HT Changes Tack, Gets Bold On Global Warming

A day after I criticised Hindustan Times' glaring omission of Al Gore's speech on climate change, the paper carries a bold feature on global warming as if trying to compensate. But is it really informed by climate science?


Hindustan Times ran this extraordinarily bold full page feature in today's paper

I made the entry on HT's censorship of Gore's speech on Sunday evening. It was published at four places online and was sent to a bunch of prominent personalities -- Dr. R. K Pachauri, Sunita Narain, Bittu Sehgal, Malini Mehra, Barkha Dutt -- as well as HT editor Vir Sanghvi and three HT correspondents.

Today (Tuesday), the paper carried a bold story on global warming.

It's hard to say that this was in response to my write up but it does seem likely.

• For one, the full-page feature is very loud and bold (see larger version of the above image) with a massive headline and a huge graphic disproportionate to the small content the story carried.
  
  
• Second, such an aggressively promoted feature on global warming has not come out in HT since last year when the IPCC report came out and Indian print media woke up to this issue.
  
  
• Most important indication is that this is relatively a much smaller story. It was released by the BBC two days ago and Google News has hardly 20-30 mentions of it, none of which are from outside UK. Compare that with 1000+ mentions of the Gore story from all across the world that HT did not publish.

It's as if they were trying to compensate!

A Hundred Months to Act? Not On Earth!

The original BBC story is available here. It's based on a report by a little known British think-tank called New Economics Foundation. My take is that it will be foolish to presume we have 100 months to act. IPCC itself has said, even if we start making serious reductions by 2015 (about 77 months away) we may still reach 2.4 deg C of temperature rise.

Nasa's top climate scientist James Hansen in his landmark testimony to the US congress last month (which was also not covered by HT) said: "the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than 2C is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation." So you can imagine 2.4C would be a calamity.

We do not have time. This is why Gore's challenge is so significant. It calls for radical reductions right away. But it needs your support.

"I have seen first hand how important it is to have a base of support out in the country for the truly bold changes that have to be made now. That is why I'm devoting my life to bring about a sea change in public opinion that supports the truly massive changes."

- Al Gore at a blogger convention on July 19, 2008.

Hindustan Times' censorship of Al Gore's challenge continued into its fifth day today.

Notes

This entry was also made on, Whats With The Climate blog, emailed to IYCN & Green-India discussion lists and copied to the following:

Vir Sanghvi, Editorial Director Hindustan Times
HT correspondents: Kinjal Dagli, Shalini Singh and Chetan Chauhan
Barkha Dutt, Group Editor, English News, NDTV
Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, Director-General TERI
Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment
Bittu Sehgal, Editor, Sanctuary Magazine
Malini Mehra, Founder & Chief Executive, Centre for Social Markets

Hindustan Times On Gore's Speech: "It Didn't Happen"

The leading national daily keeps the Indian public in the dark about Gore's historic energy challenge by refusing to make any mention of it.

Despite Al Gore's Rock Star status, certain media organisations seem to have a thing or two against him. In the U.S. they have Fox News and in India it looks like Hindustan Times is keen to take on that role.

When Gore spoke in Washington on Thursday on the challenge to abandon fossil fuels, New York Times reported that the plan goes beyond even the most audacious ones. Bill McKibbon, journalist and climate activist went a step further when he said Gore deserved "the prize you get once you've won the Nobel." Nasa's leading climate scientist James Hansen called it "the turning point that is needed."

So how did Fox News report the challenge? Fox's reporting focused not on Gore's call but his personal emissions. Its reporter stood outside the Gore event and counted the number of minutes Gore's driver left the car on idle with the AC on to keep it cool when Gore and wife Tipper returned (it ran on idle for an earth destroying 20 minutes! The horror!).

Editors at Hindustan Times went a step further by pretending that Gore never spoke.


What Does HT Have Against Informed Public Opinion On Climate Change in India?

