ANIL AGARWAL DIALOGUE 2015 - … Anil went for a bone marrow transplantation, ... discourse on black...

The poor in climate change

ANIL AGARWAL DIALOGUE

2015

2

We are grateful to the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)for institutional support.

© 2015 Centre for Science and Environment

Material from this publication can be used, but with acknowledgement.

Published byCentre for Science and Environment41, Tughlakabad Institutional AreaNew Delhi 110 062Phones: 91-11-29955124, 29955125, 29953394Fax: 91-11-29955879E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cseindia.org

Printed at Multi Colour Services, New Delhi

3

Contents

Anil Agarwal 4

The Anil Agarwal Dialogues 5

CSE: Who we are? What do we do? 6

The programme 7

The speakers 15

Position Paper: Short-lived climate pollutants 27

Briefing paper 1: Diesel at the crossroads 39

Briefing paper 2: Brick kilns 48

Briefing paper 3: Cookstoves 51

4

Chronology1970: Graduated in Mechanical Engineering from Indian

Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

1973: Joined The Hindustan Times as a science journalist.

The Chipko Movement catalyses his understanding of

environment-development processes.

1982: Founder-director, Centre for Science and

Environment (CSE).

1983: Co-editor, First Citizen’s Report on the State of India’sEnvironment.

1985: Co-editor, Second Citizen’s Report on the State of India’sEnvironment.

1986: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi invites him to address

the Council of Ministers.

1992: Started Down To Earth magazine.

1996: Began Right to Clean Air campaign, instrumental in

introducing CNG-based public transport in Delhi.

1997: With Dying Wisdom: the Rise, Fall and Potential ofIndia’s Traditional Water Harvesting Systems, started a

campaign to popularise rainwater harvesting. Making WaterEverybody’s Business was a subsequent seminal publication.

1997: Launched the Green Rating Project, aimed at

making industry more environment-friendly. Guided the

rating of the automobile industry, and the paper and pulp

industry.

1999: Co-editor, Green Politics, on global environmental

negotiations. Along with Poles Apart (2001), considered

important books on the Third World’s perspective on these

treaties.

Awards2000: Padma Bhushan, Government of India, New Delhi

2000: Environment Leadership Award, given by the Global

Environment Facility, Washington DC

1994: Environmentalist of the Year by Les Realites del’Ecologie, France

1991: Distinguished Alumnus Award, Indian Institute of

Technology, Kanpur.

1987: Elected to the Global 500 Honour Roll by the

United Nations Environment Programme. Honour

Summus Award, Watumull Foundation, Hawaii.

1986: Padma Shri by the Government of India, New

Delhi.

1984: Fifth Vikram Sarabhai Memorial Award by the

Indian Council of Social Science Research, New

Delhi.

1979: First A. H. Boerma Award given by the Food

and Agriculture Organisation in Rom

Anil Agarwal 1947-2002It is truly amazing how much he managed to do in

the past seven years. When we first found out he had

a rare and possibly fatal lymphoma, which had spread

to his brain, his spine and his eyes, his only response

was, “Is there a possible treatment?” He took

chemotherapy so calmly you would think it was a

simple stomach pain.

The focus, even then, was on work. Centre for

Science and Environment (CSE) had expanded,

started a fortnightly magazine, but with hardly any

management systems. In the US and then in France,

where Anil went for a bone marrow transplantation,

we worked furiously to set up internal systems. Anil’s

impatience drove colleagues up the wall. But he soon

learnt to also give his strength and generosity and,

most of all, his time. He died with the knowledge

that he had created an institution which would

continue to drive the environmental message, as

loudly and as stridently as he would have done.

In the 1980s it was generally accepted that

environment was “pretty trees and tigers” and that

“smoke was the sign of progress”. Poverty was the

greatest polluter. Anil debunked this effectively.

Environment for the poor was not a luxury but a

matter of survival. Today, all this is common

knowledge. But for someone who has journeyed with

him, I know how difficult each step was.

Our book, Global Warming in an Unequal Worldforced us to fight the most powerful research

institutions of the industrialised world. The

campaign on air pollution made us take on the

powerful automobile industry. But Anil never ever

let us, even for one moment, feel that we were less

powerful. This is because his faith in democracy was

total. As long as we were absolutely sure about our

facts we could challenge the world.

“Forensic rigour combined with passion” was

how a leading UK journalist

described CSE’s work. My last

memory of him — barely

minutes before he died — was

Anil correcting me about

something I was saying to a

journalist on the phone

about a report on the auto

fuel policy. For Anil, life

began and ended with

work.

Sunita Narain

We started the annual ANIL

AGARWAL DIALOGUE a few

years ago and it has become an

important opportunity to discuss

environment-development-energy

and resource efficiency concerns.

Our effort is to ensure in-depth

discussions and most importantly, to

bring together different voices, from

diverse (and most often)

unconnected communities, on a

common platform. We believe this

strongly reflects Anil’s beliefs that

the way ahead is through substantive

discourse and dialogue.

This year, we have decided to

convene the Dialogue on the politics

and science of local-global action on

environment. We believe the global

discourse on black carbon – a local

pollutant, with huge health impacts

on the poorest of the world – needs

to be better informed based on

national concerns and priorities.

Over the two-day Dialogue, we

have invited top scientists and

practitioners from across the world to

deliberate on emerging science on

local-global pollutants and also to

understand the national roadmaps

for intervention in key areas of

mitigation. And to see if these are

sufficient or if we need to push for

transformational approaches.

The objective is to build

deliberate consensus on key issues,

which we have identified in the

policy briefing papers.

Anil Agarwal Dialogues2014: Energy access and renewables 2013: Excreta does matter2012: Green clearances2007: Rich lands poor people: is

sustainable mining possible?

5

6

CSE: Who are we? What do we do?

CSE PROGRAMMESBUILDING CAPACITY/ EDUCATION/ MONITORING

� Anil Agarwal EnvironmentTraining Institute

� Environment Education

� Media Resource Centre

� Pollution Monitoring Lab

RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY

� Clean Air and Sustainable Mobility

� Green Building

� Water-Waste (capacity building, technicalsupport, demonstration projects)

� Water-Waste (research and advocacy)

� Sustainable Industrialisation

� Climate Change

� Renewable Energy

� Food Safety

KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION

� Down To Earth

� Portal/ Specialised websites

� Publications

Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) is a public interest research and

advocacy organisation based in New Delhi. CSE researches into, lobbies for and

communicates the urgency of development that is both sustainable and equitable.

The Centre was founded in 1980 by noted environmental thinker and activist,

the late Anil Agarwal. Since then it has ‘worked’ India’s democracy to push for

change in policy and practice for sustainable and inclusive growth. We strongly

believe that countries like India require a paradigm shift in environmental

technology and management to be able to cope with growing degradation. But

most importantly, we require strategies to involve people in management;

regenerate natural resources for livelihood, water and food security so that poverty

is addressed. Without this, sustainable growth is not possible. Our work and

campaigns are spread across different sectors – from water to waste management,

air pollution to mobility transformation and green industrialization to resource

efficiency.

Our strategy is to do rigorous and forensic research on environmental issues;

provide solutions and then work with multipliers – media, students and teachers

and regulators – to take the thought and practice forward.

Over the years, CSE’s work has grown, but so has the challenge of successful

environmental management. Today, even as many countries of the developing

world are struggling to find solutions to immediate problems of poverty, hunger,

water scarcity and pollution, the entire world is faced with the catastrophe of

climate change. In this age of environment, our area of work has expanded, as

has the focus on how we can make change. We believe our work must and can

make a difference.

For more information on CSE, please visit our website:www.cseindia.org and

downtoearth.org.in

7

THE POOR IN CLIMATE CHANGE

How the co-benefit agenda of short-lived climate pollutantscan work for or against people

and the Planet

ANILAGARWALDIALOGUE

2015

India Habitat Centre, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi

T H E P R O G R A M M E

8

THE PROGRAMME

Day I - March 11, 2015Registration: 9.00 to 9.30 AM

Plenary Session: 9.00 AM to 1.00 PM

Setting the stage for the Dialogue and the health-climate challenge

Chair: Sunita Narain, Director General, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)

9:30 to 9:45 Why this Dialogue and our perspective

Sunita Narain, Director General, CSE

9:45 to 10:00 Health impacts of black carbon

Michael Brauer, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University

of British Columbia, Canada

10:00 to 10:15 Significance of black carbon in India’s climatic conditions, its impacts, what is

known and the need for further research

A Jayaraman, Director, National Atmospheric Research Laboratory, Department of Space,

Government of India

10:15 to 10:30 Science, health and co-benefits of short-lived climate pollutants

Kirk Smith, Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, US

10:30 to 11:00 Discussion

Tea 11:00 to 11:15 AM

11:15 to 11:30 Role of black carbon in global climate systems

Ellen Baum, Executive Director, Climate and Health Research Network, Maine, US

11:30 to 11:45 Impact of black carbon on monsoon

Dilip Ganguly, Assistant Professor, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of

Technology (IIT), Delhi

11:45 to 12:00 National emission inventory of black carbon in India

Mukesh Sharma, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,

Kanpur


Lunch 1:00 to 2:00 PM

9

Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change

Day I - March 11, 2015 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)

Chair: Michael Walsh, CSE rapporteur: Vivek Chattopadhyay

Health and climate impacts

2:00 to 2:15 Overview: Health and climate challenges of dirty diesel

Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director, CSE

2:15 to 2:30 Global and regional climate impacts of black carbon and co-emitted species from the

on-road diesel sector

Marianne Tronstad Lund, Senior Research Fellow, Center for International Climate and

Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway

2:30 to 2:45 Worldwide progress in vehicle technology and emission norms: Leaders and laggards,

need to move fast

Michael Walsh, Vehicle Technology Expert, US

2:45 to 3:00 From science to policy: The international response to black carbon and the implications

for transportation policy in developing and developed countries

Ray Minjares, Clean Air Lead, International Council on Clean Transportation, San Francisco, US


Tea 4:00 to 4:20 PM

Diesel black carbon: Global developments

4:20 to 4:35 Assessment of black carbon emissions in China and the strategies for mitigation

Li Kunsheng, Director, Vehicle Emission Management, Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection

Bureau, China

4:35 to 4:50 Black carbon mitigation strategies for the transportation sector in California

Bart E Croes, Chief, Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, US

4:50 to 5:05 Real world emissions of Euro VI compliant vehicles and the recent action on diesel in Europe

Vicente Franco, Researcher, International Council on Clean Transportation, Berlin, Germany

5:05 to 5:20 Sri Lanka’s fiscal strategy to discourage diesel vehicles to reduce pollution

Don S Jayaweera, Chairperson, National Transport Commission and Senior Consultant on

Transportation, Sri Lanka


DINNER 7:00 PM

DIESEL The roadmap for clean diesel and mobility for all

Cities across the world are gasping for clean air. Vehicular pollution – especially increased use of diesel in vehiclesboth personal and heavy duty – is worsening the toxic risk. Particulate emissions from diesel have been classified ascarcinogens and now there is growing concern about health as well as climate impacts of black carbon. The co-benefit agenda is clear – we can clean up diesel for local health as well as climate benefits. But how will this roadmapfor clean diesel be possible in large parts of the developing world? What more do they need to do to deal withchallenge of mobility and climate change?

Parallel Session I

10

THE PROGRAMME

Day II - March 12, 2015 (9:30 AM to 1:00 PM)

Chair: Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE rapporteur: Vivek Chattopadhyay

Clean diesel: Roadmap for India

9:30 to 9:45 Auto Fuel Policy roadmap in India to mitigate black carbon emissions

R K Malhotra, Member, Auto Fuel Policy Committee and former Chairperson and Director (R&D),

Indian Oil Corporation

9:45 to 10:00 How Indian automobiles have curtailed emissions: Key changes in technology that

have enabled change

Neelkanth V Marathe, Senior Deputy Director and Head, Powertrain Enginerring, Automobile

Research Association of India, Pune

10:00 to 10:15 Diesel emission control system and technology roadmap: India’s preparedness to

leapfrog to Euro VI

Alok Trigunayat, Chief Operating Officer, Ecocat India Private Limited, Faridabad


Tea 10:45 to 11:00 AM

Clean diesel and mobility transformation: What the world is looking at

11:00 to 11:15 UNEP Partnership on Clean Fuels and Vehicles and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition

Elisa Dumitrescu, Consultant, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya

11:15 to 11:30 Climate/air quality co-benefits study and latest developments at the World Bank

Gary Kleiman, Senior Environmental Specialist, Climate Policy and Finance, World Bank,

Washington, US

11:30 to 11:45 Initiative to build global climate and transportation agenda under the UNFCCC

Cornie Huizenga, Secretary General, Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT),

Shanghai, China


1:00 to 1:30 Conclusions and the way forward

Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE

11


BRICK KILNS Towards clean materials for housing for all


Chair: Richard Mahapatra, CSE rapporteur: Nivit Kumar Yadav

Livelihood and environmental concerns

2:00 to 2:15 Overview on brick kiln: Pollution, technology and where we need to go

Nivit Kumar Yadav, Programme Manager, Industry and Environment, CSE

2:15 to 2:30 Particulate pollution and its health impacts from brick kiln clusters in South Asian cities

Sarath Kumar Guttikunda, Founder Director, UrbanEmissions.info, Goa

2:30 to 2:45 Black carbon emission from brick kilns: Regional and global impacts

Ellen Baum, Executive Director, Climate and Health Research Network, Maine, US

2:45 to 3:00 Livelihood and working conditions

Sudhir Kumar Katiyar, Project Coordinator, Prayas Centre for Labour Research and Action, Udaipur

3:00 to 3:15 Environmental cost of using topsoil for brick making

Vinish Kumar Kathuria, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai


Tea 4:00 to 4:20 PM

Environmental regulations: Best practices and learning (4:20 PM to 6:00 PM)

4:20 to 4:35 Overview of state of regulations and challenges

Nivit Kumar Yadav, Programme Manager, Industry and Environment, CSE

4:35 to 4:50 Environmental regulations in Nepal

Bhisma Pandit, Energy Auditor, Nepal

4:50 to 5:05 Indian perspectives on regulating brick kilns

J S Kamyotra, Director, Central Pollution Control Board, India

5:05 to 5:20 Review of Vietnam Policy

Hoang Anh Le, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, VNU University of Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam


India alone consumes 350 million tonne of topsoil and clay to make some 200 billion bricks; other countries in theregion have similar scales of production. There is growing concern about black carbon emissions but more importantlythere are issues of environmental degradation and livelihood security. The session will discuss the situation across thedifferent countries of the region; their challenges; technology choices and alternative materials. The question is howto make brick kilns’ production clean and find alternatives which are affordable and yet sustainable to meet the hugehousing requirements of our regions.

Parallel Session II

12

THE PROGRAMME


Chair: Chandra Bhushan, CSE rapporteur: Nivit Kumar Yadav

Part 1: Technology choices: Is clean brick kiln technology possible?

9:30 to 9:45 Overview of cleaner technological options

Sameer Maithel, Director, Greentech Knowledge Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi

9:45 to 10:00 Conversion from FCBTK to zigzag kiln: Real experiences

O P Badlani, Prayag Clay Products, Varanasi

10:00 to 10:15 VSBK: Experiences from Nepal

Bhishma Pandit, Energy Auditor, Nepal

10:15 to 10:30 Case study from Vietnam: Experiences with tunnel kilns

Hoang Anh Le, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, VNU University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam


Tea 10:45 to 11:00 AM

Part 2: Alternate building material: Housing for all11:00 to 11:15 Can we replace clay bricks?

Soumen Maity, Senior General Manger, Technology and Action for Rural Advancement,

Development Alternatives, Delhi

11:00 to 11:15 The Latin American experience: Alternate building material

Kurt Rhyner, CEO, Ecosur, Ecuador

11:15 to 11:30 Hollow block, triple benefits: Resource conservation, less embodied energy and

reduction in emission

M Appaiah, Managing Director, Weinerberger, Bengaluru

11:30 to 11:45 Framework for cleaner walling material

Uma Rajrathnam, Enzen Global Solutions, Bengaluru

12:00 to 12:15 Alternative building materials in practice

Vinay Tippannavar, VP-ZED Project, Biodiversity Conservation India Limited, Bengaluru


1:00 to 1:30 Conclusions and the way forward

Chandra Bhushan, CSE

13


COOKSTOVES


Chair: S B Agnihotri, former Secretary, MNRE CSE rapporteur: Chandra Shekhar

Energy poverty and the co-benefit agenda

2:00 to 2:15 Co-benefit agenda: Energy access and climate change

Chandra Bhushan, Deputy Director General, CSE

2:15 to 2:30 Cookstoves and indoor air pollution and the co-benefit framework

Kirk R Smith, Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, US

2:30 to 2:45 Recent initiative of the World Health Organization in developing guidelines for indoor

air pollution

Carlos Dora, Coordinator, Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health

Department, World Health Organization, Geneva

2:45 to 3:00 Energy poverty in India

S B Agnihotri, former Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India


Tea 4:00 to 4:30 PM

Cookstoves programme: Experiences across the globe (4:30 PM to 6:00 PM)

4:30 to 4:45 Global initiatives on clean cookstoves: What has worked

Donee Alexander, Program Manager, Environment & Health, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves

4:45 to 5:00 Indoor air pollution: Indian perspectives

Damodar Bachani, Deputy Commissioner (Non-communicable Diseases), Ministry of Health &

Family Welfare, Government of India

5:00 to 5:15 Clean cookstove experiences from the ground: SEWA

Anurag Bhatnagar, Ahmedabad

5:15 to 5:30 Grassroot experiences with improved cookstoves dissemination in Nepal, Haiti and

India

Ravi Kanth Kandikonda, Chief Financial Officer and Strategy, Prakti, Puducherry


Globally there are 2.67 billion people of which, India alone has over 800 million who use inefficient, highly pollutingcookstoves to meet their basic needs. This number has not changed for the past 30 years or now. Women sufferhugely because of this. WHO has already classified indoor air pollution from cookstoves as a global health burden.What technologies are working? Why? The question is what can be done to move beyond cookstoves? Are therealternatives to provide clean energy security to the poorest in the world?

