growth but hits at long term economic growth. The crucial question is whether we are willing to risk the long term existence of our civilization for short run gains of economic growth..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 34; 09 February 2010 |
| 'Green Bonus' for Forest Cover Protection - 09 February 2010 |
|
|
"While the country should be appreciative of the revenue needs of these mountainous states, it should also be realized there are many alternatives for better revenue streams than by exploiting the forest wealth on an unsustainable basis such as damming the rivers. Such states, where the forest cover is high, should be provided with adequate financial and economic incentives to conserve and develop the forest wealth on a sustainable basis. Such an initiative must be designed at the national level such that it will be able to encourage even states like Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Chattisgarh, Maharastra and Goa, which do not appear to attach a lot of value to the forest wealth, to arrest the destruction of forest cover..."
|
| |
| |
|
| Vol. VI Issue. 33; 02 February 2010 |
| Water-Energy Linkage in the Urban Scenario - 02 February 2010 |
|
|
"If one looks at the energy linkage, and especially the energy component of inputs for water supply, the figures from Chennai are illustrative of two aspects. First, power amounts to 57 percent of technical operational costs on the centralized piped system. Second, this share is actually much higher as far as a long-term energy scenario is considered, since the insufficiencies of the centralized piped system have led to a "drought scheme" and hiring of water lorries. In both cases, the energy part represents the majority of the total burden of 750 million rupees! The amounts at stake are really worth considering alternative technical organization..."
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| January 2010 |
| Vol. VI Issue. 32; 26 January 2010 |
| Sustainability of Centralised Supply System and Conventional Power Plants - 26 January 2010 |
|
|
"These centralized generation systems also are found to be economical only with large size power plants and concentrated loads. But Indian villages are wide spread and cannot provide any substantial loads individually as in the case of towns and cities. Large size power plants, whether they are fossil fuel based or dam based, also demand a lot of societal resources such as precious lands, water, coal, construction materials etc. They also lead to large scale displacement of villagers and tribals, and generally lead to their impoverishment as has been experienced in our own country..."
|
|
|
| 2010 :
Jan-Mar
| Apr-Jun
| Jul-Sep
| Oct-Dec
|