This isn't the first time Hindustan Times has negatively influenced the Indian public on climate change front. I consider deliberate omission of an important global event from its reporting as a negative influence. There are many many examples of omission on this front in the past. But there are also examples of deliberate negative influence. In early April, HT ran two ridiculous stories challenging man made global warming and discrediting the IPCC.

I exposed those stories on my blog and am currently suing the paper in the Press Council of India for publishing them. Its editor and correspondent have been served notices and I can't wait for the proceedings to begin. Have collected a wealth of evidence to share.

But let's give them some benefit of doubt and see if this omission was really intentional or caused by some other reason. Maybe it was too late for Friday's paper. Maybe they didn't have enough space. Maybe it wasn't relevant for Indian readers. Let's look at each of these reasoning.

"It was too late for Friday's paper"

Gore's speech began at 9.30 pm Indian time on Thursday and ended just before 10.00 pm. Okay that could have been a little close to their cut off time. But earlier in the day, around 5.30 pm Associated Press (AP) had released an interview with Gore previewing the speech. So there was plenty of time for the paper to run a story on Friday.

I was lucky enough to get hands on the AP story just as it was out and wrote about it around 6.00 pm. I found my hands on the actual transcript of the speech around 10, before Gore had finished delivering it in Washington. But by 9.00 pm itself, there were lots of media reports on Google News referencing the AP release. In fact, rival Times of India even published the AP story on Friday and mentioned it on the front page header too. So why did the Hindustan Times ignore it altogether?

Even if one accepts it was too late for Friday's paper, there can't be a reasonable explanation of its omission on Saturday as well, apart from it being intentional. TOI ran an editorial on it on Saturday. A full day after the speech was out when papers around the world were writing about it (1000+ mentions on Google News by now), India's leading newspaper pretends it didn't happen.

"They didn't have enough space"

A story as important as this deserves to create its own space pushing aside other less important ones. But perhaps there were other reports even more important that needed to be mentioned. Alright, lets see what else HT ran in the World section that day.

World section, page 19 | Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Saturday, July 19, 2008

Main page

Happy Birthday, Mandela
India, China drive up Christie's sales
Osama's driver to be tried for war crimes
European terrorists trying to enter US
Ahead of Games, sex shops shut down
Pak terror groups getting bolder: US
Progress on Saarc varsity to be reviewed
Young's self-published 'The Shack' a hit

Sidebar

Nature's fury: typhoon kills 7 in Taiwan
Obama raises $52m in a month for campaign
Iran expects positive US presence at N-talks
Sex trade up in Oz during Pope's visit
Female suicide bomber held in Afganistan
Libyan sent to jail for lying about Afgan visit

Header

Emmy nominations
Python spins out of washing machine

World section, page 20

Desperate Housewives to end in three years
Want free gas? Name baby after radio station

I can't see any of these stories being more important than Gore's challenge which, if pursued, could fix the US economy, end their national security threat and most importantly lead the world into addressing the climate crisis

"It wasn't relevant for Indian readers"

Looking at above stories, it's clear that wasn't the case. Climate change is a problem that will hit India severely. U.S and India share similar challenges in terms of moving from fossil fuels to clean energy sources.

The same is true for China and other Asian countries as well. So I looked up Chinese and Pakistani news publications to see whether they covered this issue. Turns out they did.

South China Morning Post, China:
Gore's is a cry the whole world should heed

Xinhua News Agency, China:
Gore proposes carbon-free electricity production by 2018

UDN, Taiwan (translation):
高爾號召：10年內棄用石油 (source)

The News, Pakistan:
Al-Gore urges US to generate power with clean fuel

Clearly, there are some vested interests at work to ensure that public opinion in India remains uninformed or misinformed about climate change. The effort seems to be working. For example, most people in urban India, even those who consider themselves "environment friendly" do not grasp climate change mitigation potential of their actions or how far their actions go to address climate change, in other words.

Today's (Sunday's) paper, for example, contains a full-page feature titled "Green brigade: Even five-year-olds are doing their bit to counter the dangers of global warming." The stories in this feature are commendable and probably inspiring to some but are largely uninformed about what causes global warming and what kind of actions can address this issue.

