What colours come to mind when you think of infrastructure? Possibly, the black of coal and roads, or the grey of power-plant smoke and ash, or the drab ochre of concrete. Green is possibly the farthest removed; yet that is the direction in which infrastructure development has to head.
How does infrastructure move to green? Three types of movements are possible:
One, move to less carbon-consuming production methods; for example switching from hydrocarbons to nuclear power;two, move to replace lost carbons, like afforestation; and three, move to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by better planning; for example, more mass transportation over personal vehicles.
The Indian experience and the way forward are comprehensively presented in 3-i Network’s India Infrastructure Report 2010 titled “Infrastructure Development in a Low Carbon Economy”.
In his lucidly presented introductory chapter, Partha Mukhopadhyay of the Centre for Policy Research sensitises us to the consequences of the choices we make today in infrastructure that lock us in to a particular carbon-growth path. He argues that the US choice of a low-density road-centric urban form is partly the reason its transport sector emissions are almost three times as much as the UK and France. Similarly, because France meets around three-fourths of its electricity needs from nuclear energy, it emits less carbon per capita than the UK.
The maximum impact of “green” strategies can be seen in three sectors – urban, transportation and energy.
In urban planning, Dinesh Mohan of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, points out that “a great deal of discussion in recent years is around policies that will help us reduce personal transport use”. The most common solutions proposed are: (i) high-density cities with a very dense core; (ii) land-use planning promoting mixed use; (iii) short-trip distances; and (iv) transit-oriented development.
Urban strategist Sanjeev Sanyal concurs that “density” must be a critical part of sustainable urban planning. He points out that the implications of this line of thinking can be counter-intuitive. For instance, it suggests that the crowded bazaars of Mumbai are more environmentally sustainable than the green lawns of Lutyen’s Delhi. So what should we do, he asks? First, we need to give up creating flat urban sprawls based on outdated ideas about American suburbia. Second, public transport must be built into the urban design. Finally, it is no longer meaningful to design for separate “zones” for commercial and residential activity. Successful cities are an evolving mix of all kinds of activity and we need to allow for this.
On transportation modes, Kaushik Ranjan Bandyopadhyay of the Asian Institute of Transport Development makes out a strong case for policy interventions in India to shift from road to rail. The pi-chart shows the “transport carbon-dioxide” emissions across different modes of transport:
Road transport is the largest contributor to emissions. Unfortunately for India, road transport has emerged as the dominant segment and the share of the railways is shrinking. The share of inland water transport and coastal shipping is insignificant.
The railways are a relatively benign mode of transport compared to road transport when considered in terms of energy intensity and emission. The Asian Institute of Transport Development (AITD) conducted a comparative assessment of rail and road transport in India from perspectives of social and environmental sustainability. The study observed that the energy consumption on different inter-city rail sections in the case of freight traffic varied between 10.28 and 25.01 per cent of the energy consumed by road transport in parallel stretches of state and national highways. In the case of passenger transport, the energy consumption on rail varies between 78.77 and 94.91 per cent of the energy consumed by road transport.
There is an expectation that the high-powered Committee on Transportation chaired by Dr Rakesh Mohan will attempt to swing trunk movements back to rail through focused policy initiatives.
According to the US Department of Energy, between 2001 and 2025, India’s carbon emissions will grow by 3 per cent annually, twice the predicted emissions growth in the US, making India the third- largest air polluter after the US and China by 2015 itself. If India is to avoid this dubious distinction then a conscious decision must be taken to switch to more environmentally sustainable energy technologies. Manpreet Sethi in her treatise on “The Nuclear Energy Imperative” makes a strong case for nuclear as a long-term, sustainable and “green” choice for India.
India currently draws the bulk of its electricity from thermal sources and 55 per cent is met by coal. Hydro power comes a distant second at about 25 per cent, and then renewable sources provide another small share of the electricity at about 15 per cent. Nuclear reactors provide only 3 per cent of the total electricity generation.
The problems with coal-dependence are well documented. India is also the seventh-largest net importer of oil in the world and depends on imports for 68 per cent of its oil consumption. The third source of thermal power generation is natural gas. Given the limited domestic availability of natural gas vis-a-vis demand, it will have to be sourced from outside through elaborate and long-distance pipelines and LNG shipments.
Efforts to harness viable renewable energy resources continue to increase its share from sources such as wind, biomass and solar. However, none of these has presented itself as being suitable, intrinsically or economically, for large-scale power generation where continuous, reliable power supply is needed and can only complement the addition of new generation capacities.
At a Planning Commission meeting chaired by the prime minister on April 22, 2011 to give shape to the 12th Plan, Jairam Ramesh set the cat among the policy-cum-growth pigeons. His view was that the plan panel’s ambitious goal to add 100,000 Mw to India’s power generation capacity during the 12th Plan period (2012-17) was “ecologically impossible”, considering that 90 per cent of the proposed target was coal-based. Not only would this lead to a large increase in greenhouse gases but also involve extensive mining over vast areas of forest and tribal land. Never in the recent past has the “growth-versus-sustainability” debate been as sharp.
Clearly, the requirement is to fast-track civilian nuclear expansion while maintaining the highest standards of nuclear safety and security. Here our prime minister has certainly got it right!
The writer is the chairman of Feedback Ventures. The views expressed are personal