Is there a way out of the cooking energy-poverty trap?

Parallel Session III

14

THE PROGRAMME


Chair: Varsha Joshi, Joint Secretary, MNRE, CSE rapporteur: Chandra Shekhar

Solutions on the table: Energy access using cookstove and biogas

9:30 to 9:45 Experience of biogas technology in India

Prof Virendra K Vijay, Professor, Centre for Rural Development and Technology, IIT, Delhi

9:45 to 10:00 Is biogas a way out of the biomass-burning trap: India’s experience with biogas

Atmaram Shukla, President, Biogas Forum of India

10:00 to 10:15 Improved devices and lessons for dissemination: Experiences from Maharashtra

Priyadarshini Karve, Director, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune

10:15 to 10:30 Improved devices and lessons for dissemination: Experiences from Karnataka

Svati Bhogle, Secretary and CEO, Technology Informatics Design Endeavour, Madurai

10:30 – 11:15 Discussion

Tea 11:15 to 11:30 AM

Solutions on the table: Energy access using mini-grids

11:30 – 11:45 Mini-grid business model for rapid uptake in India

Aruna Kumarankandath, Programme Officer, CSE

11.45 – 12.00 Issues in mini-grids and how to make them work for energy security

Sameer Nair, Gram Oorja Solutions Private Ltd, Mumbai

12.00 – 12:15 Biomass and solar mini-grids in Bihar

Manoj Sinha, Co-founder and Director, Husk Power Systems, Patna

12:15 – 1:00 Discussion and the way forward

Lunch: 1.00 to 2.00 PM

Plenary Session: Learning and way forward – 2.00 PM to 4.00 PM

Breakout working groups to discuss specific strategies for partnerships and how to incentivise the

actions on the transformative agenda. The aim will be to inform local-global dialogue and actions

TEA: 4.00 PM TO 4.30 PM

Report back and the way ahead session – 4.30 PM to 6.00 PM

15

T H E S P E A K E R S

A. JAYARAMANNationalAtmosphericResearch Laboratory,Department ofSpace, Governmentof IndiaDr A. Jayaraman is director,

National Atmospheric

Research Laboratory

Department of Space,

Government of India. He

received his Doctorate

degree in Atmospheric

Sciences from Physical

Research Laboratory,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat

University. One of the lead

authors of IPCC’s Climate

Change 2001, he is the

recipient of several national

and international awards,

including a shared 2007

Nobel Peace Prize awarded

to the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC). He is also vice

president of the Committee

on Space Research

(COSPAR) for 2014-18.

ANURAGBHATNAGARGrassroots TradingNetwork for WomenAnurag Bhatnagar heads

Grassroots Trading Network

for Women (GTNW).

Promoted by SEWA (Self

Employed Women's

Association), GTNW aims to

provide micro-finance to a

million-plus SEWA families.

It aims to deliver sustainable

livelihoods by marshalling

innovative financial tools and

harnessing existing

strengths.

ARUNAKUMARANKANDATHCentre for Scienceand EnvironmentAruna works as a programme

officer in the Renewable

Energy Programme in Centre

for Science and Environment

(CSE), New Delhi. She

specialises in the field of solar

energy and decentralised

distributed generation. She

has an MSc Energy Policy and

Sustainability from the

University of Exeter, UK and a

BA Economics Honours degree

from Jesus and Mary, Delhi

University.

ANUMITAROYCHOWDHURY Centre for Scienceand EnvironmentAnumita Roychowdhury is

executive director, Research

and Advocacy, Centre for

Science and Environment.

She has worked extensively

to build the policy advocacy

and public awareness

campaigns on clean air and

sustainable mobility as part

of her sustainable cities

programme. She has helped

to build some of the key

policy campaigns at the

Centre on air quality

improvement strategies,

including the natural gas

vehicle programme in Delhi

and the green building and

green habitat agenda. She

has participated in and

played an active role in

several important national

and global forums on

environmental issues. She

has published numerous

articles and policy research

papers and co-authored

books on air pollution and

transport that have

catalysed the Right to Clean

Air campaign at the Centre.

16

THE SPEAKERS

ATMA RAMSHUKLABiogas forum of indiaDr Atma Ram Shukla

superannuated as advisor

(bio-energy) in the Ministry

of New and Renewable

Energy in September 2011

after working for the

ministry for about 29 years.

He has about 42 years of

experience in policy,

planning, developing

national-level renewable

energy R&D and technology

demonstration projects and

dissemination programmes

and their implementation.

BHISHMA PANDITEnergy Auditor,NepalBhishma Pandit works as an

energy efficiency expert in

the brick sector and helps

industries and federations of

Nepalese brick associations

in technology transformation

for cleaner brick production.

He has carried out more than

20 energy and environmental

audits in brick kilns and

conducted many training

programme in brick kilns and

brick-making technologies.

His experience in energy

audit is in Asia, Latin

America and Africa for

agencies such as GIZ, World

Bank, USDA and UNDP.

CARLOS DORAWorld HealthOrganizationDr Carlos Dora is a health

policy expert with WHO. He

manages the WHO unit in

charge of providing guidance

health risks (air pollution,

indoors and outdoors,

radiation, occupation), as

well as monitoring,

evaluation and tracking

related policies and health

impacts. Dr Dora leads

WHO’s work on “Health in a

Green Economy” analysing

health co-benefits from

climate change mitigation

policies, and is developing

WHO’s work on health

indicators for post-2015

Sustainable Development

Goals. He is engaged in the

health co-benefits of

sustainable energy

initiatives, including SE4All,

GACC and CCAC.

BART E CROESCalifornia AirResources BoardBart Croes is the chief of the

Research Division for the

California Air Resources

Board, with responsibilities

for California’s air quality

and climate change research

programmes, mitigation of

high global warming

potential gases, health

effects, economic analysis

and indoor air quality. He

holds a MSc in Chemical

Engineering from the

University of California at

Santa Barbara and a BSc in

Chemical Engineering from

the California Institute of

Technology, and is a

registered professional

chemical engineer in the

state of California.

17


CHANDRABHUSHANCentre for Scienceand EnvironmentChandra Bhushan is the

deputy director general of

Centre for Science and

Environment (CSE). He heads

the Industry and

Environment programme,

Pollution Monitoring

Laboratory, Food Safety and

Toxins, Renewable Energy,

Climate Change Policy and

Advocacy and Training

teams. He is also consulting

editor for the fortnightly

Down To Earth. He has a

diverse and distinguished

track record in research,

writing and policy advocacy.

His five groundbreaking

books on the lifecycle

analysis of industries are

used by Indian industry and

policymakers as handbooks

for improving environmental

policy and practices. He

advises several institutions

as part of advocacy for

global environmental issues.

He is also a member the

working groups for

reforming pollution

regulations and regulatory

institutions under the

Twelfth Five-year Plan of the

Government of India.

DAMODARBACHANIMinistry of Healthand Family WelfareDr Damodar Bachani is in

charge of the national

monitoring framework and

action plan for non-

communicable diseases with

the Union Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare,

Government of India.

DILIP GANGULYIIT DelhiDr. Dilip Ganguly is an

Assistant Professor in the

Centre for Atmospheric

Sciences, Indian Institute of

Technology (IIT) Delhi, Hauz

Khas, New Delhi, India.

DONSATARASINGHEJAYAWEERANational TransportCommission, Sri LankaDon Jayaweera is a fellow of

the Special Program of

Urban and Regional Studies

of Massachusetts Institute

of Technology (MIT), USA

(1997-2001). He worked in

the Ministry of Transport

and Highways as deputy

director from 1985 for 20

years until he became the

Secretary and at the

Massachusetts Bay

Transportation Authority

(MBTA) during his stay at

MIT for his doctoral

programme.

CORNIE HUIZENGAPartnership onSustainable, LowCarbon TransportCornie Huizenga’s is the

secretary general of the

Partnership on Sustainable,

Low Carbon Transport

(SLoCaT), the largest multi-

stakeholder partnership on

sustainable, low carbon

transport in developing

countries. The SLoCaT

Partnership promotes the

integration of sustainable,

low-carbon transport in

global policies on the post-

2015 development agenda

and the post-2015 climate

change policy discussion.

Cornie Huizenga played a

lead role in the development

of the Voluntary

Commitments on Sustainable

Transport at the Rio+20

conference, including the

unprecedented US $175

billion for more sustainable

transport by the world’s

eighth largest multilateral

development banks as well

as the transport-related

commitments made at

Secretary General Ban Ki-

moon’s Climate Summit in

September 2014.

18

THE SPEAKERS

DONEE ALEXANDERGlobal Alliance forClean Cookstoves Donee Alexander is the

Program Manager,

Environment and Health for

the Global Alliance for Clean

Cookstoves. She works on

issues related to co-benefits

of adopting clean cooking.

She has worked as a

postdoctoral scholar at the

University of Chicago where

she managed a randomized

controlled intervention trial

evaluating household air

pollution and pregnancy

outcomes in Ibadan, Nigeria.

She has eight years of

experience evaluating the

health effects of household

air pollution in low-income

countries. She holds a PhD

from the University of

Washington in environmental

engineering and has lived

and worked in both Latin

America and West Africa.

ELLEN BAUMClimate and HealthResearch Network Ellen Baum is executive

director of Climate and

Health Research Network,

CHeRN, an organisation

founded to provide support

in bringing together teams of

climate and air quality

experts to conduct their

work with as much focus and

as little distraction as

possible. She has served as

senior scientist for nearly

two decades at the Clean Air

Task Force, a nonprofit

organisation dedicated to

reducing atmospheric

pollution through research,

advocacy and private sector

collaboration. While at the

Clean Air Task Force, she

undertook a two-year

assessment examining the

energy, environmental and

financial performance and

brick-maker input for five

major brick-firing

technologies in South Asia.

An extensive report, Brick

Kilns Performance

Assessment: A Roadmap for

Cleaner Brick Production in

India, and two papers in

peer-reviewed journals came

out of the work.

GARY KLEIMAN World BankGary Kleiman is a senior

environmental specialist on

the policy team within the

Climate Change Group of the

World Bank in Washington,

D.C. Consulting

internationally for the World

Bank and the International

Finance Corporation, Gary

has worked on low carbon

development options in the

Republic of Indonesia and

helped establish a GHG

emissions accounting

framework for low-carbon

special economic zones in

Bangladesh. He is currently

working to demonstrate the

multiple benefits of reducing

greenhouse gases, short-lived

climate pollutants (SLCPs)

and traditional air pollution

simultaneously.

ELISADUMITRESCUUnited NationsEnvironmentProgrammeElisa Dumitrescu is a

consultant with the United

Nations Environment

Programme’s (UNEP’s)

Transport Unit of the

Division of Technology,

Industry and Economics. She

works with regional

ministerial forums, national

and local governments,

industry groups, NGOs and

technical experts to help

address CO2 and non-CO2

emissions from cars through

improved standards for fuel

quality and vehicle emission

limits. Elisa has worked on

renewable energy

applications in urban

settings, urban greening and

the remediation of toxic and

radioactive pollution hot

spots in developing

countries.

19


HOANG ANH LEVietnam NationalUniversity Dr Hoang Anh Le earned his

master’s degree in VNU

University of Science, Hanoi,

Vietnam, and another one in

on Environmental

Engineering Management

from the Asian Institute of

Technology (AIT, Thailand).

He went on to earn his PhD

in Environmental System

Engineering from the Korea

Institute of Science and

Technology (KIST, Korea).

He is a lecturer at the

Faculty of Environmental

Science, VNU University of

Science, the largest member

of Vietnam National

University (VNU) in Hanoi.

KURT RHYNER EcoSouth network,Grupo SofoniasDr Kurt Rhyner is the

coordinator and founding

member of the ecosur

network as well as Grupo

Sofonias, a non-profit

organisation with active

bases in Nicaragua, Ecuador,

Haiti, Namibia, Cuba and

Switzerland. He is involved in

the conception of projects,

analysis of technologies and

materials appropriate to

specific situations. Dr

Rhyner’s work involves

developing Grupo Sofonias

from a small team into a

mini-multinational

organization, with active

bases in Nicaragua, Ecuador,

Haiti and Switzerland, and

affiliated organisations in

Namibia and Cuba, and

building up EcoSouth

Network for an Ecological

and Economical Habitat into

a dynamic information

exchange with a south-south

focus and impact.

LI KUNSHENGBeijing MunicipalEnvironmentalProtection BureauLi Kunsheng is director,

vehicles emission

management, of the Beijing

Municipal Environmental

Protection Bureau. He

graduated from the Beijing

Institute of Technology. He

has worked since 1999 in the

Beijing Environmental

Protection Board (EPB) in

the area of vehicle emission

pollution protection. He is

currently working towards

making 6th emission

preordered standards for

new light duty and heavy

duty vehicles and set up

platform to control heavy

duty vehicles emission for

Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region.

KIRK R. SMITHUniversity ofCaliforniaProf. Smith is professor of

Global Environmental Health

and founder and director of

the campus-wide Masters

Program in Global Health

and Environment. He was

also founder and head of the

Energy Program of the East-

West Center in Honolulu. He

serves on a number of

national and international

scientific advisory

committees, including the

Global Energy Assessment,

National Research Council’s

Board on Atmospheric

Science and Climate, the

Executive Committee for

WHO Air Quality Guidelines,

and the International

Comparative Risk

Assessment of the Global

Burden of Disease Project.

20

THE SPEAKERS

MANOJ SINHAHusk Power Systems Manoj Sinha is the co-

founder and director of Husk

Power Systems. He has

raised both equity and debt

capital for Husk Power

Systems. He has helped raise

over US $3.5 million in equity

capital (both dilutive and

non-dilutive) and has also got

a commitment of US $1

million in debt capital. Manoj

also manages corporate

relationship with Fortune

500 companies and is

involved with new business

development opportunities

outside India.

MICHAEL BRAUER University of BritishColombiaProfessor Brauer is the

director of Bridge Program,

a strategic training

fellowship program linking

public health, engineering

and policy. Dr Brauer

received bachelor’s degrees

in Biochemistry and

Environmental Sciences from

the University of California-

Berkeley and a doctorate in

Environmental Health from

Harvard University. He has

served on advisory

committees to the World

Health Organisation, the

Climate and Clean Air

Coalition, the US National

Academy of Sciences, the

Royal Society of Canada, the

International Joint

Commission and

governments in North

America and Asia. He is an

associate editor of

Environmental Health

Perspectives and a member

of the Core Analytic Team

for the Global Burden of

Disease.

MICHAEL P. WALSHVehicle TechnologyExpert, USMichael P. Walsh is currently

special adviser for the Global

Strategy, International

Council on Clean

Transportation. A

mechanical engineer, he has

spent his entire career

working on motor vehicle

pollution control issues at

local, national and

international levels. In 2009,

he received the Silver

Magnolia Award from the

city of Shanghai and in 2010

he received the Friendship

Award from China, the

highest award for

international experts in

China. He is the founding

chairman of the board of

directors of the International

Council on Clean

Transportation.

MARIANNETRONSTAD LUNDCenter forInternational Climateand EnvironmentalResearch – OsloDr Marianne Tronstad Lund

is a senior research fellow at

the Center for International

Climate and Environmental

Research – Oslo (CICERO).

Dr Lund holds a PhD from

the Department of

Geosciences at the University

of Oslo on the climate

impacts of emissions from

transportation. She works on

quantifying the climate

impacts on different

temporal and spatial scales

of short-lived climate forcers

and greenhouse gases from

specific emission source

regions and economic

sectors using modelling tools

with varying complexity.

21


MONNANDAAPPAIAHWienerberger IndiaMonnanda Appaiah has since

2010 been the managing

director of Wienerberger

India Private Limited, a fully

owned subsidiary of

Wienerberger AG, Austria,

world leaders in clay building

products, in existence since

1819. Mr Appaiah has done

his Metallurgical Engineeing

from NIT, Surathkal and

Management Development

Program from Alcan,

Canada, and was previously

employed with the Aditya

Birla group.

MUKESH SHARMAIIT Kanpur Dr Mukesh Sharma is

professor of Civil Engineering

at IIT Kanpur, India. He

works in areas of air quality

monitoring, modelling and

management, exposure

assessment and simulation.

He has published/presented

over 100 papers in national

and international journals

and conferences. He is

principal investigator of

several international

research projects from

Norway, France, World Bank,

US and various agencies in

India, and participated in

several national and

international committees on

environmental protection.

NEELKANTH VMARATHEARAI, Pune Mr Neelkanth Marathe is a

graduate in mechanical

engineering from University

of Jabalpur, India. He began

his professional career in

engine development division

with Automotive Research

Association of India (ARAI),

Pune. Moving through

several responsible positions,

he presently heads the

Power Train Engineering

division and is responsible for

engine and transmission

design and development

projects.