Only one of the several examples mentioned in the three stories have something directly to do with lowering energy consumption. Others are about minimising waste generation, saving water, tree plantation, ozone depletion, air pollution, unemployment, recycling and cultural education.

All of these are most welcome and do lower CO2 emissions but only indirectly. They certainly cannot be clubbed together under the title of "examples that counter the dangers of global warming." Even if every kid in India did all of that (and they should!), we'd still be nowhere close to addressing global warming as long as we kept burning fossil fuels. Apparently, even seasoned reporters can't differentiate between good environmental practices and those that mitigate climate change.

I'd rather see real climate change news in the papers. Al Gore's energy challenge is likely to be a historic event in the fight against this issue as I wrote previously. I'd like some answers as to why Hindustan Times kept its readers in dark about it.

Notes

This entry was also made on Whats With The Climate blog, emailed to IYCN & Green-India discussion lists and copied to the following:

Vir Sanghvi, Editorial Director Hindustan Times
HT correspondents: Kinjal Dagli, Shalini Singh and Chetan Chauhan
Barkha Dutt, Group Editor, English News, NDTV
Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, Director-General TERI
Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment
Bittu Sehgal, Editor, Sanctuary Magazine
Malini Mehra, Founder & Chief Executive, Centre for Social Markets

History in The Making: Gore's Challenge Will Transform The Political Landscape

Why Gore's "Generational Challenge to Repower America" changes everything.

Rock Star Al Gore (formerly a politician but now rivaling a rock star in his popularity), pulled a great performance in Washington DC this week when he got on to the stage and sang "Gimme 100% baby."

If you don't know what I'm talking about, Al Gore delivered a landmark speech on Thursday in which he proposed an audacious target of generating 100% U.S. electricity from renewable energy resources by 2018.

Having been frustrated for years over lack of vision on this issue from all of our leaders, the news had an electrifying effect.

Prior to Gore, no one has had the courage to propose such a humongous target. Not the biggest environmentalists, not the doomsday scientists, no journalist, no engineer. The closest someone has come is Lester Brown. In his book Plan B 3.0 he argues for a complete switch to renewables (largely wind power) and an eventual 80% reduction in emissions by 2020.

But even Lester Brown acknowledges that his plan is guided not by political feasibility but the necessity of such a target. Gore's plan on the other hand is unapologetically bold. He argues that not only is it feasible, it's also attractive as it will create employment and will pay for itself several times over. Besides, Gore's target betters Brown's by two years. Every other plan or proposal talks about 2030 or 2050 targets. Even an organisation as radical as the Greenpeace wouldn't have thought of proposing anything as audacious as this.

This is leadership.

Exactly What's Needed

And this is exactly the kind of leadership we need. Every few days a new report or evidence appears raising alarm about the extent of changes to our climate while our politicians are busy sleeping or playing the blame game. When we do hear of solutions and plans, they are piecemeal solutions, half measures and plans that are guided by outdated science.

Not A Technological Challenge

Some reports are calling Gore's plan unrealistic or outright crazy arguing that it's impossible. Well, perhaps they should meet executives of Ausra, the Australian company now based in U.S which is building Gigawatt scale solar thermal plants using a new technology that's cheaper than 2020 cost projections of the current one. Or maybe it's T Boone Pickens they should be meeting who's investing a billion dollars to install world's largest wind farm in Texas.

Perhaps they should pay a visit to Greg Watson of Green and Gold Energy who's installing hundreds of MW of concentrator photovoltaic solar farms around the world that produce energy at three times the efficiency of traditional solar panels and at less than 40% of the cost. Or maybe they need to learn about Blue Energy which has orders worth thousands of MW of their tidal energy turbine platform for the oceans that also works as a bridge.

