Global Warming! Really?

Global warming today is being projected as an apocalyptic event and its outcome even being compared to the fallout of a global war. However, there is considerable evidence that there is little truth in the hypothesis that the planet is undergoing any significant climate change. In fact, in the 1970s we were more worried about global cooling and the coming of an ice age more than anything.

The argument for global warming rests on the following premises:
1.    Factual evidence that both temperatures and sea levels have been rising consistently
2.    Carbon dioxide is the primary contributor towards global warming and that increased levels contribute to increased temperatures
3.    Climate models on which the premise of these arguments rest upon

There is no concrete evidence today that global temperatures have been rising consistently. In fact the opposite is actually true: temperatures have been declining. An important factor here is the time period over which these measurements are made. Obviously, if we are talking about a global effect of such huge consequence, then our time period should be much more just 50 years. Over the last 200 years, there are periods over which average temperatures have gone up and there are other periods when the opposite has happened.  The way we measure temperatures aren’t also the best ways to go about it. Most measuring stations are near airports and almost all of them are in towns and therefore the likelihood of temperature readings being on the higher side is higher. And secondly measuring increase in sea levels anywhere close to accurately is almost impossible. Even if thinning of the ice poles is happening today, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that we are from any danger of it (except for low lying areas like the Maldives which is of course an area of concern).

Also carbon dioxide is not the primary contributor towards global warming. Gases like methane are. In fact, by a common measure methane is 25 times more potent as a contributor than the carbon dioxide released by cars. It is estimated that the planets ruminants are responsible for about 50% more greenhouse gas than the entire transportation sector today. There is also no concrete evidence that increased levels of carbon dioxide contributes to higher temperatures. In fact, increased carbon dioxide may actually be a good thing. In an experiment conducted, two identical saplings were grown in identical environments with only one difference. While one sapling was given the normal amount of carbon dioxide, the other sapling was given twice that amount. After a span of time it was observed the sapling that received higher levels of carbon dioxide had grown 183% of its counterpart!

Climate models on which the premise of the global warming argument rests upon are hopelessly inadequate. In fact the science is very complex and something as important as cloud formation has not been given enough importance. Therefore models today don’t hold a lot of ground.

A volcanic eruption at Mount Pinatubo released so much sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere that it actual led to global drops in temperature and even so, our planet can solve the problem via a few volcanic eruptions. If we don’t want to leave it to Mother Nature, then we can simulate some of this ourselves and this is called geo-engineering. Of course, today there is much controversy in this area (no country can unilaterally inject something into the atmosphere that may affect the climate in some other country) and there is a lot of consensus building that will need to be done.

We should be worried more about deforestation than global warming as this is a serious problem with very real and evident consequences. This causes extinction, real changes to climatic conditions (erosion, flooding & landslides), desertification and displacement of indigenous people. It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests that until 1947 covered the planet are now gone. Up to 90% of West Africa's coastal rainforests have been lost since 1900 and in South Asia about 88% of the rainforests have disappeared. Much of what remains of the world's rainforests is in the Amazon basin today and the Amazon Rainforest covers approximately 4 million square kilometers. However I will perhaps leave this topic for another blog.

I am not going to point fingers at anyone or any organization that most others hold responsible for fears on global warming. However, it is a good question to ask is
who profits from this the most? Who benefits most from carbon trading? Isn’t telling China and India to reduce carbon dioxide emissions putting a brake on their economies and overall growing global influence? Won’t taxation on carbon emission drive up our energy consumption bills? I am not going to answer any of these questions, but I would like to leave the reader with one last thought: there is a conspiracy theory going around today that the 4th world war is already being fought and it has to do with energy.  Currently, given that the dominant source of energy is oil and that is primarily found in the Middle East, much of the war is being waged there.  Of course, this is only but highly speculative and but possibly a worthwhile thought experiment.

Water Supply In India

One of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the UN has to do with ensuring environmental sustainability. When it comes to providing the public access to safe drinking water in India, estimates shows that about 70% of rural India have no access to safe drinking water. Water availability at Indian cities are pathetic as well and India's capital, Delhi only gets 3 hours of water supply on a daily basis (APAC averages are at 19 hours/day). In urban India, most of the water is lost due to wastages. Per a study by McKinsey and KPMG, water wastage in Bangalore and Delhi are at 50 % and 43 % of total. Mumbai and Chennai fare better at 20% but thats still a lot of water given the quantum of water supply to these cities. 