NIVIT KUMARYADAV Centre for Scienceand EnvironmentNivit Kumar Yadav

completed his MTech from

Indian Institute of

Technology, Delhi, in Energy

and Environment. He is a

programme manager in the

sustainable industrialisation

team of Centre for Science

and Environment (CSE). He

has been a part of several

flagship programmes of CSE,

such as the Green Rating

Project, Regulators

Programme and research

and capacity building in

South Asia. He has been

researching on the issues and

challenges associated with

the brick kiln sector in India

and South Asia.

22

THE SPEAKERS

OM PRAKASHBADLANIPrayag Clay ProductsPvt. Ltd, Varanasi Om Prakash Badlani is the

founder and chairman of

Prayag Clay Products Pvt.

Ltd, Varanasi, and vice

president of Int Nirmata

Parishad, Varanasi. He is one

of the leading brick

manufacturers in India and

has successfully adopted

technologies like extrusion,

dust pressing, biomass

gasification for power

generation. Badlani has

installed the first soft mud

brick moulding machine in

India. He has played a

pioneering role in the

development of natural

draught zigzag technology

and has provided this

knowhow to several brick

makers on turnkey basis. He

has paid back to the Industry

by a unique initiative i.e.

NeBriTA (Next Gen Brick

Training Academy) at

Varanasi, which provides

vocational and technical

training to the new

generation of manpower

involved in the brick industry.

PRIYADARSHINIKARVESamuchit Enviro TechPvt. LtdDr Priyadarshini Karve has

experimented with cook

stove designs and biomass

fuels and disseminated

biomass energy technologies

since 1991. Since 2000, she

has strived to create

sustainable channels for

households to access

biomass energy technologies

through her work as project

coordinator with

Appropriate Rural

Technology Institute (ARTI)

and as director, Samuchit

Enviro Tech Pvt. Ltd (SET),

Pune.

R.K. MALHOTRAMember, Auto FuelPolicy Committee Dr R. K. Malhotra is a

member of the Auto Fuel

Policy Committee and former

chairman and director (R &

D), Indian Oil Corporation. He

is a mechanical engineer

with over 37 years of

research experience in fuels

and lubricant technologies,

automotive technologies, fuel

efficiency and vehicle

emissions, tribology,

alternative energy,

nanotechnology and

gasification. As a research

leader he has received

several recognitions in recent

years, including the HART

Energy Global Award,

SCOPE Meritorious Award,

PETROFED Innovator of the

Year Award (thrice) and the

CSIR Science and

Technology Award from the

prime minister.

RAVI KANDIKONDAPrakti DesignRavi is the chief financial

officer (CFO) and strategy

officer for Prakti Design. He

also works as a consultant

for a startup technology

company. His mission is to

make a difference to the

bottom of the demographic

pyramid by helping social

enterprises and charity

organisations manage their

operations efficiently and

strategise their goals for

maximum impact. Ravi’s last

job was developing and

managing the annual and

three-year strategic financial

and business plans for Pepsi

Canada.

23


RAY MINJARESInternational Councilon CleanTransportation, USRay Minjares works at the

International Council on

Clean Transportation, San

Francisco, USA. He earned a

masters degree in Public

Health with a concentration

in health policy and

management from the UC

Berkeley School of Public

Health. He leads the Program

on Clean Air, where he

distills policy-relevant

science of non-CO2

pollutants into best practice

policies for the

transportation sector. His

expertise centres on climate

impacts of black carbon and

other short-lived pollutants,

as well as methods for

assessment of health

impacts from vehicle

emissions exposure on the

global scale.

S.B. AGNIHOTRIIAS (Retd)Dr. S.B. Agnihotri has been

Secretary, Ministry of New

and Renewable Energy. He

has also worked extensively

in various departments of

the Government of India,

including director general

(Acquisition) in the Ministry

of Defence, additional

secretary in the Ministry of

Agriculture, director general

(Shipping), joint secretary in

the Cabinet Secretariat and

various positions in the state

government of Orissa.

SAMEER MAITHEL GreentechKnowledge SolutionsPvt. LtdDr Sameer Maithel is an

energy technologist,

specialising in field

performance measurements,

market research, formulation

and management of

projects/programmes, policy

advice for transfer and

diffusion of clean energy

technologies. He is founder

and Director of Greentech

Knowledge Solutions Pvt.

Ltd (GKSPL), a New Delhi-

based research and

consultancy company

providing consulting services

for design of energy-efficient

buildings; improving energy

efficiency and environment

performance of micro and

small enterprises; and

deployment of decentralised

renewable energy

technologies. Since 1995, he

has been part of several

energy- and climate-related

projects supported by SDC in

India, Vietnam, Nepal,

Bangladesh and South

Africa.

SAMEER NAIR Gram Oorja SolutionsPvt LtdSameer Nair is the cofounder

of mini-grid operator Gram

Oorja Solutions Pvt. Ltd and

has an experience of over

two decade in rural

electrification, banking,

software and investment

banking.

24

THE SPEAKERS

SARATH K.GUTTIKUNDA Urban Emissions InfoDr Sarath Guttikunda is

director of an independent

research group

UrbanEmissions.Info and an

adjunct associate professor

at the Center for Climate

Studies at the Indian

Institute of Technology

Bombay. His research

interests are in studying the

impact of emissions at urban,

regional and global scales,

using modeling and survey

tools at various complexities.

For recent reports/papers,

refer to

http://www.urbanemissions.i

nfoSOUMEN MAITYDevelopmentAlternativesDr Soumen Maity is senior

general manger at

Development Alternatives.

He currently leads the

technology management

business at TARA. He has

undertaken feasibility studies

for the introduction of

cleaner brick production

practices in Nepal,

Afghanistan, Vietnam,

Indonesia and Bangladesh.

Currently, he is advising the

Government of Bangladesh

and introducing cleaner brick

production practices and

technologies for the

improvement of environment

quality throughout

Bangladesh.

SUDHIR KATIYARPrayas Centre forLabour Research andAction Sudhir Katiyar works with

Prayas Centre for Labour

Research and Action

(PCLRA), an NGO that seeks

to ensure access to labour

rights to the vast mass of

seasonal migrant workers in

India. PCLRA has worked

with brick-kiln workers in

several states, including

Gujarat, Rajasthan,

Telengana, Odisha and

Chhattisgarh, organising

them into trade unions and

linking them with public

services, like schooling,

Integrated Child

Development Services

(ICDS) and health. It has

mapped the migration

streams to document the

seasonal flow of workers. It

sponsored a Time Motion

Study by IIT Bombay to

establish the human energy

consumed in making bricks.

SUNITA NARAIN Centre for Scienceand EnvironmentSunita Narain is the director

general of Centre for Science

and Environment (CSE),

director of the Society for

Environmental

Communications and

publisher of the fortnightly

magazine, Down To Earth. A

writer and environmentalist

who uses knowledge for

change, she was in 2005

awarded the Padma Shri by

the Indian government. She

has also received the World

Water Prize for work on

rainwater harvesting and for

its policy influence in building

paradigms for community-

based water management.

Narain began her work in the

early 1980s, as a co-

researcher with Anil

Agarwal, an eminent and

committed environmentalist

who gave the country its

environmental concern and

message. She has devoted

time to build the capacities

of CSE so that it can function

as an independent and

credible institution,

influencing public opinion

and advocating change.

25


SVATI BHOGLETechnologyInformatics DesignEndeavour (TIDE)Dr Svati Bhogle is the

secretary and chief executive

officer of Technology

Informatics Design

Endeavour (TIDE) where she

has led technology-related

sustainable development

projects and spearheaded

policy initiatives through her

work with the Indian

government's rural energy

policy. She has created a

distribution system to

counter the inefficient use of

cooking stoves by street food

vendors in India, enabling

them to easily own fuel-

efficient stoves. Built on

ecological considerations,

these improved stoves

increase vendor incomes and

ensure better health

conditions for vendors and

their consumers.

VARSHA JOSHIIASVarsha Joshi is joint

secretary, Ministry of New

and Renewable Energy,

Government of India. She is

a 1995 batch IAS officer of

AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh-

Goa-Mizoram and Union

Territory) cadre of the IAS.

UMARAJARATHNAM Enzen GlobalSolutionsDr. Uma Rajarathnam heads

Clean Energy and

Environment Practice (CEEP)

at Enzen. She had illustrious

career with reputed

institutes namely The Energy

and Resource Institute

(NEERI) and National

Environmental Engineering

Research Institute. She has

over 22 years of rich

experience in providing

expert solutions and advisory

services in the areas of

household energy, indoor air

pollution, climate change and

energy efficiency solutions.

She has been worked on

various assignments with

international bodies namely

Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC),

United Nation Framework

Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), World

Health Organization (WHO)

The World Bank and United

States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

She has been awarded with

Fulbright Indo American

Environment leadership

Program (Fulbright-IAELP)

fellowship.

VICENTE FRANCOInternational Councilon CleanTransportation Vicente Franco is a

researcher in the

International Council on

Clean Transport (ICCT)

Europe team. His focus area

is HDV and LDV emissions

modelling and simulation.

Before joining the ICCT, he

worked for the European

Commission Joint Research

Centre in Ispra (Italy), where

he researched methods to

improve the instantaneous

accuracy of measured

vehicle emission signals. He

holds an MS and a PhD in

industrial engineering from

Universitat Jaume I, Spain.

26

THE SPEAKERS

VINISH KUMARKATHURIA IIT BombayDr Vinish Kathuria is

professor at Shailesh J.

Mehta School of

Management, IIT Bombay.

His teaching and research

activities are mainly in the

fields of Productivity and

Economics of Industrial and

Urban pollution. He has over

100 publications including in

international journals such as

World Development, Energy

Policy, Energy, Ecological

Economics, Journal of

Environmental Management,

Transportation Research,

Technological Forecasting

and Social Change among

others. He is a recipient of

2010 P.C. Mahalanobis

National Award given by the

Indian Econometric Society

(TIES) Trust.

VIRENDRA K.VIJAYIIT DelhiProfessor Vijay is

coordinator of the MNRE-

sponsored Biogas

Development and Training

Centre at IIT Delhi and

general secretary of Biogas

Forum – India (BIGFIN), a

movement for biogas and

biofertiliser development in

India. The is the Indian

coordinator for the

Sustainable Energy and

Environment Forum, a

consortia of 20 Asian

countries for sustainable

energy and environment

development, headquartered

in Kyoto University, Japan.

VINAYTIPPANNAVARBiodiversityConservation of IndiaLimitedVinay Tippannavar is vice

president of the ZED Project,

Biodiversity Conservation of

India Limited (BCIL),

Bengaluru. He helps translate

BCIL’s mission at the ground

level for all ZED projects,

both residential and

commercial. He presides over

project execution and value

engineering, energy and

water services, and carbon

mapping needs of every

construction project. He

manages a team of over 70

professionals in design,

construction, green metric

and measurement and supply

chain. A one-time state-level

football player, Vinay loves

to don his “innovation hat”

while “teamwork” is his

mantra.

27

The world is clearly slipping on its targets to reign in heat-trapping carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions. Action on cutting carbon dioxide emissions is not easy as the world

has to re-invent growth as it knows it today to reduce emissions, and it has to share

that growth between nations.

In the past few years, attention has turned to the basket of gases known as ‘short-lived climate

pollutants’ – which unlike carbon dioxide have a much shorter life in the atmosphere. Out of

these, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had long recognised

methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons as greenhouse gases. In the mid-2000s,

another candidate emerged, black carbon – the dark core of particulate matter, which is a

product of incomplete combustion and already a deadly local pollutant, contributing to high

health burden.

Each of these pollutants has their own story and underlying politics to tell. Black carbon is the

recipe of toxic smog and haze that kills. This comes from vehicle emissions as well as from the

cookstoves of the poor; methane is the warming agent from wet rice cultivation but also from

oil and gas production and municipal waste of the rich. Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is a

substitute chemical that the world found to avert the danger of thinning of ozone layer, but it

is also a super-greenhouse gas.

Science: Complex but more certainScience makes a distinction between CO2 that lives long in the atmosphere – more than 100

to 500 years – and those pollutants that have much shorter life span – a few hours to 20 years.

But the short-lived pollutants cause significant warming for the period they are in the

atmosphere.

*Draft paper. To add to after discussions at Anil Agarwal Dialogue, March 11-12, 2015, India Habitat Centre, Delhi

Short-lived climate pollutants:Ensuring the co-benefit agenda of global climate and local health benefits SUNITA NARAIN, CHANDRA BHUSHAN, ANUMITA ROYCHOWDHURY

P O S I T I O N P A P E R *

28

It can be problematic to estimate the relative contribution

of CO2 and short-lived climate pollutants to global

temperature change. Some available estimates show that

while CO2 is responsible for about 75 per cent of the

warming so far, short-lived climate pollutants contribute to

the rest. However, in the long term, it is the contribution of

CO2 that will decide the peak temperature rise in the

world. We also know that CO2, already emitted, has

committed the world to long-term warming. In the short

term, however, it is short-lived climate pollutants that will

determine the frequency and intensity of temperature

spurts for as long as they are in the air.

If both CO2 and short-lived climate pollutants continue to

rise then it will be much harder to meet the 2°C

temperature rise stabilisation target – which is accepted as

the guardrail to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate

change. If annual emissions of CO2 continue to remain at

today’s level, the greenhouse gas levels would be close to

550 ppm by 2050. This would mean temperature increase

of 3-5°C. It is now accepted that stabilising CO2 will not be

enough to keep the world below 2°C rise. This is because

CO2 has a long life and once emitted it continues to heat

the planet for years to come. It is therefore, now

recommended that only if CO2 mitigation is conjoined with

methane and black carbon mitigation the temperature rise

can be kept below 2°C temperature rise (see Graph:

Contribution of CO2 and short term forcers to global warming).

Co-benefit agenda: Needs the world to act differentlyThere is another difference between CO2 and many of the

short-lived climate pollutants. In most cases, these

pollutants not only have global and regional impacts but

also have highly adverse impacts on human health and the

environment at the local level. Therefore, there is good

reason to abate and mitigate these pollutants for local, not

just global benefits. For instance, black carbon is clearly

indicted for local air pollution across the cities of the world;

it adds to the health burden of poor women who have no

option but to cook food, using biomass on inefficient

stoves. Then there is the fact that cutting these emissions

is good for the local environment – methane, for instance,

can be captured from landfills and so improve waste

management. This is the opportunity.

But there is also a threat. Action on this agenda of co-

benefits requires a new compact between nations built on

the following principles:

POS I T ION PAPER

1900 1950 2000 2050

Tem

pera

ture

(˚C)

rela

tive

to 1

890-

1910

CH4 + BC measures

CO2 measures Reference

CO2 + CH4 + BCmeasures

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Graph: Contribution of CO2 and short term forcers to global warming

Source: UNEP and WMO 2011, Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone Summary for Decision Makers, UNEP

29

• Action must not take away from the agenda to cut CO2

emissions. It cannot become a proxy for action on

climate change so that it shifts the blame and burden

to developing countries. The world must commit itself

to drastic, urgent and equitable CO2 reduction targets.

• Action must differentiate between luxury and survival

emissions – those that are emitted by the rich must be

aggressively targeted and those that are emitted by the

poor needs supportive policies to incentivize action.

• Action on black carbon – which is not part of the Kyoto-

six package of greenhouse gases – must be accounted

for differently so that countries that take action to

leapfrog to cleaner fuel and cleaner technology can

claim advantage but not be worried that it takes away

from climate change agreements key target – reduction

of CO2 emissions.


30

POS I T ION PAPER

GWP GTP

H = 20 H = 100 H = 20 H = 100

BC total, globalc 3200 (270 to 6200) 900 (100 to 1700) 920 (95 to 2400) 130 (5 to 340)

BC (four regions)d 1200 ± 720 345 ± 207 420 ± 190 56 ± 25

BC globala 1600 460 470 64

BC aerosol–radiation interaction +albedo, globalb 2900 ± 1500 830 ± 440

OC globala –240 –69 –71 –10

OC globalb –160 (–60 to –320) –46 (–18 to –19)

OC (4 regions)d –160 ± 68 –46 ± 20 –55 ± 16 –7.3±2.1

Table: GWP and GTP from the literature for BC and OC for time horizons of 20 and 100 years For the reference gas CO2, RE and IRF from AR4 are used in the calculations. The GWP100 and GTP100 values can be scaled by 0.94 and

0.92, respectively, to account for updated values for the reference gas CO2. For 20 years the changes are negligible

Note: a. Fuglestvedt et al. (2010).

b. Bond et al. (2011). Uncertainties for OC are asymmetric and are presented as ranges.

c. Bond et al. (2013). Metric values are given for total effect.

d. Collins et al. (2013). The four regions are East Asia, EU + North Africa, North America and South Asia (as also given in Fry et al., 2012). Only aerosol-

radiation interaction is included.

Source: Working Group I: Contribution to Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The

physical Science Basis, UNEP and WHO, Cambridge University Press

The understanding about black carbon has come a long

way since the nebulous beginning in the seventies, when

all the world understood was suspended particulate matter

(SPM) – a local pollutant from incomplete combustion,

indicted for pollution from fires and vehicles.