Gore did not create this target out of thin air. As he said in the speech, he met with engineers, scientists, and CEOs and had consultations over "solutions summits". One such expert was Paul Gipe whom Gore met in January this year. When asked about Gore's target, he said, "Ten years is certainly an aggressive target, but many experts [including himself] who consulted with Gore have said that it is achievable."

As someone who has been tracking emerging renewable energy solutions around the world, I came to conclude some time back that this is NOT a technological problem. We have all the technology today to take this issue head on. What we lack is the political courage. And this is what Gore has attempted to infuse in the leadership by setting up what others are calling an impossible target.

Great Timing

Before Gore gave the speech, fellow Democrats were complaining that it was poorly timed. They thought the party would be seen as "caring more about polar bears than Americans who have had to pay record prices for gasoline." Actually, there couldn't have been a better timing for Gore's challenge.

As Gore said in his speech, rising price of fossil fuels have made renewables more attractive than ever before. Those of us who care more about the environment than the economy have been watching rising energy prices with much glee. Each Dollar per barrel of oil price rise translates directly into reduced consumption of oil and reduced consumption of everything else that gets expensive.

At the same time it also makes renewable cost competitive as the gap between their prices narrows down. So this is absolutely the right time to make the transition to clean energy. As price of oil gets higher -- it's projected to be $200/barrel before the end of this year -- things will only get better.

Transformation of Political Landscape

I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that one or both presidential candidates will either announce that they're accepting Gore's challenge or will be forced to announce it.

Here's how I think things will go: Gore will give Obama and McCain time to announce the acceptance. If after a certain period, they don't, he's going to call out to the public to put pressure on them to do so. Either way, they will have to take on Gore's challenge now or when the oil crisis worsens.

Moreover, each candidate will try to out do the other in being first to make the announcements. I'm certain as I write, they are holding their own consultations with energy experts and are closely watching how people react to Gore's call. One thing is clear though, the public is on Gore's side.

According to an online poll that's currently running on San Francisco Chronicle website, close to 70% people believe the goal of carbon-free electricity is achievable with only 15% doubting it (live results on left). The increasing public support for the plan will mount enormous pressure on the candidates to accept the plan even though they very well understand that implementing it will require nothing short of another industrial revolution.

If the next president accepts Gore's challenge -- and if you ask me, that's close to a certainty -- then climate politics will be altered forever. This is going to set the agenda at G8 and it's is going to inspire UNFCCC to take bold decisions. As has always been the case in recent history, the world will follow the United States.

With a progressive U.S. stance, other nations, particularly the developing world will no longer be able to blame the West. So there's little chance the West will permit these countries to continue doubling or quadrupling their emissions every few decades. In other words, Gore's challenge changes everything.

Planned Strategy

It's obvious that Gore had planned this move a long time ago. It seems to be part of the deliberate strategy in which he refused to enter the presidential race earlier this year despite being pressured from all quarters and enjoying huge public support. Gore has played his trump card at a time when he has endorsed Obama and the latter has openly stated that he will consult Gore on the climate challenge. Now it will be extremely difficult for Obama to ignore Gore's call.

Turning Point

The challenge to generate all of U.S. electricity from clean energy sources by 2018 will give a huge boost to environmentalists and others around the world fighting for big reductions. As I wrote above, this will lead to increasing pressure on nations around the world and might well prove to be a turning point in our fight to combat climate change.

If the applause he received during his speech and the number of news headlines on the topic are any indication, Gore's new number appears to be an instant hit. Now it remains to be seen how it does on the charts. I can't seem to get it out of my head.

Words of Caution

A few words of caution lest anyone should complain of the overly optimistic future gazing above. Admittedly, this is only a speech although it's the very first time that we have someone calling for a bold and visionary response on this issue commensurate with the challenge. The speech has not been endorsed yet by either of the presidential nominees.

If the United States alone meets the challenge ten year later, that does not mean climate change would suddenly end. The developing countries need to move to clean energy as well. Besides, there is still warming already in the pipeline that will continue to worsen climate change for some time.

