Monday March 19, 2018
Home Opinion Curious case ...

Curious case of carbon emission: Should India curb development for the sake of West




By NewsGram Staff Writer

India’s development dilemma centres around a basic calculation: the carbon emission for an average Indian is only marginally higher than the carbon dioxide produced in flying one passenger from Tokyo to San Francisco.

In other words, while a commonly-cited fact is that India, after China and the US, is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide – the main gas implicated in warming the planet – globally, there is, seemingly, enough data to absolve India of special responsibility.


Background to the debate

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is at a record high at 404.11 parts per million (ppm), driving extreme weather events, including high temperature, storms and droughts, according to some studies. As IndiaSpend recently reported, the rainfall over rain-dependent India is becoming increasingly uncertain, unsettling the nation’s agriculture, economy and politics.

Recently it was alleged that  India’s overwhelming dependence on coal was the real reason for the government’s crackdown on the global NGO Greenpeace. Some said India’s dependence on coal would be disastrous. Others argued that doing away with coal would be equally disastrous.


To be coal-based or not?

Citing total emissions is misleading. India’s annual carbon dioxide emission is 1.93 billion tonnes, compared to 1.4 billion tonnes emitted by Japan, the world’s fifth-largest polluter. India’s emissions are spread among 1.27 billion people; Japan’s come from 127 million, a tenth of India’s population. On an average, a citizen of Japan is responsible for seven times as much carbon dioxide as an Indian.

Citizens of countries such as Britain, Germany, Canada and the US have a carbon footprint between five and 12 times that of an Indian. With one-sixth of the world’s population, India accounts for a twentieth of carbon emissions.

China and the US, with just less than one-quarter of world’s population, account for 44 percent of current CO2 emissions. Europe (with Russia) accounts for another 20 percent of emissions. India accounts for 5.5 percent. So, a vast majority of greenhouse gases are coming from the developed world plus China.

It is hard to ignore past responsibility. Per capita data are only part of the jigsaw. CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has not been emitted only over the past couple of years or decades. It has been building up for more than 100 years, since the West started industrializing. The pace picked up over the past 50 years as incomes and consumption increased and many developing countries also started to grow.

Between 1965 and 2013, as much as 1.1 trillion tons of CO2 was emitted. Europe (including Russia) accounts for 33.3 percent of this total, while the US has a share of 24.3 percent. So, the West has been responsible for 57.6 percent of CO2 emitted over the past 48 years. If China and Japan are included, the combined share goes up to 76.2 percent, more than three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emissions over this period.

A small set of nations – Europe, US, China and Japan – has been responsible for global warming so far, and continues to account for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. India’s contribution is relatively marginal and continues to remain 80 percent below the world average.


Is asking India to curb carbon emissions right?

As India develops, CO2 emissions will rise. The reasons for low per-capita emissions from India are obvious. As much as 25 percent of Indians still don’t have access to electricity. Automobile ownership in India is 13 vehicles per 1,000, compared to 439 in the US, 617 in Japan and 34 in China.

Indians fly less than nationals of other major economies – though India has the second-largest population, it is the ninth-largest aviation market. Britain, which has a population 1/20th of India sees more people flying annually. As India industrializes and incomes increase, more Indians will use electricity and drive vehicles and fly, leading to increased carbon emissions.

There is no feasible way of restricting carbon emissions – short of stopping use of all fossil fuels-coal, oil and natural gas. These three fuels account for 86.6 percent of the world energy consumption.


Dirty and desirable: The role of coal

Among the three major fossil fuels, coal is considered the dirtiest.

However, it is less than one-fourth the price of either oil or natural gas and more widely available. This is why coal is more widely used in lower-income countries such as India.

As incomes increase, countries try to move away from coal as the development trajectories of western Europe and the US indicate.

India is also world’s third-largest user of coal.

Coal is a major bugbear for a number of environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. This has lead to confrontations such as the ban on foreign funding for Greenpeace in India.

India accounts for just 8.5 percent of the world’s coal usage, while it has 17.5 percent of world’s people. China is the runaway leader, accounting for just over half the coal burnt globally.