It is now understood that black carbon comes from all

combustion processes, all dust generating activities,

secondary particulates – nitrates and sulfate, and the

condensation of gases into liquid droplets. Black carbon is

largely a product of low temperature combustion of

carbonaceous fuels, and incomplete combustion. The

composition of black carbon varies by the type of fuel used,

the combustion process, and emission control technologies

or practices. Black carbon particles vary in size and can be

much smaller than PM2.5 and as small as PM0.1. These

last up to minutes, hours and one week or little more in the

atmosphere depending on the combustion process and size.

Black carbon and warming: Black carbon can absorb heat

and warm up the surrounding atmosphere. Scientists

calculate the potential of a gas to cause global warming in

terms of ‘radiative forcing’. Radiative forcing is the

difference of sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy

radiated back to space in watts per square meter of the

Earth's surface. More incoming energy is more warming.

More outgoing energy is negative forcing that cools.

Black carbon has the shortest life – between 3-8 days. And

there is uncertainty regarding its potential of causing

climate change. The uncertainty in the emission metrics

such as Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global

Temperature change Potential (GTP) of Black Carbon is

wide reflecting the current challenges related to

understanding and quantifying the various effects of black

carbon on climate systems in different regions of the world.

However, the science of black carbon has improved over

the years and so has the understanding on its impacts on

climate. The latest IPCC report AR5 has taken note of the

recent research and is more explicit in its discussion on

black carbon than it was ever before. For instance, AR5 has

doubled the estimate of warming (Global mean radiative

forcing) of black carbon aerosol from fossil fuels and

biofuels from its previous AR4 report.

There is also considerable uncertainty about comparing the

global warming potential of long-lived CO2 with short-lived

pollutants like black carbon. For instance, if GWP of CO2

over 100 years is 1, that of black carbon is estimated to be

900. But this comparison has limitations. For black carbon,

a short time horizon like 20 years will capture all of its

radiative forcing because it is short lived – few hours to few

days. Their effect is gone as soon as they fall on ground.

But a very small part of CO2 forcing can be captured in

such short time as most of its impact will show up in 100

years or more. But in that long time horizon the effect of

black carbon will become very small. This explains why

the 100-year GWP for black carbon is much lower than the

20-year GWP.

A. Black carbon: Our old foe and the world’s newest fancy

31

Also GWP assumes that the emission being compared is

evenly spread across the globe as is the case with CO2. But

black carbon is short-lived and its radiative forcing is

regionally concentrated. So this assumption does not hold.

Black carbon travels short distances and creates hot spots

and varies according to local conditions. Black carbon

emissions weighted by the GWP do not necessarily

represent a CO2-equivalent value. Scientists are now

discussing if an alternative method can be found for

comparison (see Box: Comparing warming impacts of short-lived pollutants).

On the other hand, there is difference in opinion among

the scientific community on the relative importance to be

attached to the short-lived climate pollutants as a climate

mitigation strategy. For instance, a group of scientists in the

2014 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

(PNAS) have taken the view on the potential impact of

black carbon on long term warming. It states that reducing

the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants can reduce

the rate of warming in the short term but will only have a

limited effect on long-term warming, which is mainly

driven by CO2 emissions. Early action on local pollutants

will influence near-term temperatures and bring small

benefits for limiting maximum warming relative to

comparable reductions taking place later. They caution

against overestimating the effect of reducing short-lived

forcers in long term climate stabilisation.


Under the Kyoto Protocol, action to reduce greenhousegases is evaluated using the 100-year global warmingpotential matrix. This considers the effect of CO2 over 100years and is given a GWP value of 1. The GWP of all otherpollutants are compared in relation to CO2.

Scientists use a weighting factor that indicates the ratioof the total radiative forcing (the change in net energyradiated in and out of the atmosphere) of a greenhouseemission to that of carbon dioxide and over a specific timehorizon. The temperature effects of GHGs are generallyproportional to their radiative forcings as measured high inthe atmosphere. But this is not as simple for black carbon.Radiative forcing has to be ‘normalized’ in a complex wayto translate into a true measure of the temperature effecton the globe. Comparing the radiative forcing figures ofblack carbon to CO2 is therefore difficult.

The comparison requires the choice of a time horizonfor the atmospheric lifetime of the pollutant – how longit stays in the atmosphere. This varies widely for all

pollutants (see Table: Global Warming Potentials (GWP)).

Alternative metricThe IPCC acknowledged the limitations of the GWPmethod to assess short-lived forcers and called for a newmetric for short-lived emissions in its 2007 report. Theother method gaining ground is global temperaturechange potential. It is the ratio of temperature changefrom a pulse emission of a climate species to a pulseemission of carbon dioxide. Long-lived and short-livedpollutants that are equivalent in terms of GTP-weightedemissions will produce an equivalent global meantemperature response for a chosen year. This captureseffect of one pulse of emissions vs another in a given year.

However, policy makers will still need to choose a timeperiod over which the metric will be calculated. This is stillan evolving concept.

Pollutants GWP 20 years GWP 100 years

Carbon dioxide 1 1

Carbon monoxide 18.6 5

Sulphur dioxide -268 -71

Oxide of Nitrogen -560 -149

Fossil methane 85 30

Nitrous oxide 264 265

Black carbon 3200 900

Organic carbon -160 - 46

Sources: AR5 WGI

Table: Global Warming Potentials (GWP)

Pollutant GTP 20 GTP 100

Black carbon 470 64

Methane 57 4

Nitrous oxide 303 265

Organic Carbon -71 -10

Sulphur dioxide -41 -5.7

Carbon dioxide 1 1

Source: Fuglestvedt, J., K. Shine, T. Berntsen, et al. (2009) Transport

impacts on Atmosphere and Climate: Metrics. Atmos Environ In press/

International Council on Clean Transportation

Comparing warming impacts of short-lived pollutants

Table: Global Temperature ChangePotentials (GTP) for black carbon andother pollutants

32

Black carbon and snowmelt: Black carbon can also

accelerate ice-melt when they settle on snow. The bright

snow surfaces reflect a high amount of solar energy back

into space. But black carbon absorbs substantial fraction of

this energy and re-emit it as heat. The Arctic and the

Himalayas are therefore vulnerable. Black carbon on glacial

snow is a concern as it alters the melt cycle of glaciers in

regions that rely on glacial melt to balance water supply

through seasons. These impacts are highly regional

depending on the local profile and trend of pollution and

transport of pollution. There is now considerable focus on

the Arctic and alpine glacier regions and the Himalayan

glaciers.

Black carbon and rains: Black carbon is also known to

interfere with cloud formation and the rainfall pattern. It

also reduces sunlight that reaches the surface and that is

reflected back to the space. Black carbon may change

precipitation and surface visibility. Scientists say that

plumes of emissions can suppress convection and stabilize

the atmosphere in ways that obstruct normal precipitation

patterns. It is described as dimming of the earth’s surface

that reduces patterns of evaporation that make clouds. If

black carbon heats up the layer of the atmosphere where

clouds are forming, for example, they will evaporate. They

can no longer reflect sunlight back into space, and so the

soot-laced clouds end up warming the atmosphere. But

black carbon that hangs above low-lying clouds has a

different effect. It stabilizes the layer of air on top of the

clouds, promoting their growth. These clouds are like

shields, blocking incoming sunlight. As a result, black

carbon also ends up cooling the planet. There are now

several studies and evidences that will have to pieced

together to assess the varied impacts of black carbon.

Some warm and some cool: What then adds up?

According to the climate science there are good and bad

particles. All particles do not warm. Some, especially

organic carbon, have cooling effect as well. Amongst the

various fractions of particulate matter the organic carbon

and sulphate have cooling effect as they are light-

reflecting. But black carbon is light absorbing. If the ratio

of cooling particles is higher, sources may have more

cooling effect. Science is still trying to figure out this

threshold for different sources. The exact threshold from

negative to positive forcing for the major sources is still an

area of uncertainty and is the focus of ongoing research.

Share of cooling and warming particle determines the net

positive or net negative impact of different pollution

sources.

Moreover, if the global radiative forcing of particles since

the industrial revolution is tracked it would show that while

CO2, methane, N2O, black carbon have strong influence on

warming, the sulphates and organic compounds have had

global cooling effect. So scientists conclude that

tropospheric ozone, black carbon, methane, F-Gases are

“bad” short-lived forcers. But sulfate aerosols, organic carbon,

clouds, are “Good” short-lived forcers from climate

perspective.

This means all sources cannot be blamed equally for

warming the climate as the mix of cooling and warming

particulate matter varies across pollution sources. For

instance, open burning and residential biomass or biomass

based cookstoves have much higher proportion of organic

carbon that scatter sunlight and are cooling. Biomass

burning is expected to be dominated by organic compound

and therefore as a net cooling effect. So does sulfate from

POS I T ION PAPER

Global Mean Radiative Forcing (W m–2)

SAR TAR AR4 AR5

Sulphate aerosol –0.40 (–0.80 to –0.20) –0.40 (–0.80 to –0.20) –0.40 (–0.60 to –0.20) –0.40 (–0.60 to –0.20)

Black carbon aerosol from +0.10 (+0.03 to +0.30) +0.20 (+0.10 to +0.40) +0.20 (+0.05 to +0.35) +0.40 (+0.05 to +0.80)

fossil fuel and biofuel

Primary organic aerosol Not estimated –0.10 (–0.30 to –0.03) –0.05 (0.00 to –0.10) –0.09 (–0.16 to –0.03)

from fossil fuel and biofuel

Biomass burning –0.20 (–0.60 to –0.07) –0.20 (–0.60 to –0.07) +0.03(–0.09 to +0.15) –0.0 (–0.20 to +0.20)

Secondary organic aerosol Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated –0.03 (–0.27 to +0.20)

Nitrate Not estimated Not estimated –0.10 (–0.20 to 0.00) –0.11 (–0.30 to –0.03)

Dust Not estimated –0.60 to +0.40 –0.10 (–0.30 to +0.10) –0.10 (–0.30 to +0.10)

Total Not estimated Not estimated –0.50 (–0.90 to –0.10) –0.35 (–0.85 to +0.15)

Table: Global and annual mean RF (W m–2) due to aerosol–radiation interaction between1750 and 2011 of seven aerosol components for AR5 Values and uncertainties from SAR, TAR, AR4 and AR5 are provided when available. Note that for SAR, TAR and AR4 the end year is

somewhat different than for AR5 with 1993, 1998 and 2005, respectively

Source: Working Group I: Contribution to Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The

physical Science Basis, UNEP and WHO, Cambridge University Press

33

power plants. Ironically, when CO2 emissions are hastening

the tipping point it is the biomass energy of the poor that is

masking and cooling.

But black carbon emissions from transport that largely uses

diesel or brick kilns with inefficient combustion

technologies have higher share of light absorbing black

carbon, which has definite warming impact. The

combustion of fossil fuels that are low in sulfur is net

positive radiative forcing. Evidences are stronger on the net

warming impacts of diesel vehicles and brick kilns. Diesel

engines account for nearly all of the black carbon from

transport and diesel engines produce net warming – a case

for win-win to reduce both health and climate risks. Thus,

the sources like diesel and brick kilns that are rich in black

carbon emissions need priority action.

Yet warm or cool – all particles must go if we want to save

the lives of the poor. Cooling particles from the biomass

based cookstoves of the poor is not an opportunity to save

the climate. These particles – be it warming or cooling –

harm the lungs and kill the poor. The rich will have to

frame the strategies and the requisite funding to quickly

give to the poor access to affordable and clean fuels.

Thus, there is actually no scope of shifting burden to the

poor and underplay the role of CO2. Veerabhadran

Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,

University of California, San Diego, has concluded that

nearly 40 per cent of the warming that CO2 has already

committed is not showing up as that is masked by the

cooling particles like sulphates. Aggressive air pollution

control will remove both cooling and warming particles and

the committed warming of CO2 will show up more

aggressively. This requires equally aggressive action on

CO2.

The geopolitics of black carbonThere are concerns that focus on black carbon can change

the geo politics of climate mitigation responsibility.

Developing countries still trapped in poorer technologies

that burn fuels inefficiently may be blamed for climate

impacts and pushed for tougher climate action. There are

apprehensions that the new science can be misused. The

developed nations that are the biggest emitters of CO2 and

under the common but differentiated principle have the

larger responsibility for early action to allow developing

countries to improve energy access and grow, may delay

action on CO2 mitigation. The UNEP Integrated

Assessment Report of 2012 shows that Northeast Asia,

Southeast Asia and the Pacific account for the largest share

of global black carbon emissions. China accounts for 60-80

percent of the emissions in the region. North America and

Europe account for second largest share.

The hint of this politics was evident way back in 2002

when a storm was set off by the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) report on the "Asian

brown cloud" that highlighted the influence of particulate

pollution over South Asia on the global and regional

weather systems. It pointed out that pollutants and

particles from biomass burning and industrial emissions

had formed a three-kilometre-thick brownish layer over

many regions in Asia. It made a direct link between this

pollution build-up and disruption in rainfall and wind

patterns. A 10 per cent reduction in solar energy reaching

the region's oceans was causing a corresponding decrease in

the evaporation of moisture that controls summer rainfall, it

observed. A decreased agricultural output and respiratory

diseases too were attributed to the phenomenon. This

UNEP report was based on an Indian Ocean Experiment

(INDOEX) conducted between 1995 and 1999 by a team

of 200 scientists.

The UNEP press release on this report was blamed for not

reflecting the uncertainty of the phenomenon nor did it

carry the note of caution that the report had contained. It

had only sensationalized the findings. The Indian

government slammed the UNEP position and the

scientists of Indian Institute of Science challenged the

description of wintertime haze over Asia as "brown cloud".

As the initial focus of this science was South Asia the

nomenclature of Asian Brown Cloud was seen as a

conspiracy to shift blame for climate change to the

southern world.

However, since then, several other such clouds have been

studied across the world, including the US, Europe, India

and China. This led to replacing of the nomenclature of

Asian Brown Cloud with Atmospheric Brown Cloud.

This also reflects the complexity of the problem. While

CO2 is distributed uniformly across the entire globe, black

carbon pollution is more regional. Climate impact of black

carbon has shown widely different impacts and also

different trends in regional impacts. As black carbon has

short atmospheric life it is expected to have higher impacts

at the regional level-impacts on cloud formation, rainfall

pattern and weather, snow melt and water systems.

Depending on its composition it can also have both

cooling and warming impacts on a regional scale. As these

mostly travel short distances, their radiative forcing is

regionally concentrated. They create hot spots and vary

according to local conditions (see Graph: Global versusregional impacts).

Such widely different impacts make it difficult to have one

comparative matrix. Scientists also point out towards the

variability in impacts. In the northern hemisphere black

carbon is likely to leading to early springtime snow melt


34

but magnitude is uncertain. In South Asia absorbing

particles may be influencing precipitation patterns. In

Tibetan Plateau it may cause changes in circulation and

darkening of snow and contributing towards glacier melting

though the magnitude is not clear. All of them will require

locally appropriate action.

Transboundary impacts will influence geo-politics

Local pollution also drifts across air sheds. This implies

mitigation will require more regional approach. Most of

these studies have been carried out in the US and Europe.

Such studies have only begun to emerge in Asia.

In this regard the most investigated is the contribution of

pollution from Asian countries that blows across Pacific

Ocean to California or the West coast of the US. An

extensive study has been initiated under the California Air

Pollution Profiling Study (CAPPS). The US based Scripps

Institution of Oceanography has carried out aircraft based

studied. The modeling results show that as the altitude

increases the fraction of the total BC that originates in Asia

also increases. When pollution reaches the boundary layer

it gets stable and travels long distances. At ground level

black carbon that originates from Asia accounts for only 20

per cent of the total measured black carbon but at 3000

meters altitude the Asia black carbon accounts for 75 per

cent of the total black carbon measured. This is very high

over the west coast during the spring months. Pollution

below boundary layer is more from local sources.

So what are we saying? Capture the win-win agenda

The fact of the matter is that even if there are uncertainties

with to the magnitude of black carbon impact on climate

change, the health and other environmental impacts of

these pollutants do not allow any room for uncertain and

delayed action.

Even if biomass based cookstoves of the poor has cooling

effect and masks the warming of luxury CO2 emissions of

the rich it must still be mitigated urgently to save the lives

of the poor. But this transition for the poor needs to be

enabled based on clean energy access. Health science

demands urgent, quick and aggressive control of particles

from all sources. The burden sharing in this case will

require the rich of the world to invest in clean energy

sources including renewable energy that will help the poor

to make quick transition to clean energy sources. This

requires financing strategy at local and global levels to

bring clean electric and gas cooking technologies that are

efficient, affordable, and reliable. Reliable electricity allows

for significant reductions in health risk through cooking.

This is also an opportunity for the poor to leapfrog to

renewable energy using mini and micro grid. The rich can

pay for this transition.

Black carbon rich sources like the diesel emissions and

brick kilns are candidate for priority action as these can

give immediate co-benefits in terms of health and climate

mitigation together. This will require support to allow

POS I T ION PAPER

Graph: Global versus regional impacts

Source: Laura Mackelev, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 18, 2009 (Adapted from Reiersen and Wilson, 2009)

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Global average Arctic average

Carbon dioxide

Black carbon

CO2 Short-lived forcers CO2 Short-lived forcers

Tem

per

atu

re in

crea

se, °

C

Atmosphere

Snow

Methane

Ozone

35

Mitigation of methane emissions on the other hand has

another story to tell. Methane is emitted largely from coal

mining, oil and gas production, municipal solid waste and

wet rice fields. Methane is not only warming in itself it also

contributes towards formation of regional ozone that is also

warming and harmful for health. North America and

Europe can contribute enormously to climate mitigation

from methane emissions with stringent action on coal

mining, oil and gas production, and better management of

municipal waste. These are also the luxury emissions.

