Govindraj Ethiraj: Climate change agenda and India Inc

DOUBLE EDGE

It might sound a little strange that a chemical engineer running a polluting caustic soda plant would float the idea of an energy research institute whose objective would be "to tackle and deal with the acute problems on account of the gradual depletion of the earth's finite energy resources and the existing methods of their use which are polluting".

Tata Chemicals founder Darbari Seth, or for that matter JRD Tata, who backed the proposal, may not have imagined that a Nobel Prize would one day be shared by a panel whose head is R K Pachauri, the driving force behind the Tata Energy Research Institute (now called The Energy Research Institute). Particularly for furthering, as chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the very objective TERI was set up for three decades ago.

The IPCC and former US Vice-President Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize. Much is known of Gore; so a few words on the IPCC and its recent work to bring us up to speed. The panel is made up of 2,000 scientists and considered a global authority on climate change. In the last year alone, the IPCC has issued three "assessment" reports on climate change with a fourth on its way.

The first released in February held mankind responsible for rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The second, released in Brussels in April, said famine, floods and other ecological disasters would follow unless emissions were managed. The third, in May, focused on solutions, calling for investments in new, carbon-free resources.

This must sound alien to many, it did to me until I watched Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, six months ago. Most of it sounded like "someone else's problem" till I saw a reference to the Mumbai floods of 2005 being made in roughly the same breath as the melting snows of Mt Kilimanjaro. I haven't been to Mt Kilimanjaro but sure did get marooned by the unprecedented rains that crippled Mumbai for two days.

Some of Gore's claims (as of other environmentalists) have been dismissed as alarmist and lacking sufficient evidence "" for instance, that the melting snows of Mt Kilimanjaro bear no relation to greenhouse gases or that warming is independent of emissions. Maybe Mumbai's rains, the recent typhoon-triggered floods in China and unprecedented weather conditions the world over have nothing to do with climate change. But it is still difficult to imagine that a developing country like India ought to advocate a pollute-away approach to growth rather than not. Even if there is no impact on weather conditions, surely burning fossil fuels creates an impact on the air we breathe.

Without getting further into the debate on whether/or, let's focus on what we can do about it. A lot of it, unfortunately, must be legislated. Here are some suggestions.

1. Every utility setting up power plants in coming years must generate 20% or more of its power non-conventionally;

2. Energy conservation and the potentially harmful effects of global warming must be made an integral part of school textbooks with every school. Students should be awarded marks on collective or individual projects that have a demonstrable impact in their immediate environment.

3. Every company must have an environment policy. The Department of Company Affairs (I know it's not their job) could be the monitoring body to ensure a policy is filed. Firms should ideally file an energy consumption versus savings report along with their balance sheet.

4. Organisations must encourage energy-saving or alternative generating products "" mobile phone company Orange has supported an entrepreneur who has developed a mobile phone charger that is driven by a mini windmill!

And there are more, many already implemented. Stand atop a terrace in Bangalore city and you will see scores of independent homes with their own solar water heating panels. No one forced them to do it but they are. Several homes also use LPG gas cylinders to heat water. It's cheaper than electricity but arguably it is substituting for power generated by a coal-burning power plant.

The big challenge as I see it is to shift the onus, from only government to companies. The Orange example is a good one of an organisation selling a product and trying to innovate a cost-effective, alternative energy method of keeping it running. Of course, we would like someone to innovate a way to pay the bills as well!

Every industry can come up with solutions like these if it puts its mind to it. Indian car makers are fitting CNG and LPG cylinders at the factory itself after finding that most people do it later anyway. The reason is obviously cost "" gas costs much less than petrol or even diesel. But there are environment benefits as well. As any pedestrian in Delhi will testify.

The fact is that very few businessmen have focused on the problem of climate change. Except to fend off local environmentalists, or, on the odd occasion, the state government's often corrupt pollution control board. The multiplier effect of firms taking on this role is much greater. There is much more to be gained than potential tax breaks. And you don't have to be making caustic soda to make a difference.