Wastage may have something to do with tariffs. Higher is the cost of my using water, the more careful I will be about not wasting it. Urban water tariffs are very affordable in India. In fact, water tariff that is based on metering doesn't even hold good in most parts as either most meters don't work or simply because meters haven't been installed. The average residential tariff is at about 1.5 Rupees per cubic meter and thats is only about 1/10th of operating & maintenance costs. There are also various challenges faced and political interests often prevent tariffs from being increased even by a small extent although users may be willing to pay more for better services. When its comes to rural areas, cost recovery is low and consequently a majority of the rural water systems are non-functional for lack of maintenance compounding to the water problem. 

Various efforts to improve water supply in India have been attempted ranging from community led sanitation projects to private companies & public private partnerships providing water supply. Community led efforts have to do with incorporating the knowledge & opinions of rural people in the planning and management of development projects and water programs. Villages that achieve this status receive monetary rewards and high publicity. However this is not a quick fix intervention and can be very slow, time and energy consuming. Breaking down social & caste barriers, building awareness & strengthening demand and addressing the sometimes messy local political & power inequities are all part of the game. 

Privatization definitely has its benefits as well: increased efficiency and better service quality are the most evident. Water supply in Jamshedpur is one of the few cities in India with continuous water supply. Its water system is operated by the private company that is a subsidiary of Tata Steel. However, not every private company operates in the spirit of the Tatas and a regulator may therefore be necessary. 

As per the Indian Constitution , water supply and sanitation is a state responsibility and therefore states are responsible for its funding and finances. States then pass on this  responsibility to municipalities in urban areas and the Panchayats in rural areas and all of the planning and decision making is extremely centralized. At an advisory capacity level, the responsibility is shared across various ministries. At the central level, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation is responsible for urban water supply whereas the Ministry of Rural Development is responsible for rural water. 

The lack of a central regulator may well be the biggest hurdle today. Even given that private companies may be given freedom to choose how much to charge for providing water, someone still has to monitor the amount of water drawn, the source of water & its replenishment and the quality of water provided.

Of Agriculture, Inflation and the Public Distribution System in India

GDP sector composition is broken up into 3 areas primarily: agriculture, industrial and service. Worldwide averages show a clear majority of services contribution to a country's output and then industrial comes second followed by agriculture. In fact, industrial output is the highest contributor only for China in the top 15 countries by GDP. As far as India is concerned, the breakup goes like this: 18% for agriculture, 20%  for industrial and 62% for services (by the way contribution from agriculture in US GDP is under 1% and India has the highest percentage contribution in the top 15 countries by GDP by a long way). So if agriculture contributes to only so much of India's GDP, then why it is so significant to India?

It is for many reasons. I will talk about only a few here. Firstly, over 50% of India’s population depends on agriculture for a living and therefore a good monsoon directly impacts all other sectors. India fared better than most nations globally in the recent global economic crisis because it depended lesser on exports and more on internal consumption & spending that was fueled by rural demand. Secondly, the country's population and spending power is growing much faster than its ability to produce food output and this is fueling the supply side inflation that most Indians are a victim of today.

Agricultural productivity in India is at very poor levels. Irrigation facilities are abysmal and the country is extremely dependent on a good monsoon. Hardly any modern techniques and practices are used anywhere and the fact that the average size of land holdings is very small makes it extremely expensive to employ modern agricultural technologies. Government policy is inconsistent and subsidized electric power is leading to over-pumping and drop in water table levels. Of course, a lot of progress has been made since freedom, but it has been extremely slow.  The Green Revolution (post 1965) ensured that widespread famine in India became history (though today it is blamed for land degradation).

The Indian government in its attempt to control inflation has banned export of certain commodity food items (though this can be discriminatory to farmers who could have got a better price outside the country). On the consumption side, the government fares terribly. There is a Public Distribution System(PDS) that  is meant to provide rationed amounts of basic food items and other non food products at below market prices to consumers through a network of Fair Price Shops all over the country. However, per a Planning Commission study, only about 42% of subsidized grains issued by the Central Pool reach the target group and the PDS is clearly almost ineffective. To put it simply despite the PDS, India accounts for over 400 million poor and hungry people. Also grains and food meant for the poor lie rotting in the India's storages and food release is rather poorly managed.

The actual poverty rate is India is under much debate. Government estimates put it under 30% percent. The Tendulkar committee report puts it at 37% and the World Bank put it around 42%. However, what is important here is that meaningfully perhaps the poor and the vulnerable section  is almost 60% of the Indian population.