Methane from waste is a resource and there is significant

scope of capturing this from municipal waste in the energy

starved developing world. On the other hand methane

emissions from the wet rice cultivation is linked with the

livelihood of the poor. If global support can be mobilized to

promote sustainable wet rice cultivation practices it will not

only help to reduce methane emissions but also push

towards more water prudent agricultural practices.


developing countries to leapfrog to clean technology and

also to alternatives. The transport sector emissions can be

controlled only with technology leapfrog and mobility

transition. This will require stringent national regulations

and fiscal strategies to stimulate the market. The enormous

investment in vehicle industry and refineries and also in

the transportation sector will have to be linked with the

best available technology and best practice. But this

transition will have to be enabled by global action to

disseminate knowledge on best practice and improve

access to clean technologies.

Similarly, in the brick kiln sector technology for production of

burnt clay bricks will have to be pushed while enabling rapid

uptake of alternatives to clay bricks and alternative building

materials. Local market barriers to quick uptake of the

alternative products will have to be removed. This also

demands global support with knowledge, technology and best

practice. The opportunity is clear. The question is if the world

has to ability to harness it – for local and global benefits?

B. Methane**

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) is a halogenated gas, which

replaced the chemical that the world found was destroying

its ozone layer. HFC was the substitute for

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs). But this ozone-savior chemical has a very high

global warming potential. The current contribution to

climate forcing of HFCs is less than 1.0 per cent of the total

forcing from all other greenhouse gases combined. As HFC

is being phased in across the world, because of the need to

substitute HCFC, their contribution to climate forcing is

set to grow significantly. But the world has the opportunity

not to first phase in a chemical, which is destructive for

climate change and then to phase it out. But this is where

the commerce of chemicals and its politics begins.

There has been a growing demand to put in place an

international mechanism to reduce the emissions of HFCs.

But a major dispute has emerged between countries on

where HFCs reduction should be addressed. Many

developing countries (India being the most vocal), want

HFCs reduction to be discussed under the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Developed countries (with the US taking the lead in the

discussions), supported by many developing countries, want

to address HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. As HFCs use

has increased due to CFCs and HCFCs phase-out pushed

by the Montreal Protocol, referring to Article 2.1 of the

Vienna Convention, in 2009, the US, Canada and Mexico

submitted a joint proposal to include HFCs under its

jurisdiction. Micronesia along with Mauritius (which has

been subsequently co-sponsored by Maldives and Morocco)

also submitted a proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol to

phase down HFCs. These countries argue that the Montreal

Protocol has the institutional capacity and the Multilateral

Fund to pay for HFCs reduction in developing countries.

They also cite the track record of action under Montreal as

evidence of a global agreement that can deliver fast results.

What also goes against UNFCCC is that it is not designed

for a phase down/out of specific gases. But the counter

argument is that HFCs are not the only fluorinated gas (F-

gas) in the UNFCCC basket that needs to be phased out.

Other F-gases, who are also replacement of ODS’, are

likely to increase rapidly in the future as well.

C. HFCs***

**CSE will work on methane to understand survival and luxury emissions and also how to position the poor’s agriculture needs in climate negotiations

**CSE has done extensive work to build convergence on its position on HFC and a detailed paper on the way ahead is available.

36

For many developing countries, there are unanswered

questions regarding the HFCs phase-down under the

Montreal Protocol. What is the best technology to move to?

Who will pay for the transition if the costs are high? What

will be impact of the phase-down on the industry and the

economy?

Then there is the politics of gases and patents. Some

developed countries are pushing patented low-GWP

products as a substitute for high-GWP HFCs. US

companies are pushing for hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs);

DuPont is promoting HFOs as the “fourth generation”

refrigerant following in the footsteps of CFCs, HCFCs and

HFCs. Japanese companies are pushing for HFC-32, a

medium-GWP HFC, as most energy efficient drop-in

substitute for highest consuming HCFC-22. But there are

also non-patented gases and substitutes that are fast

emerging:

● In domestic refrigerators and freezers, use of

hydrocarbons is rapidly increasing. Globally, close to

50% of all new productions use hydrocarbons. In India,

close to 10 million hydrocarbon-based refrigerators have

been sold in the market so far.

● In domestic air conditioners, propane and CO2 are

slowly catching-up. In both India and China, companies

have started commercial production of propane based

air conditioners which are much more energy efficient

than HCFC or HFC based air conditioners.

● In Polyurethane foams sector, HCFCs is being directly

substituted with hydrocarbons in developing countries.

China and Brazil, for instance, intend to use methyl

formate and other hydrocarbons instead of high-GWP

HFCs. India plans to switch to cyclopentane in its first

stage of HCFC phase-out management plan for the

foam sector.

The assertion that developing countries are going to move

to HFCs in all sectors to phase-out HCFCs is not true. For

instance, in the Polyurethane foams sector most are moving

to hydrocarbons. In fact some developing countries have

made demands to move to non-HFCs low-GWP alternative

directly from HCFCs.

It is quite clear that commercial alternatives exist to HFCs.

It is also clear that it would be economically efficient, apart

from the fact that most non-HFC alternatives are energy

efficient as well, for the developing countries to make a

one-time transition from HCFCs to non-HFCs alternatives

like hydrocarbons. The key issue is how best to make this

transition without disrupting the growth in these sectors.

Most developing countries are not averse to phasing down

HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. What they want is

clarity and certainty on technology and the means of

implementation. For example, if HFCs were added to the

Montreal Protocol, the Multilateral Fund would require

significant additional resources. There is no clarity on how

these resources would be mobilized. To get clarity on such

issues, developing countries should agree to setup a contact

group under the Montreal Protocol to discuss the means of

implementation. Such a contact group would ensure

discussions go beyond just the US’s proposed amendments

and include the larger issue of management of HFCs and

the finance and technology aspects of the transition.

As HFCs are currently covered under UNFCCC, moving

HFCs to the Montreal Protocol should also be agreed by all

parties to the UNFCCC. This would give confidence to

the developing countries that the principles of equity and

the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and

Respective Capabilities of the UNFCCC are secured. Most

importantly, this will ensure that the differentiation

between developed and developing countries under

Montreal Protocol remain. Also, to complement each other,

the phase down of production and consumption of HFCs

should be addressed under the Montreal Protocol and the

reporting on HFCs emissions should be done under the

UNFCCC, as has been agreed at the G20 Summit in

St Petersburg.

As developed countries are largest consumers and

emitters of HFCs, they should quickly phase-out HFCs.

This will open up the market for alternatives and new

environment-friendly technologies for developing

countries to leapfrog to.

POS I T ION PAPER

37

It is clear that the world’s needs effective and inclusive

action on short-lived climate pollutants. It is in all our

interests. But this action will require effective engagement

between developed and developing nations to find

mechanism for complementary action at global and local

levels that will not hurt the interest of the poor and also not

compromise action on CO2. There is considerable

suspicion among developing country governments that

linking of short lived climate pollutants may shift the

burden of climate mitigation towards developing countries

and slow down action on CO2 mitigation. This will have to

be prevented to build trust and confidence for global

action.

What should be the global platform for addressing the

short-lived climate pollutants? As some of the short lived

climate pollutants like methane are already part of the

Kyoto gases they technically fall under the ambit of United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) for mitigation. As per the Article 4.1 of

UNFCCC, all greenhouse gases other than those under the

Montreal Protocol should be addressed by UNFCCC. But

there is a need for a global discussion on the most

appropriate route to take to support mitigation of short

lived climate pollutants.

There are some lessons from the on-going discussion on

the phase down of a specific warming gas

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which is a halogenated gas

replacing ozone-depleting substances like

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs) in refrigerators, air conditioners etc. HFCs have

zero ozone-depleting potential but have high global

warming potential and can be side-stepped to leapfrog to

alternatives. There is already a tussle over the likely

platform to address the HFCs. The HFCs are technically a

part of the basket of gases whose emissions are regulated

under UNFCCC. Many developing countries including

India want HFCs reduction to be discussed under the

UNFCCC. But most developing countries are also for

taking this up under the Montreal Protocol that has the

legal and financial mandate to address specific gases. But

this needs clarity and certainty on technology and the

means of implementation. Moreover, the developing

countries would want the principles of equity and the

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and

Respective Capabilities of the UNFCCC to be retained.

May be in this case this principle needs to work not on the

basis of delayed action in the developing world but on the

basis of effective financing and trade mechanism to enable

quick leapfrog to the best alternatives and save time for

best results in developing countries.

However, the larger message is there is need for pollutant

by pollutant and measure by measure approach for short

lived climate pollutants for an effective way forward. These

pollutants cannot be bunched together with uniform

strategy and mechanism. The global mechanism will also

have to address this. Moreover, mitigation of these

pollutants is closely linked with the local development

trajectory and livelihood of the poor in developing

countries. This will require informed national policy and

not top down prescription and mandates.

What are the global platforms for addressing short lived

climate pollutants? There are a few small steps forward on

global action on short lived climate pollutants. Initially

UNEP had taken the lead when it came up with its 2012

report to propose 16 measures for black carbon and

methane emissions. Thereafter, a group of countries and a

number of independent agencies have come together to

create Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to address

short lived climate pollutants that include black carbon and

methane. This is a separate and distinct international but

voluntary platform with its own governance structure and

funding mechanism to pursue short term climate pollutant

mitigation. The UNEP is a partner and the secretariat.

This platform has focused on voluntary action, knowledge

building and dissemination in the priority sectors of heavy

duty diesel vehicles, brick kilns etc for enabling action.

This has very few governments from the developing

countries as its members. It is largely dominated by the

governments of the North. This has not yet taken up direct

funding of mitigation in countries. Also its activities are

limited to only its member countries and that limits the

scope of action in developing countries.

There are other sector specific mitigation platforms. For

instance, the International Maritime Organisation is

looking at the controls of international maritime black

carbon as these involve high seas. There are also voluntary

networks like the Global Cook Stove Alliance that are

working on household air pollution.

It is however clear that mitigation of short lived pollutants

will have to be kept distinct and separate from the CO2

mitigation platform and also from carbon financing.

Otherwise, it will increase the political risk and

vulnerability of any mechanism to address CO2 and lead to

a slow down. The mechanism of CO2 mitigation strategy


D. The new compact for local and global action

38

and carbon financing must remain independent,

transparent and accountable. This will also allow additional

resources – national as well as global -- to flow into the

mitigation of other pollutants.

It is also important to note that if the mitigation effort on

short-lived climate pollutants has started in developing

countries then as per the new science they are also

contributing towards climate mitigation. This needs to be

recognized and incentivised. There should be a global

mechanism to report and record this action. For instance,

studies have shown that with the policy on emissions

standards roadmap for vehicles and fuels India has

succeeded in nearly halving black carbon emissions load

from the transport sector. Such and similar milestones need

to be integrated with the global assessment of climate

action of all nations.

However, it is still not clear what kind of global mechanism

is needed to enable and support for transition towards best

available technology and practices and if needed on a case

by case basis then who will pay if the costs are high. One of

the key approaches will have to be adoption of co-benefit

principles for bilateral and multi-lateral funding in the

concerned sectors including the funding by the

development banks.

The science has removed the boundary between local and

global pollution and therefore action. But the world is still

divided based on resources and capability and also nature

and magnitude of all emissions. Be it black carbon or

methane or CO2, even developed countries will have to take

on significant responsibilities to cut these emissions and

ensure that burden sharing do not hurt the poor and their

livelihoods. They need to be enabled with good science and

knowledge and opportunities to access appropriate,

affordable and clean technologies and best practices.

This multiple risk demands co-benefit approach at local

and global levels to maximize full range of benefits.

POS I T ION PAPER

Anil Agarwal Dialogue issues:

1. Questions related to science of black carbon

● The ongoing research needs to do better assessment of atmospheric concentration of black carbon: where is this

greatest, and how is this changing on a regional basis? Models are suggesting that the amount of black carbon in the

atmosphere may be less than predicted. And this may be a product of improved understanding of how black carbon

behaves in the atmosphere once it is emitted. Since concentration is what relates black carbon in the atmosphere to

health and climate effects, any differences regionally and over time can tell us what parts of the world will tend to

suffer the greatest burden.

● What is the relationship between black carbon, clouds, and climate? This is the uncertain area still. While some

clouds such as liquid clouds tend to cause cooling, the impact on others such as mixed clouds may be positive and

on high altitude clouds. This is still unknown. The total effect of black carbon on clouds requires a quantification of

all of these effects, as this has direct impact on water security in regions.

● How to develop better capacity in middle- and low-income countries where air quality monitoring and emission

factor testing for pollution sources is limited or non-existent?

● At the same time, how to build knowledge on health impacts of black carbon and air pollution for public health

protection and to build public and policy support for action?

2. Questions related to local and global action on mitigation

● What is the appropriate mechanism and platform for local and global action? Should there be any interface with

UNFCCC?

● Should we develop pollutant-by-pollutant framework for global cooperation?

● How can global forums be leveraged to support local action?

● What should be the global framework of cooperation, including financial and technological support for developing

countries to incentivize action on short-lived climate pollutants? It is important to keep in mind that there can be a

strong political risk in falling into the trap of CO2 mitigation vs mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants and slow

down CO2 action.

● What is the best way to inform policy making at local level and also to enable with good science, knowledge and

opportunities for access to appropriate, affordable clean technologies?

39

Tiny particles in our air are under global glare today not only for what they do to our

lungs, but also for what new science is saying about their impact on climate. It is

worrying that even after decades of air quality management, particulate air pollution

has remained among the top 10 killers globally with disproportionately high health impacts in

the developing world. In India alone, more than 627,000 people die prematurely and 18

million healthy life years are lost every year due to ill health connected to these particles.

Even before India and the rest of the developing world could deal with the health impacts,

new science has now implicated black carbon, the dark fraction of particulate matter, for

enhancing climate impacts as well. This has blurred the boundaries between the local and

global impacts of air pollution. Our cities now face the challenge of the balance – on one hand,

curb local air pollution to save lives, and on the other, reduce the climate impacts of growth

and motorisation.

New science has given us more reasons to be worried about diesel use in the transport sector.

Most of the diesel particulate core is the dark matter that absorbs light and heat and warms up

the climate and fouls up our lungs. High black carbon emissions from explosive increase in

diesel vehicle numbers, use of high-sulfur diesel, outdated vehicle technology and expansion

in road-based freight traffic have added to local health risks as well as the global climate risks.

Black carbon is also co-emitted with a range of other toxic and warming gases. This link

between local and global impacts of diesel particulates now changes the geo-politics around

diesel emissions mitigation, as the policies and action on diesel transport vary widely across

vehicle-producing and vehicle-importing nations in developed and developing countries.

This changes the story line on diesel in India as well and adds to our worries over growing use

of poor quality diesel in freight as well as in luxury segment of cars. We are also stunned by

how quickly this problem grows. In 1999, Anil Agarwal had said, soon after CSE started its

Right to Clean Air Campaign, that “diesel cars, the ‘Engines of the Devil’, should go. India

needs clean fuels or alternatives.” Diesel cars were only 2 per cent of new car sales at that

Diesel at the crossroads:Science and politics ofluxury emissionsANUMITA ROYCHOWDHURY

B R I E F I N G P A P E R 1

40

time; at such a low penetration, no one believed CSE’s

forecast that their numbers would explode to negate gains

of pollution control. But the real trends in diesel use in the

transport sector since then have only proven the doubters

wrong. New science further vindicates the reason for strong

action on diesel.

The diesel challenge is more complicated today as the

emerging science exposes the double burden of risks

associated with it. But there cannot be any argument for

delayed action in this sector because transport diesel

emissions are luxury emissions. This sector draws huge

investments in vehicle manufacturing, fuel refining and

transport infrastructure; vehicle users are capable of paying

for the cost of improvement as well as for mitigating

negative impacts. The question is, how both the developed

and developing countries can chart their roadmap with

right regulations and fiscal strategies to make a quick

transition. What will enable the poorer nations to

harmonise quickly with the rest of the world? It is clear that

the poor of the world must not suffer the consequences of

uncontrolled dieselisation and its toxic luxury emissions.

A global engagement around the new science on short-

lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) such as black carbon has

also become important today because this will help

establish the significant contribution of developing

countries towards climate mitigation through their local

action on SLCPs. According to the estimates available from

the International Council on Clean Transportation, due to

the emissions standards roadmap in force in India since

2003, black carbon emissions in 2015 are nearly 47 per cent

lower than they would have been in the absence of the

policy. This needs to be incentivised and supported.

To achieve the objectives of climate and health co-benefits,

it is therefore important to deepen policy understanding of

the challenges, policy action and opportunities in different

regions of the world – vehicle-producing and vehicle-

importing countries – and the nature of global cooperation

to accelerate the global technology roadmap. This will have

to be conjoined with mobility strategies for climate and

health co-benefits.

Black carbon and the transport sectorThe transport sector is one of the key sources of black

carbon and is responsible for about 25 per cent of global

black carbon emissions. Of the total black carbon

emissions, 20 per cent is expected to be from diesel black

carbon. Total emissions from petrol vehicles are less than

10 per cent of the black carbon emissions (although petrol

vehicles are more numerous) – diesel black carbon is higher

in quantum than petrol black carbon. Only petrol vehicles

with gasoline direct injection can have high black carbon

emissions. A large part of transportation-related particulate

matter comes from incomplete combustion from diesel

engines: the core of a diesel particle is black carbon. This is

more heat-absorbing.

