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
12:00 to 1:00 Discussion
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
3:00 to 4:00 Discussion
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
5:20 to 6:00 Discussion
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
10:15 to 10:45 Discussion
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
11:45 to 1:00 Discussion
1:00 to 1:30 Conclusions and the way forward
Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE
11
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
BRICK KILNS Towards clean materials for housing for all
Day I - March 11, 2015 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)
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
3:15 to 4:00 Discussion
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
5:20 to 6:00 Discussion
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
Day II - March 12, 2015 (9:30 AM to 1:00 PM)
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
10:30 to 11:00 Discussion
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
12:15 to 1:00 Discussion
1:00 to 1:30 Conclusions and the way forward
Chandra Bhushan, CSE
13
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
COOKSTOVES
Day I - March 11, 2015 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)
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
3:00 to 4:00 Discussion
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
5:30 to 6:00 Discussion
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
Day II - March 12, 2015 (9:30 AM to 1:00 PM)
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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.
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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.
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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.
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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.
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
BR I E F ING PAPER 1
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
BR I E F ING PAPER 1
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.
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
46
BR I E F ING PAPER 1
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 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
B R I E F I N G P A P E R 2
49
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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
BR I E F ING PAPER 2
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
B R I E F I N G P A P E R 3
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
BR I E F ING PAPER 3
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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-
BR I E F ING PAPER 3
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
Anil Agarwal Dialogue 2015: The Poor in Climate Change
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.
BR I E F ING PAPER 3
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?
Top Related