India’s limited options

India has not been responsible for global carbon emissions in the past, and its current emissions are way below the needs of its population.

However, if India follows China’s route of development by burning more coal, the consequences for the planet – and India – are likely to be devastating. This will further worsen as other developing nations with large populations, such as Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan, follow this route.

The argument goes that as a responsible nation, India needs to move away from coal and increase the use of low-pollution energy sources, mainly nuclear power, hydropower, natural gas and renewable energy.

The problem with these sources is that they are costlier than coal and not as easily available. In many cases, such as renewable energy and nuclear power, the technology isn’t freely available to India; much of it must be imported from the West.

If India chooses more expensive forms of energy over coal, it will contribute to global common good – at its own immediate economic cost.

(With inputs from IANS)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

Pentavalent vaccine: Doctors raise red flag

In spite of the data presented in this paper from a large cohort, the authors point out that the evidence is merely circumstantial and not conclusive

the new Hepatitis B vaccine for adults is called Heplisav-B.
India's PV to be reexamined because of its harmful effects. .
  • Pentavalent vaccine was introduced in India six years ago
  • It is since then have been a cause of many deaths
  • Doctors want it to be reexamined before continuing its use

Pentavalent vaccine (PV), that was introduced by India a little over six years ago, doubled the deaths of children soon after vaccination compared to the DPT (Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus) vaccine, according to a new study that calls for a “rigorous review of the deaths following vaccination with PV”.

Health officials have launched a campaign targeting nearly 24 million people with a one-fifth dose of the vaccine. Wikimedia Commons
PV has been cause of many deaths in past years. Wikimedia Commons

Government records show that there were 10,612 deaths following vaccination (both PV and DPT) in the last 10 years. There was a huge increase in these numbers in 2017, which the Health Ministry has promised to study. “The present analysis could be a starting point in the quest to reduce the numbers of such deaths,” authors of the new study say.

The study by Dr Jacob Puliyel, Head of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital, and Dr V. Sreenivas, Professor of Biostatistics at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), both in New Delhi, is published in the peer-reviewed Medical Journal of Dr D.Y. Patil University.

PV is a combination of the DPT vaccine and two more vaccines against Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) and hepatitis B. Starting December 2011, PV was introduced into India’s immunisation programme to replace DPT vaccine in a staged manner with a view to adding protection against Hib and Hepatitis B without increasing the number of injections given to infants.

Doctors have raised concerns over these vaccines. Wikimedia Commons
Doctors have raised concerns over these vaccines. Wikimedia Commons

But sporadic reports of unexplained deaths following immunisation with PV had been a matter of concern. Puliyel, Sreenivas and their colleagues undertook the study to find out if these deaths were merely coincidental or vaccine-induced.

The authors obtained data of all deaths reported from April 2012 to May 2016 under the Right to Information Act. Data on deaths within 72 hours of administering DPT and PV from different states were used.

For their study, the authors assumed that all deaths within 72 hours of receiving DPT are natural deaths. Using this figure as the baseline, they presumed that any increase in the number of deaths above this baseline among children receiving PV must be caused by this vaccine.

Also Read: With Medicine Running Out, Venezuelans With Transplant Live in Fear

According to their analysis of the data provided by the government, there were 237 deaths within 72 hours of administering the Pentavalent vaccine — twice the death rate among infants who received DPT vaccine.

Extrapolating the data, the authors have estimated that vaccination of 26 million children each year in India would result in 122 additional deaths within 72 hours, due to the switch from DPT to PV.

“There is likely to be 7,020 to 8,190 deaths from PV each year if data from states with the better reporting, namely Manipur and Chandigarh, are projected nationwide,” their report says.

It is important to make sure that these vaccines are reexamined peroperly. VOA

The authors note that while the study looks at the short-term increase in deaths (within three days of vaccination) it does not calculate the potential benefits of PV on infant mortality, for example by protection against lethal diseases like Haemophilus influenza.

In spite of the data presented in this paper from a large cohort, the authors point out that the evidence is merely circumstantial and not conclusive. “These findings of differential death rates between DPT and PV do call for further rigorous prospective population-based investigations,” the study concludes. IANS