BR I E F ING PAPER 1

Figure: Black carbon is the core of diesel particulate matter

Solid (SOL)

Sulfate (SO4)AbsorbedHydrocarbons

Soluble Organic Fraction(SOF)/Particle phasehydrocarbons

Vapor Phasehydrocarbons

Solid carbon spheres (0.01 – 0.08 µmdiameter) form to make solid particleagglomerates (0.05 1.0 µm diameter)with adosrbed hydrocabons

Adsorbed hydrocabons

Liquid condensed hydrocarbonparticles

Sulfate with hydratation

41

Diesel particles have been branded by the World Health

Organization (WHO) as a Class 1 carcinogen, same as

tobacco smoking, for their strong links with lung cancer.

Diesel vehicles contribute enormously to particulates and

nitrogen oxides as well as to ozone formation that

compound the disease burden. Some of these gases also

have warming impacts. Therefore, mitigation of diesel

emissions gives strong health and climate co-benefits. This

is a win-win strategy for all regions.

The CO2 vs BC trap: Warming vs warmingFor a long time, automobile companies – in some cases with

government support – have tried to hard-sell diesel cars

promising benefits of lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

and greater fuel efficiency. But it is now clear that most of

this benefit gets negated not only because of enhanced

health risks from toxic emissions, but also from the warming

impacts of diesel black carbon (BC) emissions. According to

an assessment carried out by Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford

University, even under Euro IV particle standards (currently

in force in few cities of India), diesel vehicles may still

warm the climate for well over the next 100 years.

Moreover, cheaper diesel fuel encourages more driving and

a shift towards bigger cars – this has a rebound effect on

CO2 emissions. Diesel fuel has higher carbon content; if

more diesel is burnt, more heat-trapping CO2 escapes.

Additionally, CO2 emissions from upstream diesel refining

processes go up. All these negate the marginal greenhouse

gas reduction benefits offered by diesel cars. It is,

therefore, important for our governments to recognise that

diesel vehicles remain a loser if not pushed with the

cleanest benchmarks.

Regional imperatives: All regions grappling with the problem The UNEP Integrated Assessment Report 2012 states that

in 2005, North East Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific

were the largest emitters of black carbon followed by the

US and Europe. Though overall black carbon emissions

will decline by 2035, the relative position of the countries

will shift depending on fuel consumption and levels of

technology. Moreover, black carbon emissions from

transportation among the top 10 motorised nations during

2000-2050 show that the emissions were substantial during

2000-2010 in the US and Europe, but would decline

substantially thereafter as stronger air quality and public

health policies will enable quicker uptake of emissions

control technologies. The share of emissions in Asia and

other developing regions will increase with motorisation

and dieselisation. But these regions also have bigger

opportunities to avoid substantial pollution if effective

technology and fuel quality roadmap are adopted at the

early stages of motorisation and the current baseline of

public transport ridership, walking and cycling can be

protected and improved.


Graph: Black carbon emissions by transportation by region among top 10 motorisednations, 2000-2050

Source: World Bank 2014

% s

har

e o

f b

lack

car

bo

n e

mis

sio

ns

fro

m t

ran

spo

rtat

ion

in

top

10

mo

tori

sed

reg

ion

s

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Australia

South Korea

India

Japan

China

Russia

EU-27

Brazil

Mexico

Canada

US

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

42

It is, however, important to note that even though

developed and developing countries have different track

records on air pollution control, the problem of diesel

emissions in both the regions has remained resilient. The

character of the problem has changed with changes in the

technology paradigm.

In regions where agricultural burning, residential burning

and cook stove emissions are controlled – as in the US and

Europe – the relative share of diesel black carbon

dominates the pollution inventory. But in the developing

world, the relative share of diesel black carbon is lower

compared to other sources, though its levels are rising.

The relative share of transport black carbon in the total

black carbon inventory in the US is as high as 52 per cent.

In Europe, diesel black carbon accounted for 43 per cent of

black carbon emissions in 2010 as opposed to the global

average of 20 per cent, as per the estimates of the

International Council on Clean Transportation.

Differing approaches and lessonsLocal and global action on diesel will have to be informed

by the regional imperatives. Countries have followed

widely different policies on diesel with widely different

results. Moreover, developed countries where regulations

on emissions have evolved more have also exposed the

pitfalls in the diesel route that developing countries need

to understand and avoid.

Europe has suffered the consequences of dieselisation;

combines technology and mobility strategies to curb

air pollution: Europe has dieselised very rapidly because

of price difference between petrol and diesel fuels, high

taxation that puts an additional premium on fuel economy

and CO2 mitigation efforts to encourage fuel-efficient cars.

Significant dieselisation has taken place already – 50-70 per

cent in different countries of Europe – without the

appropriate emissions control technologies.

Even with successive improvement in emissions standards

(Euro I, II, III, IV, V, and VI), a very high black carbon-to-

organic carbon ratio persists in the emissions. According to

a 2014 World Bank study, fleet-wide averages taken in a

global emissions inventory model shows that while the

share of black carbon in particulate emissions from the

Euro II model was 80 per cent, it has reduced to 25 per

cent in the Euro V fleet – but it remains a problem. Black

carbon reduction technologies like particulate traps

become effective for cars only at the Euro V level and for


Graph: Relative position of black carbon sources in different regions

Source: Lamarque et al 2010

Frac

tio

n o

f B

C e

mis

sio

ns

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Ch

ina

Wes

tern

Afr

ica

Ind

iaB

razi

l

Sou

ther

n A

fric

a (R

est

of)

Ind

on

esia

USA

Ru

ssia

East

ern

Afr

ica

Sou

thea

ster

n A

sia

(Res

t o

f)So

uth

Am

eric

a (R

est

of)

Au

stra

lia

Wes

tern

Eu

rop

e (R

est

of)

Cen

tral

Eu

rop

e (R

est

of)

Jap

anSo

uth

Asi

a (R

est

of)

Mid

dle

Eas

tSo

uth

Ko

rea

Mex

ico

No

rth

ern

Afr

ica

Cen

tral

Am

eric

a

Thai

lan

d

Can

ada

Fran

ce

Ukr

ain

e

Arg

enti

na

Ger

man

yA

sia-

‘sta

n’

Sou

th A

fric

aU

nit

ed K

ing

do

m

Ital

y

Taiw

anV

enez

uel

a

Turk

eyN

ort

h K

ore

aB

alti

c St

ates

New

Zea

lan

d

Oce

ania

(R

est

of)

Gre

enla

nd

An

tarc

tica

Forest fires Waste Residential / domestic IndustryGrassland fires Agriculture waste burning Transport Energy

43

heavy duty vehicles only at the Euro VI level (in force in

Europe today). Cars and light to medium heavy-duty

commercial vehicles have to meet a particle number limit

under Euro V that forces the use of effective diesel

particulate filter. This allows a large reduction in diesel

black carbon from the Euro IV level. But a particle number

limit for heavy-duty commercial trucks and buses is

introduced only at the Euro VI level, which forces the use

of effective diesel particulate filters in heavy duty vehicles.

As the existing fleet in Europe still has a high share of

earlier vintage, diesel black carbon is 43 per cent of black

carbon emissions.

For its future strategy, Europe is not considering yet

another improvement in emissions standards. Instead, it

will combine Euro VI standards with a range of mobility

and smart city approaches to curb pollution. Europe is

scaling up public transport, walking and cycling along with

compact city design to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Several European cities have also begun to implement low

emissions zones inside cities where vehicles meeting older

emissions standards are not allowed.

Lesson from Europe: Europe has followed an aggressive

diesel route hoping to get the CO2 benefit. But this has

aggravated the local air pollution problem.

This is evident from the recent ruling by the European

Court of Justice which found that the UK was in breach of

EU law. Almost a fifth of the people living in urban areas

were exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels up to 50 per cent

above EU limits during 2012. The UK should have had

plans to tackle this by January 1, 2015. This will require

drastic cuts in emissions from diesel vehicles.

In the UK, diesel vehicles are emitting much higher NOx

than what they are expected to. An assessment by the

International Council on Clean Transportation has found

in-use diesel cars meeting the current standards are

emitting seven times more NOx than their emissions limit

in Europe. NOx contributes towards ozone formation

which is also a climate forcer on a regional scale. Similar

concerns have led France to rethink diesel; the country has

proposed to phase out diesel cars without filters. In fact, in

Paris, diesel cars are not allowed during smog episodes

when particulate levels increase.

Thus, developed countries even after lowering the overall

air pollution levels, are still battling diesel pollution – NOx,

ozone and black carbon.

The US faces ‘heavy duty’ problem; to rely on

technology forcing strategy: In the US, the car segment

has not dieselised as it has in Europe. There is also no

incentive as the prices of diesel and petrol are nearly the

same. Consumer preference has remained in favour of

petrol vehicles. Moreover, the US does not maintain any

differential between emissions standards for petrol and

diesel vehicles: the NOx standards are the same. This is in

sharp contrast to Europe where the standards legally allow

diesel vehicles to emit three times more NOx. Even with

Euro VI, diesel NOx norms are still relatively lax compared

to petrol. Also, in recent years, a relatively higher

penetration of diesel cars has happened in the US based on

tighter emissions standards of Tier II that requires

advanced emissions control systems.

The challenge in the US is that of large fleet of in-use

heavy duty truck and buses as well as off-road vehicles that

continue to remain an important source of substantial black

carbon emissions. While overall black carbon emissions

have reduced substantially from all sources over the years,

the relative position of diesel black carbon in the order of

importance among all sources is the highest. The share of

transport black carbon among all sources in the US is

52 per cent.

As is evident from California’s heavy-duty truck programme,

the focus of the mitigation strategy is on new emissions

standards, retrofitting or re-powering of old diesel engines,

reducing emissions from off-road vehicles and other

transport. The US will move to the next level of Tier III

emissions regulations. It puts greater emphasis on technology

forcing emissions standards, reduction of emissions from old

fleet through repowering and retrofitment, and checks on

marine pollution. Like Europe, the US will also focus on

expanding rail-based freight movement. Only in some parts

such as in California, the regulations related to smart city and

transit-oriented development have begun to configure to

reduce vehicle-miles traveled.

Lessons from the US: The US represents the classic

trade-off between black carbon and heat-trapping CO2 –

one threatens to negate the gains from the other. The US

has achieved substantial reduction in particulate and black

carbon reduction with its air pollution regulations. But its

continued automobile dependence and car-centric growth

have continued to increase CO2. Car-centric infrastructure

locks in enormous heat trapping gases.

According to the US Energy Information Agency, the

transportation sector has dominated the growth in US

carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, accounting for 69 per

cent of the total increase in US energy-related carbon

dioxide emissions. There has only been a dent during the

recession and also on account of recent improvements in

vehicle efficiency and use of biofuels. The US would need

equally stringent action on both fronts – technology as well


44

as mobility – to cut both black carbon and CO2 emissions

together.

The challenge of dieselisation in developing worldThe developing world (that includes vehicle-producing

and vehicle-importing countries) shows widely different

trends, approaches and capabilities. Asia and Africa are at

different stages of motorisation, dieselisation and emissions

standards roadmaps. Even as these regions are taking

action, there are regulatory, fiscal and market barriers.

There is also a very strong push-back from the automobile

industry and refineries. These regions will have to be

enabled with good science, information, and fiscal strategy.

These regions have the opportunity of strong preventive

and early action.

India represents an unique challenge of dieselisation:

India has experienced phenomenal increase in dieselisation

of the car segment. This is largely the result of the wide

difference in diesel and petrol prices, which lures car

buyers. Half of the new car sales is focused on diesel; at the

same time, heavy duty freight traffic has grown rapidly

based on poor quality diesel fuel and technology. The

growing number of diesel cars has increased the overall

mass of the vehicle fleet and fuel consumption. India, so

far, has implemented Euro III emissions standards nation-

wide and Euro IV standards in about 30 cities and towns.

These are 10 to 15 years behind the current emissions

standards in Europe.

India has the opportunity to leapfrog to Euro VI if the

process is enabled. As of now, the new official proposal on

the roadmap seeks to introduce Euro IV nation-wide in

2017-18; Euro V (with 10 ppm sulfur fuel) in 2020-21; and

Euro VI in 2024-25. This is too little and too late. After this

proposed roadmap was challenged in the Supreme Court of

India as part of the ongoing public interest litigation on air

pollution, the Union ministry of environment and forests

submitted an affidavit on behalf of all other concerned

ministries to state that it is possible to consider

introduction of Euro VI emissions standards by 2020 when

10 ppm sulfur fuel will be available. It is clearly an

opportunity to get a legal mandate on this to fast track

change. India should leapfrog to Euro IV emissions

standards nation-wide by the end of 2015, Euro V by 2017

and Euro VI by 2020.

India and other developing countries have to be inventive

with fiscal strategy to generate additional revenues to

create clean fuel fund and meet refinery costs to upgrade

the fuel quality. In fact, the Auto Fuel Policy Committee

has proposed additional and differential tax on fuels to mop

up additional revenue to fund refinery costs for meeting

the need for 10 ppm sulfur fuels.

Early and strong action to improve diesel vehicle

technology and fuels in India can give local and global

benefits. So far, the incremental and staggered

improvement from Euro I to Euro IV over the last decade

has reduced overall particulate and black carbon load from

the vehicle sector. According to the estimates of the

International Council of Clean Transportation, due to the

emissions standards roadmap in force since 2003, black

carbon emissions in 2015 are nearly 47 per cent lower than

they would have been in the absence of the policy. In 2010

alone more than 6,300 premature death were avoided in

India’s 337 largest cities due to this. The economic benefit

was Rs 50,000 crore or 0.7 per cent of the GDP that year.

But this is at risk of being negated due to rapid

motorisation and dieselisation. India must not repeat the

mistake of Europe of promoting diesel cars.

It is also important to note that India, where a majority of

the people still use public transport or walk and cycle,

would need to combine an aggressive mobility strategy to

reduce automobile dependence and maximise health and

climate benefits.

China can avoid diesel car trap; needs stringent

action on freight: In China, dieselisation of the car fleet

has not been such a problem largely because of the very

small differential between diesel and petrol prices. Also,

as a matter of policy, government officials have

discouraged light duty diesel vehicles. In fact, cities like

Beijing have banned diesel cars as a pollution control

measure. There was also a proposal from the Ministry of

Environmental Protection (MEP) State Council to

introduce 10 ppm sulfur by the end of 2017. The country

has also proposed quicker steps in key regions. Cities like

Beijing have already introduced Euro V emissions

standards. China needs quicker transition to clean fuels as

the push for diesel car is growing with more

multinationals selling cars there.

Chinese cities are also scaling up public transport, walking

and cycling. These second generation reforms need to

gather momentum. The air pollution mitigation effort in

China has gone one step forward to include off-road and

non-road transportation sources like marine and railroad.

This will have to be informed and enabled.

Challenge of vehicle-importing countries A number of countries in Asia and Africa do not produce

their own vehicles or fuels but are dependent on imports.

They have a chance to frame import policies and duties to

ensure imported vehicles and fuels meet clean

benchmarks. There is also an additional problem that these

countries – particularly in Asia and Africa – face: importing


45

second hand cars. Old vehicles can aggravate pollution and

energy guzzling. These countries will require different

approaches.

Africa steps forward: Countries in Africa have begun to

reduce fuel sulfur levels to enable use of emissions control

technologies. In 2002, there was no country in Africa which

had 50 ppm sulfur in diesel. It is notable, therefore, that

since January 2015, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and

Tanzania have leapfrogged to 50 ppm sulfur fuel within

East Africa. South Africa and Nigeria have already

implemented the Euro II standards with 500 ppm sulfur.

South Africa has passed a regulation to implement 10 ppm

by 2017 – it will therefore leapfrog from 500 to 10 ppm.

Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritius have met the 50 ppm or

below target.

The policy discussion on the future roadmap for the

region is focused on entire Africa having a diesel and

petrol sulfur level at 10 ppm, and Euro V emission

standards. This roadmap and a quick harmonisation across

the region will have to be enabled with supportive fiscal

strategies.

While some countries in Africa import fuels, a few like

South Africa and Nigeria produce their own fuels. While

importing countries can link the importation by specifying

the fuel quality standards, the fuel and vehicle producing

countries will have to adopt an emissions standards

roadmap to influence manufacturing. But fiscal solution

will be critical for the make-over. There are important

good examples in the region. In fact, Kenya started by

giving subsidy to its refineries to achieve 500 ppm sulfur

fuels. But subsequently, along with other oil importing

countries, it has also decided to import 50 ppm sulfur fuels

from January 2015. South Africa has also started by giving

subsidy to refineries to improve fuel quality. Investments

in fuel upgradation are justified as this is expected to give

enormous health benefits. For instance, while fuel quality

improvement in Kenya is expected to cost US $6 billion,

the benefits from this is expected to be US $43 billion – to

be saved from the reduced health cost of its citizens.

However, while fuel quality improvement has started in

the region, emissions standards for vehicles have lagged

behind. This is largely because of reliance on imported

second hand cars. Because of the high price of new

vehicles, people prefer buying second hand vehicles. Very

few vehicles are new; some are locally assembled or

manufactured, as in South Africa or in the General Motors

assembling plant in Ethiopia. Lack of a retirement policy

for vehicles worsens the problem. It was found that 54 per

cent vehicles are more than 20 years old, while 29 per cent

are more than 30 years old. As much as 85 per cent of all

taxies in Cairo are 22 years old. This causes enormous

emissions. These countries will have to refine their import

policies, and adopt car restraint measures while improving

public transport systems.

