Log has written
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010

New Delhi: On the eve of World Environment Day, Jairam Ramesh, the newly appointed head of ministry of environment and forests, talks about the next environmental challenges for India, the fine balance between environment and development and India’s role in climate change. Edited excerpts:

Click here to watch video

What’s your agenda for the first 100 days?

There is no such thing like 100 days. This is a long-term assignment I have here. You can’t reduce environment and forests to 100 days. And it requires a lot of careful thought, assessment and considered action. I don’t have any bullets for 100 days except to listen, travel and to respond sensitively to ecological concerns that are being raised.

How will you balance development and environment?

The Congress manifesto says that balance is key. I think ecological security is of paramount importance. Ecological security in a framework that promotes economic growth is what the country is looking for. In some cases, the toss of the coin will favour economic growth and in many, many cases, it will favour environmental control. I think with the use of modern technology and modern management techniques, it is possible to bring about this balance, to make explicit the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth.

Domestic perspective: Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh says climate change is not an issue for India because of some international forum, but due to local development imperatives and dimensions. PTI

Domestic perspective: Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh says climate change is not an issue for India because of some international forum, but due to local development imperatives and dimensions. PTI

I increasingly have come to this view that there is no trade-off because economic growth that is environmentally not benign, growth that is ecologically not secure, is not sustainable. So, there is really no trade-off in my view.

We have a large framework of environmental laws, norms, standards and those have to be enforced and complied with. We have huge challenges of climate change, which we have to respond to creatively. We must also move in the next 10 years to ensure that at least one-third of our geographical area is under forest and tree cover.

Environment is an area where civil society is very active. In fact, perhaps more active than the government feels comfortable with. Sure, many civil society organizations are activists; it’s in their nature to be activists and they can’t always agree with what the government does. But I think it’s possible to identify common ground.

Is India doing enough on climate change?

I think we should not respond to climate change because there is Copenhagen or just because the Americans are telling us to respond to it or there is Kyoto. I come to climate change from a local developmental perspective. The Himalayan glaciers are receding, agricultural yields are stagnating, dry days have increased, patterns of monsoon have become more unpredictable. So, we are seeing the effects. The fact is, for a country like India, climate change is not an issue because of some international forum, but because there are domestic development imperatives and dimensions.

We need a massive effort at using coal more efficiently. Coal is going to be a more important energy resource. To my mind, these two are fundamental to any response to climate change. How efficiently we are going to use coal, how quickly we are going to expand nuclear energy in our country, on the energy front and on the greening front, how quickly we can go from 23% to 33% forest and tree cover.

Is energy security another face of climate change?

I would say that a country that’s growing at about 8% a year will require its energy consumption to grow at 6.5-7% a year even after we do all our energy efficiency improvements. We are producing about 450 million tonnes of coal. In the next 8-10 years, we will be producing a billion tonnes of coal. In the next five years, we will add about 13,000MW (of power) per year. Question is with what efficiency and with what effect on climate change.

There is a business as usual scenario and there is a climate change sensitive scenario. We should move on the climate change sensitive scenario, which means clean coal, efficient coal, more hydel power, more nuclear, more renewables, more energy efficiency in terms of buildings, lighting and public transportation. We have a national action plan on climate change. You have to translate that plan into concrete, specific nuts and blots.

So much time and money spent on river cleaning without effect... what is the problem?

We have spent over Rs1,000 crore on the cleaning of the Ganga over the last 20 years and it doesn’t appear to be any cleaner. If you take all of India, less than 20% of sewage gets treated. And in a city like Delhi, where you have the capacity, it is not being utilized.

The biggest problem of river cleaning is that we have spread our resources too thin. We are spending close to Rs350 crore on river cleaning every year over 164 towns, which is about Rs2 crore a town. What can you do? For instance, I got a proposal today (Thursday) from Gorakhpur, which wants to take up a major lake cleaning programme, which will cost Rs100 crore. We need to focus our resources pointedly. We need to bring in more resources. There is no reason why we can’t clean the Dal Lake in the next three years. Let’s take it up as a challenge.

READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
roopa Said:


Mr. ramesh;s reference to climate change wrt India;s conditions is very good. We should look at it not because it comes from the US or Kyoto but because of our local needs and its effect on them.

