Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has brought out an excellent compilation titled Climate Change, Politics and Facts. The government is planning legislation with targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps to bolster this, the Ministry of Environment and Forests has published results of five studies - NCAER/Jadavpur, TERI/MoEF, IRADE, TERI/Poznan and McKinsey - and findings have been contrasted and collated by CSE. As per all these models except for TERI/Poznan, India's per capita GHC emissions will be between 2.77 and 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2031-32, well below global averages. Independent of global negotiations, the assumption is that India will improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity and carbon dioxide intensity of GDP. India has to be seen to be doing something. Fair enough. This is where another McKinsey study reviewed by CSE is relevant. In the business-as-usual or reference scenario, per capita emissions in 2030 will be between 5.0 and 6.5. But in the abatement scenario, per capita emissions can be reduced to between 2.8 and 3.6. (This is contingent on assumptions about GDP growth and its composition, but that can be ignored for present purposes.) If India follows the abatement route, it will reduce power demand by 25%, crude oil demand by 20-25% and coal demand by 50-60%.

Good for us. There is a huge potential for reducing emissions in power, energy-intensive industry, transport, habitats (including buildings/appliances) and forestry and agriculture. However, the point of the CSE argument, using the McKinsey study, is that only 10% of the mitigation is low cost. Contrary to impressions, the issue isn't about technology or its availability, but the costs. To get to that abatement goal, between 600 billion and 750 billion Euros will be needed between 2010 and 2030. To quote from CSE, "It is critical, therefore, that the low carbon future for the world is carefully considered and adopted. As yet, no industrialized country has reworked its growth strategy to the decarbonised pathway. The reason is clear: all the real change options are expensive at home--from shift to renewables to carbon capture and storage."

... contd.