Sri Lanka turns the market around with its import

policy: Sri Lanka is among the non-vehicle producing

nations and is a unique case that has adopted innovative

fiscal strategies to contain dieselisation as well as introduce

clean diesel. It has imposed double the import duty on

diesel than petrol cars, and has substantially lowered duties

on hybrid cars. With this strategy, Sri Lanka has turned the

market around and succeeded in controlling and reducing

dieselisation. Also, taking advantage of the low

international crude oil prices, it has started importing 10

ppm sulfur diesel.

The way forwardClimate science on short-lived climate forces like black

carbon and health science on particulate pollution tell us

clearly that we need urgent action to get the dual benefits

of health protection and climate mitigation.

This also tells us that serious health concerns over toxic

diesel emissions allow no consideration for delayed action.

If mitigation action is fast-tracked, it will also give climate

co-benefits. The new science of black carbon only

reinforces the need for urgent action and global attention.

Mitigation efforts require deeper understanding of

experiences with diesel regulations and implementation in

different regions to inform national regulatory action on air

pollution control as well as clean vehicles and fuels

roadmap. This also demands enabling support for quicker

transition.

This makes for a strong case for global action because

developing countries, through their local action on short-

lived climate pollutants, will make significant contribution

towards climate mitigation to complement the action on

CO2 through their local action on air pollution. The fact

that India has already halved total black carbon emissions

between 2000 and 2015 indicates the potential of this

action in future.

The global and local action on diesel emissions mitigation

needs to focus on the following:

Upward harmonisation of emissions standards: All

countries are working on their respective roadmaps and

are at different stages of progress. As the greater part of

the global markets follows European emissions standards,

the target for upward harmonisation is Euro VI levels.


46


Effective emissions control systems and fuel quality (10

ppm sulfur fuels) that are needed for effective control of

diesel emissions become applicable only at the Euro VI

level. This will require countries to adopt timelines for

legal adoption of emissions standards roadmap; adequate

investments in refineries to produce clean fuels or import

fuels; and fiscal strategies to enable the transition.

Developing regions will have to be enabled with good

science, knowledge, nationally appropriate but

accelerated emissions standards roadmap, and fiscal and

investment strategies for clean fuels. This will require

different strategies for countries that produce their own

fuels and vehicles and for those which import fuels and

vehicles.

Strategy for vehicle producing countries: Both India

and China have strong vehicle manufacturing and fuel

refining sectors. They require technology forcing emissions

standards and a fiscal strategy to fast track change and meet

air quality goals. Their new vehicle stock should be linked

with the best available technology. This transition can be

enabled. A handful of vehicle companies dominates the

world market with a capability to meet the requirements of

markets with stringent emissions regulations. This industry

is totally market-driven. With emissions standards, tax

measures and supportive regulations it is possible to

stimulate markets for cleaner vehicles. Upward

harmonisation of emissions standards across regions can

help all regions and can also achieve economy of scale to

make cleaner technologies more affordable.

Strategy for fuel producing countries: Countries can

either import clean fuels or ensure that domestic

refineries are able to produce clean fuel by upgrading

existing refineries or building new refineries. It is easier

and quicker to take the import route. This was evident in

the case of global phase-out of leaded petrol earlier.

However, the refinery sector is widely structured across

countries that produce fuels. In several developing

countries this sector is under state control where prices

are regulated. Even though refinery sector reforms have

started in several cases only partial reforms have been

possible. This makes investments rigid and slows down

fuel quality improvement. This sector will require

additional fiscal strategy. There are several good practices

around the world where differential fuel pricing as in

Germany and Hong Kong; or capital subsidy as in Japan

etc have been implemented to help refineries to tide over

costs. Such approaches will have to be widely adopted.

Lack of reforms in the sector has prevented the

multilateral banks from investing in this sector. Reforms

in the refinery sector in India have progressed

considerably. Prices of both the transport fuel – petrol and

diesel have been deregulated. This has allowed policy

discussion on fiscal strategy.

Strategy for vehicle importing countries: These

countries need to prescribe emissions standards and also

age of imported vehicles. For instance, Bangladesh in

South Asia and Mauritius in Africa have fixed the age of

imported vehicles at 3 years. Bhutan has proposed to link

Euro IV with import of vehicles. This also means that the

countries that produce fuels will have to make the quick

transition. For instance. Great part of South Asian countries

that are land locked are dependant on Indian refineries.

The six refineries of South Africa cater to several countries

in its vicinity.

Need supportive programme to reduce in-use

emissions from existing vehicles: As the high-emitting

vehicles remain on the road for many years, this requires

supportive measures to reduce emissions from their

existing diesel fleets. Globally, several strategies are being

followed. Retrofitment of city buses with particulate trap

based on clean fuel, introduction of low emissions zones in

Graph: Emissions standards roadmap(in miligram/km)

Gasoline NOx Diesel NOx Diesel PM

Euro 4, 2005

Euro 5, 2009

Euro 6, 2014

US Tier 2, Bin 5 2007/2009

ARB SULEV

Source: Michael Walsh 2014, dieselnet.com

250250

80

60180

50

6080

45

4343

62

1212

62

47

the city where old and polluting vehicles are not allowed,

providing incentive for cleaner vehicles, dirtiest trucks are

being replaced or repowered, new bus operations based on

cleaner buses, and in-use emissions monitoring. This can

also be complemented with accelerated fleet turn over.

Particulate filters are very reliable but if the vehicles is not

properly maintained it can create an unfavorable

environment for these filters to operate.

Need mobility management to complement technology

roadmap: Ultimate solution will come from a combined

strategy of technology leapfrog and mobility transition.

Future approaches in Europe for instance show that in the

post Euro VI scenario Europe is expected to combine

strong mobility and vehicle restraint measures to control

pollution and cut emissions. Developing Asia and Africa

have enormous opportunity in combining the two strategies

effectively -- stringent technology roadmap with

sustainable mobility practices – walk, cycle and public

transport. This is needed along with restraint measures for

car usage. Developing countries will also require a stringent

measure to increase the share of rail based passenger and

freight transport to reduce emissions from heavy duty

vehicles that dominate the black carbon inventory.

Need composite road map to include non-road

transport: The experience of the industrialized countries

show that as the share of on-road emissions decline the

relative share of other modes of transport – off-road and

marine transport increases. Developing Asia needs to

develop more holistic strategies to include on-road, off-

road, and non-road sources as is applicable.

Need fiscal strategy to fund the transition to clean

fuels: Both national and global mechanisms are needed to

meet the cost of fuel quality improvement across regions to

speed up the change. The national governments need to

apply polluter pay principle to impose additional tax on

dirty fuels and cars to generate revenue for dedicated use

in refineries for fuel quality improvement. Globally,

keeping in view the global climate benefits expected from

diesel action should create fiscal strategy to enable local

action across regions. Aggressive action on diesel can

ensure health and climate co-benefits across regions.


Anil Agarwal Dialogue issues:1. What role can the global community play to inform development of regulations for clean vehicles and fuels and

sustainable mobility strategies at the local level to ensure both health and climate benefits?

2. How can the global community help generate and disseminate more evidence to show how different population

groups – children, aging adults, adolescents, the poor – are most affected by exposure to diesel emissions? This is

needed to build support for policy change at the local level.

3. What kind of global financing is needed to push for a vehicles and fuels roadmap at the national level?

4. Is it appropriate to use carbon financing to mitigate local air pollution, or should a separate financing scheme for

SLCP mitigation on a pollutant-by-pollutant and measure-by-measure basis be developed? What is the appropriate

forum for this?

5. Where should this money be spent? For example, financing is not needed for black carbon from vehicles when

establishing emissions control standards on new engines, as the vehicle industry is market-driven. However,

financing can be important for refinery improvement and retrofit schemes for heavy duty vehicles, or to fund

transportation strategies.

6. What role will the global and local communities play to address the non-road transportation sources of black carbon?

What are the health and climate impacts of black carbon emissions from diesel off-road, marine, and rail engines?

What are the trajectories for middle- and low-income countries of Asia?

7. How should countries account for climate benefits in reduction of black carbon, because of national-local strategies

and financing, without compromising attention on carbon dioxide?

48

Countries of the South have a massive “under-construction” agenda – as much as 70 per

cent of India, for instance, is yet to be built. Vast quantities of material are going to be

needed to build homes, offices and factories. The chief building material thus far has

been bricks. The standard practice is to dig clay and mud from fields, make it into bricks, and

then fire them in inefficient furnaces using a variety of fuels. Brick kilns operate across the

world – from China to Peru – and burn anything that is cheap and available to fire.

Centre for Science and Environment’s (CSE) 2015 paper reviewing practices across the world

finds that brick kilns are estimated to consume 110 million tonne of coal in Asia – with China

using 50 million tonne. Kilns have huge variations in efficiency and it could take anything

between 11 to 70 tonne of coal to fire 100,000 bricks.

It is also estimated that globally, the brick industry produces 1.5 trillion bricks every year, of

which 87 per cent are produced in Asia, with China leading with 67 per cent of the global

production.

India is the world’s second largest producer, with over 200 billion bricks manufactured each

year – the fertile alluvial regions of the Indo-Gangetic plains produce over 65 per cent of the

country’s bricks.

There is a huge environmental cost of the manufacture of this building material – from

emission of black carbon and local air pollution to the loss of valuable top-soil. The

estimations of black carbon emissions from this sector vary but studies have pointed out that

these could be as high as 9 per cent of the total black carbon emissions in India.

It is also clear that this industry – scattered in the mofussil, operational seasonally, owned by

small producers, and working in the informal sector – has absolutely no concern about its

workers. The working conditions for the some 10 million labourers estimated to be engaged in

the sector in India alone is abysmal and unacceptable.

Brick kilns: A clean technologyfor affordable buildings neededNIVIT KUMAR YADAV


49


Technology: Varied and outdatedIt would be wrong to think that the age-old tradition of

making bricks has not innovated in terms of technology. In

fact, many technologies with varying designs, methods and

efficiencies are in use in different countries (see Table: Theglobal brick kiln industry–countries and production).

Brick kilns are of two types – traditional intermittent

technology-based and the relatively newer continuous

technology-based. Intermittent kilns can further be

classified on the basis of the direction of flow of hot gases

into up-draught and down-draught ones. Continuous

technology is more energy-efficient as it allows for heat

recovery from flue gas as well as hot bricks. The most

important examples of continuous technology are fixed

chimney bull trench kiln (FCBTK), zigzag kilns, and

vertical shaft brick kilns (VSBK) (see Figure: Classificationof brick kilns based on firing technology).

China, for instance, the only country where the brick-

making sector is organised, uses the relatively more

advanced Hoffman kiln. India uses clamps (intermittent)

and fixed chimney bull trench (FCBTK).

The technology employed determines the fuel usage and

the nature and amount of emissions from a brick kiln. The

FCBTK – which produces more than 65 per cent of the

bricks made in India – is highly resource-intensive and

polluting. Clamp technology is equally polluting but

because it does not have any fixed structures, the initial

cost of setting up the kiln is very little. It is also difficult to

enforce regulations on these kilns which can literally be

moved from place to place.

The zigzag kiln, introduced in the 1970s by the Roorkee-

based Central Building Research Institute, is an

improvement over the FCBTK. It requires air to travel

through a zigzag path, which makes it more efficient and

less polluting. While particulate emissions from FCBTK

range from 250 to 1,250 mg/Nm3, zigzag kiln emissions are

down to below 250 mg/Nm3. Black carbon emissions are

also lower. The VSBK is an even better technology.

Table: The global brick kiln industry – countries and production

Source: Compiled by CSE from various sources

Country Type of kiln No. of kilns No. of bricks produced No. of people No. of bricks produced(in billion/year) employed per employee

China Hoffman Kiln & Tunnel Kiln 80,000 1,000 5 million 200,000

India FCBTKs, Clamp & >100,000 200 10 million 20,000

Pakistan Clamps & MCBTKs 12,000 45 9 million 5,000

Vietnam Tunnel & VSBKs Around 10,000 25 – –

Bangladesh FCBTKs, Zigzag 8,000 17 1 million 17,000

Nepal Clamps & BTKs 700 6 140,000 42,857

Figure: Classification of brick kilns based on firing technology

Firing Technologies

Intermittent

Up draught

Clamp Scove Scotch/LCBK Bull’strench kiln

Zigzagkiln

Vertical shaftbrick kiln

Tunnelkiln

Downdraught kiln

Moving fire Moving ware

Continuous

50


A tunnel kiln is much more expensive to set up and

requires much less humanpower in comparison to an

FCBTK or a zigzag. It is considered to be the best

technology available till date for large-scale production of

bricks and is widely used in industrialised countries. The

advantages of tunnel kiln technology lie in its ability to fire

a variety of products; good control over the firing process;

ease of mechanisation, thus reducing the labour

requirement; and large production volume.

The question for countries is how to improve technology,

particularly in the informal sector, which uses cost-

effectiveness as its selling point. Countries are working on

different policies – from banning inefficient and highly

polluting kilns to developing new all wall material (in the

case of China). But it is clear that as yet, the efforts have

not obtained overwhelming success.

In India, the ministry of environment, forests and climate

change (MoEF&CC) has notified particulate matter

emission standards and minimum stack height based on

the production capacity of the kiln and technology. But

implementation of these rules is poor. It is virtually

impossible in case of most technologies to monitor

emissions; the number of kilns is massive and the capacity

of the enforcement agencies limited.

The way ahead: Improve technology or change the material? It is clear that while brick making has environmental

impacts and huge social costs because of poor working

conditions, it provides the most readily available and

cost-effective building material. It is also a fact that

countries of the South will need these materials – at

affordable costs – to meet the expanding housing

challenge. One option continues to be improvement in

technology, ban on inefficient kilns, and enforcement of

stringent emission standards to contain pollution. The

other option is to look beyond the mud-clay brick and

find building materials which are environmentally

suitable and less polluting.

Part of the challenge – and opportunity – is to explore the

possibility of sourcing building material from industrial and

mining waste. This will usher in a new era of recycling and

reuse and improve material efficiency. For instance, India

has a growing “waste” of construction and demolition

material that is currently being dumped and ends up

clogging and destroying water bodies. Can this material be

gainfully used in the making of building material, and how?

In India, as in many other countries, this requires changes

in the specifications for use of recycled materials in

concrete making.

Similarly, India has a massive problem of disposal of fly ash

– the ash content is as much as 35-40 per cent in the coal

used in thermal power plants. The more coal the country

burns for generating power the more ash there is to

dispose. CSE’s rating of thermal power plants estimates

that thermal plants “waste” as much as 40 per cent of their

land to dump ash. Alhough MoEF&CC has notified that

fly ash must be used in cement manufacturing and brick

making, there is still a long way to go before the country

can utilise this growing heap of waste. A 2003 notification

stipulates the use of 25 per cent fly ash in brick and block

making within a 100 km radius of a coal-based thermal

power plant. A 2008 amendment specifies that to qualify as

fly ash-based, a brick must have a minimum 50 per cent fly

ash content. Clearly, this is not enough to utilise all the

waste or to replace clay as the mainstay building material in

the country.

It is also important, in this quest for alternative material, to

look at the embodied energy of different materials so that

the change is for the better. The cost of every material also

needs to be looked at as affordability will be a key issue in

countries where the majority are still searching for a proper

roof over their heads.

Anil Agarwal Dialogue issues:1. How should the local environment and livelihood costs of brick kilns inform national-global policy?

2. What are the best practices in regulations and enforcement for brick kilns in different countries? What is working

and what can be done?

3. What is the technology roadmap for efficient and clean brick kilns in the world? What can countries learn from

experiences on the ground?

4. Is improvement in technology enough or should the world move towards alternative materials for building?

5. How will alternative material be affordable and sustainable?

51

The politics of particles: Luxury vs survival

Chulhas – cookstoves of poor women who collect sticks, twigs and leaves to cook meals – are

today at the centre of failing international action. Women are breathing toxic emissions from

stoves and these emissions are also adding to the climate change burden of the world. The

2010 Global Burden of Disease Report established that indoor air pollution from cookstoves is a

primary cause of disease and death in South Asia. As many as 1.04 million pre-mature deaths and

31.4 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs) – measure of years lost due to ill-health, disability

or early death – are related to exposure to biomass burning in poorly ventilated homes.

But what has spurred action is the science that there is a connection between local air and global air

pollution. The particles formed during incomplete combustion – in diesel cars and cookstoves – are

seen to be powerful “climate forcers” because they absorb light and convert it into heat. It is also

found that these particles or aerosols interact with clouds and affect rain patterns. They also fall on

snow or ice surfaces and make them melt faster.

Moreover, particulate matter or black carbon is short-lived. Its life span in the atmosphere is three

to eight days, unlike carbon dioxide, which has a life span of 80 to 100 years. So, combating

emissions brings quick results to an increasingly over-heated Planet, even though their impacts are

more regional and local. The current negotiations on climate change are focused on these short-

lived climate forcers (SLCF) as a way ahead.

This is not to say that science is completely agreed on the matter of how serious is the contribution

of particulate or black carbon to global climate change. This is because there are good aerosols

which cool the Planet because they reflect light, and bad aerosols that warm the Planet.