Posted On 6/5/2009 7:13:08 AM
A Said:


I felt a stab of hope as I read the article, but the hope died as I read through the rest of the article. Although Mr. Ramesh says the right things on the ecological framework. However, his supply side solutions are nuclear and efficient coal, which suggests a George Bush thought process. India's solution has to include a huge expansion of solar and other decentralized technology that allows better rural AND urban living. Even without breakthroughs, solar is likely to reach grid-parity within 5 years. Why does Mr. Ramesh want India to stay vested in yesterday's global warming technology? Coal contributes to climate change, pollutes, and destroy ecosystems during mining and processing. Nuclear also has highly polluting upstream processes, is dangerous almost regardless of what the sellers say, and more expensive to build than solar. I think the answer to why government prefers coal and nuclear lies in the fact that they are benefit the large established industries. The government and these large industries prefer massive capital projects with intransparent, corrupt transfer of funds from end customers to these companies. India should be focused on creating new, innovative market mechanisms that support large scale deployment of solar energy across the country. The technology for solar is there, the costs will be affordable within a few years, and the storage problem is also likely to be solved - India and China can redefine what development and infrastructure investment means. Mr. Ramesh, shame on you for being such an ordinary supporter of the status quo, such a solid establishment man. I had higher expectations from you. Regards etc

Posted On 6/5/2009 7:32:25 PM
Ajith Said:


Have a look at the story of Kailash Murthy. He speaks about Natural Farming - no fertilizer, no pesticide, not even tilling ( www.the-anf.org ). More details about his endeavor is available here: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/19/stories/2009011952860300.htm

Posted On 6/9/2009 5:09:13 PM
Prem Said:


Let us first learn to appreciate an Indian giving such a clear message. Has any Minister, in the past given such a clear message in the past. Let us think of it as a good start and hope for the best.

Posted On 7/19/2009 9:56:48 PM
fyi Said:


Reducing greenhouse gas emissions could prevent damages of 4,820 billion dollars by the end of the century (Note: Pure Speculation). However, he insists the measures to do so would cost anywhere between 4,575 and 37,632 billion dollars during the same period. (Note: Pure Fact) I think this is the new Y2K - an entire industry gearing up to seperate us from our money, and nothing much will be gained. I think this is the new Y2K .

Posted On 9/23/2009 12:56:05 AM
lol Said:


Climate Change Functionaries love summits -- justifies their salaries. The fact that it's about nothing is irrelevant to them. Err -- let's have a resolution to solve a non-existent problem because everybody will ignore it anyway so no harm done -- and isn't this hotel sumptuous.

Posted On 9/23/2009 12:59:11 AM
Mohinder Said:


Dear Ramesh Thanks for the nice analysis. Undoubtly, we have not to follow the imported view points, undoubtly we are seeing climte change at our own, today our fields are receiving comparatively less rain, mansoon is uncertain, and the production of everything is reducing day by day, year by year. for all these i think the policies of policy makers at every level are responsible. We are racklessly exploiting the resources gifted by nature without a sustainable viewpoint. we are even after 60 years of independence planning everything by siting in the AC chambers somewhere at capital or meteros. I think it is high time to think again on the policies and we should now frame the policy with a vital scope of the involvement of the local people in it becasue ultimately the local people have to bear all ill effects of the planned development. We need not to run after any country and to discuss the issue at any plateform at international level. We should concenterate on the local as well as national level and discuss the issue with the local people and make them participate in the developmental processes so that the fruits of the development can be reaped in real sense and people who are living in the remotest area can relise the real meaning of independence, they should not be traumatized in the name of development or national interest, becasuse for them their local interests are supreem because on those basis their whole life revolves. with a new hope that one day our policy makers will definately think about the poor and isolated people and make them participated in the developmental processes. Dr. Mohinder Slariya

Posted On 11/11/2009 7:05:23 PM
Re: sarika Said:


the tight rope walk of balancing growth with environmental concerns seems difficult. A energy hungry county like ours with 16%peaking shortages low per capita consumption of electrcity depends nearly 72% on coal, which is the main source of GHG emisions, how creatively can we tweak our fue mix? Solar is expensive, nuclear has its environment hazards,the possibilty and scope of changing our fuel mix is limited As always economics will prevail over environment. And why not ?why be apologetic for today when tommorrow is so elusive. theclimatologist have forgotten the kuznets curve, which states that initial years of growth leads to environmental degradation and later it is growth that funds and internalises environmentalexternalities. the rich countries on a grot h path hence can talk of climate funds which is a byproduct of degraded environment. they have been the biggest benificiereis in the "environmentalresourceloot" so they should bear the burdern, India should concentrate on its economic well being. no apologies about it,we can save the planet only after we save ouselves from poverty, foodsecurity and other weighter issues . our emissions are "emissions of poverty"

Posted On 1/13/2010 4:54:49 PM