But what is emerging is that the good or bad could well depend on the source of pollution. While

open burning or biomass burnt in cookstoves produces particles with a higher proportion of organic

carbon that scatters sunlight, emissions from fossil fuels have a higher proportion of black carbon,

Cookstoves: A strategy forclean cooking energy to meetthe needs of allSUNITA NARAIN


52

which absorbs light and forces heating. Seen this way, use

of low-sulfur diesel has the highest net positive radiative

forcing – it warms, not cools.

Politics of particles, therefore, differentiates between

survival emissions from the cookstoves of the poor and the

luxury emissions of SUVs of the rich.

Unchanging scale and size: The world’s wicked problem The fact is, however, that though many countries like India

(and parts of China and Africa) may have modernised, the

bulk of cooking in villages is still done using firewood and

twigs.

Globally, it is estimated that 2.67 billion people still rely on

biomass for cooking food, with 80 per cent of Sub-Saharan

Africa and 66 per cent of Indians using this inefficient and

polluting fuel.1 This adds up to roughly half the developing

world and 40 per cent of the world. Even in 2030, the WorldEnergy Outlook report estimates that 43 per cent of the

developing world (33 per cent of the world’s people) will

continue to cook on biomass. Even in fast growing China

where 33 per cent use biomass, it is estimated that by 2030,

19 per cent will continue on this fuel. The report also

points out that “there is evidence that where local prices

have adjusted to recent international energy prices, the

shift to cleaner, more efficient use of energy for cooking

has actually slowed down or even reversed”.

In India, Census 2011 shows that 75 per cent of rural

households continue to use biomass and dung to cook, as

against 21 per cent of urban Indian households.

In addition, data from the National Sample Survey

Organisation (NSSO) on energy sources of Indian

households for cooking and lighting reveals that nothing

has changed in the past two decades. In 1993-94, as many

as 78 per cent households in rural India used biomass as

cooking fuel and in 2009-10, 76 per cent used this fuel.

Therefore, in this period, when urban India moved to LPG

(from 30 per cent to 64 per cent), rural India remained

where it was, cooking on highly inefficient and dirty stoves

(see Graph: Energy sources of Indian households).

There is a definite correlation between wealth, availability

and methods of cooking. The same NSSO data shows that

only in the highest (9th and 10th) class of monthly per

capita expenditure does the household make the transition

to LPG in rural India. In urban India, in contrast, even


1.4%

0.8%

1.9% 6.3%23.2%

11.5%

11.5% 3.0%2.4%

6.3%

2.0%5.7%29.6%

0.8%

0.7%

1.6%

4.1%

2.7%

1993-94 (rural) 1993-94 (urban)

2009-10 (rural) 2009-10 (urban)

Coke/coal

Firechips & woods

LPG

Dung cake

Kerosene

No-cooking arrangment

Others

78.4% 29.9%

76.3%

1.3%

6.5%

1.5%

6.5%

2.3%

64.4% 17.5%

Graph: Energy sources of Indian households (1993-94 and 2009-10, rural and urban)

Source: NSSO

53

households in the lower level of monthly per capita

expenditure use LPG. This is because LPG is subsidised

and more available in urban areas.

Therefore, it is poverty that is at the root of the chulhaconundrum. This is where the climate change knots get

entangled.

The fact is that LPG is a fossil fuel available in large parts

of the world as a clean cooking medium. Advocating use of

this fuel to meet the needs of poor women in vast parts of

the world will only add to greenhouse gas emissions.

The other problem is that any programme to reach the poor

will necessarily require subsidy. The world frowns on

subsidy for fossil fuel – which is partly why governments

across the world are scrambling to remove subsidy from

kerosene and even LPG. So, what is the way ahead?

Where has the firewood crisis gone?In the 1970s-1980s it was widely said that the ‘other energy

crisis’ is firewood for cooking as supply was short and

women had to spend hours to walk for collecting this basic

need. It was also said that this use of energy by the very

poorest would devastate forests. In 1973, after the first oil

shock, the government of India set up the Fuel Policy

Committee, which noted that the widespread use of non-

commercial sources of energy has led to “large-scale

denudation and destruction of forests.” But there is little

evidence that this has happened. Why?

Anil Agarwal, CSE’s founder, was always fascinated by

household requirements for cooking energy – in the early

1980s he organised the country’s first conference on this

issue. Writing in the First Citizens Report in 1982, he

warned of an impending firewood crisis as demand would

outstrip supply. But he also said that there was little

evidence to suggest “energy-gathering families of India

were responsible for deforestation as then all trees should

have disappeared by now.” The problem was not the

energy needs of the poor, collected most often by women

and children, as this depended on twigs and branches. The

“biggest threat to forests is because of commercialisation of

firewood – growing use in urban areas.”2

Anil Agarwal asked this question once again in the late

1990s and found his earlier assessment was confirmed by

developments over the two decades. By then, there was no

apparent firewood crisis – this, when all evidence

suggested that biomass use for cooking continued across

the country. He analysed data from the National Council of

Applied Economic Research (NCAER), which showed that

the firewood demand in urban areas had gone down,

because of the switchover to commercial fuels like LPG

and kerosene. At this time, subsidies made these two fuels

cheaper than even firewood for urban areas, where they

were available.

The NCAER survey, published in 1995 – ironically, the last

such countrywide assessment of cooking fuel consumption

– compared its data with the previous survey done in 1978-

79. It found the following:

1. In 1992-93, total household energy consumption in rural

India was 153.4 million tonne of coal replacement

(mtcr) – coal replacement being the amount of firewood

converted into the amount of coal that would be needed

to replace one tonne of firewood. But of this, 30 per

cent came from firewood twigs and another 32 per cent

from firewood logs.

2. The share of cowdung and crop residue in the

household energy basket had gone down in these two

decades, but the total quantity had increased.

3. The total firewood – twigs and logs – used for

household energy consumption was 130 million tonne,

with a greater share coming from more superior quality

woodfuel logs, and not leaves or twigs. But interestingly,

even though the share of logs had increased, people

were buying less. Therefore, they were finding better

quality wood to burn in cookstoves, which could be

collected.

4. But this better quality log was not coming from forests.

The survey found that between the two decades, the

percentage of households collecting firewood from

forests had halved. Instead, firewood was coming from

farms and other lands.

Analysing data from other studies Anil Agarwal found that

the other firewood crisis had been averted because people

had gone in for tree plantation on private land and the use

of exotic ‘weed’ trees like Prosopis juliflora. People were

not dependent on forests for firewood need and therefore,

large-scale forest destruction (as predicted in the 1970s and

1980s) had not happened. The 2011 State of Forest Report,published by the Forest Survey of India, corroborates this.

It estimates that in 2010 the total fuelwood used was 216

million tonne, but of this only 60 million tonne – or 27 per

cent – came from forests. The rest came from private lands

or wastelands.

“All this evidence points that people have averted the

ecological crisis through a rational response of community

and individual action. But very little is studied or

understood of what people have done and at what cost,”

Anil Agarwal wrote in 1999.3

Since then even fewer studies have been done on the

firewood demand for household energy use. But what is


54

emerging from the scattered and limited studies is that in

many parts of the country (perhaps also the developing

world) people make rational and careful choices of multiple

sources of cooking energy fuel. They use a combination of

biomass, expensive and often unavailable LPG and even

kerosene to cook depending on the food type and cost

involved.

But unfortunately, energy experts discount these non-

commercial sources. So, little is known of their use and

little can be then understood about the policy options that

would work for this half of the world’s people.

Strategy 1: Move to cleaner cooking devices…The action on improved cookstoves is not new. About 24

years ago, I was in a house in a small village some distance

from Udaipur town in Rajasthan. A government

functionary was explaining how an improved cookstove

worked – they had installed it in the kitchen. At that time,

India was waking up to forests being devastated. It was

believed then (wrongly, as it turned out) the key reason was

poor people cutting trees to cook food. It was also being

understood that smoke from stoves was carcinogenic and

that women were worst hit by this pollution. The answer

was to design improved chulhas – for better combustion and

with a chimney.

The woman owner of this improved stove was cooking

the day’s meal. I asked if she was happy with what

science and government had donated to her. Her answer

was simple: “Looks good, does not work. I modified it.”

Her problem was that, in this area, women cooked gruel

on big utensils. Her homemade original stove was fitted

to her diet and her utensils. The improved chulha, with its

small opening to streamline the fire, was of little use.

When the chulha was designed, nobody asked her what

she needed. Nobody explained to her the laws of

thermodynamics, so that she could fathom why the stove

looked and worked as it did. And nobody was there who

could repair or reshape her cookstove. She had simply

broken the opening to fit her needs. Carefully calculated

combustion in the laboratory of the local university and

delivered through a government programme had turned

to hot air.

I learnt my most valuable lesson that day. Designing

technologies for diversity and affordability is much more

complex than sending a man to the moon.

Consider these statistics. The National Programme on

Improved Cookstoves (NPIC) was started way back in

1985. Its objective was to provide one improved cookstove

at a subsidised price to every rural household. By 1994,

some 15 million improved chulhas were introduced across

the country and by 2003 this number grew to 35 million. In

2004, this programme was closed down.

Surveys have pointed out to the problems in this cookstove

introduction. The 1995-96 survey – the last comprehensive

one – done by the Delhi-based National Council of

Applied Economic Research found that while 60 per cent

of the stoves were in use there were many problems. In

many cases, the stoves were not appropriately designed or

had broken with use. Over 62 per cent of the respondents

said they did not know whom to contact for repairs. No

surprise there. Technology deployment in poor and un-

serviced households is a job the market does badly.

Globally as well, the experience is more or less the same.

China has the distinction of having the world’s most

successful improved cookstove programme – 180 million

such devices distributed. But it is also a fact that the

Chinese programme is reflective of the growing incomes in

the country and availability of commercial fuels. In 2010,

the Chinese private sector was producing 2.3 million clean

heating coal stoves and over 600,000 clean biomass stoves.

This private sector intervention has not worked so

successfully in other countries, where poverty drives down

demand for commercial approaches.

Private sector’s clean cooking devicesIn 2014, the WHO set guidelines for indoor air quality:

household fuel combustion. These, for the first time,

mandate the emissions that would be acceptable from

household devices. The guideline value for exposure to

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is 10 microgram/m3

(annual mean). WHO also provides three interim targets –

35-25-15 microgram/m3 (annual mean) for PM2.5 to

gradually reduce health risks. Commercial stove

manufacturers are still far from meeting these clean air

guidelines for devices that need to be cost-effective and

easy to disseminate and use.

In October 2014, a study published in the journal

Eco-Health4 by a group of scientists in India and the US

looked at some advanced cookstoves for their ability to

improve air quality in communities where they are used.

The study was unique since not only did it measure the

level of pollutants in the houses where the advanced

cookstoves were used, but also surveyed extensively to

assess the acceptability of these stoves in the community

and identified the challenges faced by their real users.5

Six commercially available models of cookstoves were

selected for the study – three models of natural draft-

rocket stoves (Envirofit-B1200, Envirofit-G3300 and

Prakti-Leo), a natural draft micro-gasifier stove (Philips-

Natural Draft) and two models of forced draft micro-


55

gasifier stoves (Philips-HD4012-Forced Draft and Oorja).

The stoves were distributed in seven villages in three

districts of Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh between May

2010 and December 2011. The study was conducted in

three phases. In Phase I, baseline measurements of

pollutants over a period of 24 hours in the kitchen were

made, when chulhas were in use. Phases II and III were

conducted one month and six months after the test stoves

were installed.

Of the six stoves that were studied, none came close to

meeting air pollution guidelines prescribed by the WHO.

The stoves did not even meet interim standards. Using

advanced stoves reduced the requirement of fuel by

30-40 per cent but the time spent near the stove

remained either unchanged or increased in comparison to

traditional stoves. The rocket stoves allowed charging the

stove with the required quantity of fuel for a full meal,

whereas the Philips and Oorja stoves required re-

charging within a single meal period. This resulted in

spending more time close to the stove, adding to the

pollution burden.

Surprisingly, the stoves with best impact on air quality

were the ones least customised for usage in rural settings.

For example, the Philips-HD 4012 Forced Draft stove

was the only one to show statistically significant reduction

in PM2.5 (62.7 per cent) and CO (78 per cent) but was

very cumbersome to use. Clearly, user requirements were

not understood well enough before designing the stoves.

Speaking to Down To Earth, lead researcher for this study,

Kalpana Balakrishnan who has worked for years on the

issue of cookstove pollution, explained: “The problem lies

not just in the stoves but also in solid fuels themselves, that

burn very inefficiently. Our technological know-how does

not allow us to build a stove in the Rs 2,000-Rs 3,000

bracket that burns fuel efficiently enough to match WHO

standards. In trying for greater efficiency, the costs often

shoot up. Till a breakthrough in clean technology occurs,

the need of the hour is to move to cleaner fuels like LPG

and electricity.”

…or is the answer clean energy access? The first option is to improve the biomass-based cooking

device – make it more efficient and less polluting. The

second option is to the change the fuel itself.

It is a fact that transition away from dirty cooking fuel has

huge health benefits and must be supported with subsidy.

If LPG is subsidised and made available to urban

populations, then the same should be done for rural

populations. If we want benefits for health and climate,

then the option would be to increase subsidy for cleaner

electricity, from biomass gasification to solar energy. But

let’s face the fact: these are not cheap options. That is the

inconvenient truth.

At the global level, there is no reason to argue nothing

should be done to improve and substitute the polluting and

noxious cooking stoves of the poorest. The problem is not

in the intent. The problem is in the ‘why’ and the ‘what

needs to be done’. Today, the international community

sees improvement in these cooking energy devices as an

easy solution. We believe here’s a quick and simple climate

fix, which will create space for cars and power stations so

that we can continue to pollute. Also, the international

community is today equating this ‘survival’ emission – of

poor people with no alternative but to walk long distances

to collect firewood, sweep the forest floor for leaves and

twigs and do backbreaking work to collect and dry cow-

dung, all for some ‘oil’ to cook their food – with the ‘luxury’

emissions of you and I, who drive to work and live in air-

conditioned comfort.

This distinction is necessary. For policy and action.

Otherwise, an important opportunity – provided to us by

the poorest in the world – to reduce emissions in the future

would be lost.

We know that even today, the share of new renewables –

solar, wind, geothermal and cogeneration – make up a small

part of the world’s primary energy supply. The bulk of what

is defined as renewable comes from biomass burning, from

the very stoves of poor families. It is these families, living

on the margins of survival, already vulnerable to climate

change impacts, which are in the renewable energy net.

They are not the problem. They are the solution to our

excesses.

The energy trajectory is such that these families, when

they move out of poverty, will also move out of cooking

on this biomass stove. They will walk up the fossil fuel

stairway to LPG. Every time they move away, as they

must, one less family will be using renewable energy; one

more, like you and me, will begin polluting with long-life

greenhouse gas emissions. The difference is black soot

pollutes locally – it literally kills the women who cook –

but has a relatively short life in the atmosphere. So,

unlike carbon dioxide, it disappears in a few weeks. But

when we cook on LPG we emit carbon dioxide that stays

in the atmosphere and creates the problem of climate

change.

The poorest, therefore, provide the world the perfect

opportunity to leapfrog – they can move from using

renewable energy, currently polluting, to using more

renewable energy, but which is clean for them and the


56

world. It is this objective that must drive our efforts, not a

plan to pick on the poorest so we can continue to pollute.

What is clear also is that this is not easy. We need cooking

devices that can be sold, distributed and used in millions of

diverse households across the world. Or we need to find

approaches that move beyond the individual devices that

can move the poorest of the world – so poor that they

cannot afford the cheapest monetised energy sources – to

clean sources of cooking fuel.


R E F E R E N C E S

1 World Energy Outlook 20142 Anil Agarwal 1982, Energy chapter of the State of India’s Environment, CSE3 Anil Agarwal 1999, Energy chapter of the State of India’s Environment, CSE4 Sankar Sambandam et al 2014, Can currently available advanced combustion biomass cookstoves provide health relevant exposure reductions? Results

from initial assessment of select commercial models in India, EcoHealth, published online 08, October5 Manupriya 2014, Search for good health, in Down To Earth, November 30, 2014

Anil Agarwal Dialogue issues:1. How should the local health impacts of cooking fuels inform national-global policy?

2. What should be the approach on short-lived climate pollutants from cookstoves at the global level? How should it

be informed by local experiences?

3. Has the approach to disseminate improved devices to individual households worked? Where? What can we learn

from this to inform national-global policy?

4. How do we move towards providing clean energy to households? Is the only way to move up is to go through the

fossil fuel trajectory? Or are there any other approaches that will work?

5. Has the world understood the cost of providing clean energy solutions to the poorest? Is this a cost that needs to be

paid? By whom?

6. What are the local health and global climate benefits of providing renewable energy to the world’s poorest?

7. What should be the future strategy to address this challenge – at national and global levels?

57

N O T E S

58

N O T E S

#AAD2015

Sunita Narain @sunitanar

Down To Earth magazine @down2earthindia

Centre for Science and Environment @cseindia

https://www.facebook.com/down2earthindia

https://www.facebook.com/cseindia

ANIL AGARWAL DIALOGUE 2015 - … Anil went for a bone marrow transplantation, ... discourse on black...

Documents

Transcript of ANIL AGARWAL DIALOGUE 2015 - … Anil went for a bone marrow transplantation, ... discourse on black...