Another point to remember is that tomorrow if oil drops to $100 a barrel or below it might delay, if not threaten, implementation of Gore's plan. History of past oil crises show that as soon as oil gets cheaper people forget about conservation and alternatives.

This entry was also made on IYCN blog What's With The Climate.

Update 21-Jul: Some news reports are saying that Obama has accepted Gore's challenge. While both McCain and Obama have released statements welcoming the challenge, with Obama embracing it more wholeheartedly, it would not be entirely correct to say that either of them have accepted it.

It is not until they really commit to take it on with an explicit change in their previously stated energy policies, that it would be called an acceptance. John McCain's website does not even mention Gore's challenge (at least not under media releases) while Obama's site still states that he's looking at 80% emission reductions by 2050 and to "invest $150 Billion over 10 years in clean energy."

In other words, Obama has committed to investing 15 billion every year for ten years. This is way off Al Gore's plan which calls for investing several times that sum. Gore has said it will cost $1.5-$3 trillion over 30 years or an investment of $50-$100 billion every year.

Reviewing National Action Plan on Climate Change - Index

A series of writings that review the National Action Plan on Climate Change.

The country's most important policy document that will determine how it deals with climate change is here. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) released by Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh a little over two weeks ago is a historic document as it purports to address a challenge that is grappling humanity.

In a series of posts over the next few weeks, I will attempt an in-depth step by step analysis of the NAPCC, covering all its contents: principles and approach, each of the eight missions individually, their implementation, as well as areas that are conspicuously absent from the policy.

In my first entry, I will talk about the history of the plan, its scope & implications and how it was was received in the country and internationally. I will be publishing this over the weekend and will continually update this post with links to subsequent parts.

This entry was also made on the blog of Indian Youth Climate Network.

BBC Interviews Me (sort of)

Akash Soni from BBC Hindi World News Service, UK called in yesterday to interview me for a ten minute special edition radio programme on climate change.

I wasn't the only one interviewed though. Others featured in the programme include chief executive of Centre for Social Markets, Ms. Malini Mehra and IPCC Chairman R.K. Pachauri.

I think I spoke to them for 20-25 minutes. Out of this, a generous two and a half minute clip made it on air! I can be first heard at around 35 sec into it and then at about 6 min 30 sec. Click the play button below to listen or download the mp3 file.



PS: During the conversation, I also told them about the SunCube solar power device developed by Green and Gold Energy in Australia and their Indian licensee, Square Engineering. They ran a snippet on it right after the climate change programme. Though I don't know where they got the details about output and price.

PPS: According to an independent estimate, around 25 million people in India listen to BBC Hindi Service!

India's Climate Change Action Plan Summary

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just unveiled the long-awaited National Action Plan on Climate Change. I've split the first 5 sections from the long document that summarise the policy and put it up on my server. You can download it here [10 pages, 2 MB].

The five sections contain: Overview, Principles, Approach, Way Forward: Eight National Missions and Implementation of Missions: Institutional Arrangements.

The complete policy including section #6: Technical Document, which is over 40 page long, is available on PMO website (a large 16 MB PDF with 52 pages).

I haven't studied it yet but my first impression is that although the initiatives listed are welcome, but...

• without any firm commitment towards a target of emission reductions,
  
• without setting up any time-frame to achieve those reductions and
  
• without a commitment to phase out new energy generation from fossil fuels and their subsidies...

it is unlikely to make a significant short term or long-term impact into India's fast growing carbon emissions.

A longer, more detailed analysis including an official response from my organisation (CSM) will follow in coming days.

UPDATE 3-Jul: 'Climate Challenge India' coalition formed by CSM just released an interim assessment (PDF) I had the privilege to be one of the contributors to this report.

It's called *Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax* and It's a Good Thing!

Not "Tax and Dividend." And certainly not "Cap and Dividend."

This is getting ridiculous. On an popular blog ('It's Getting Hot in Here') someone named Alisha Fowler, who, by her own admission, doesn't understand one bit of economics, is lashing out at James Hansen for supposedly suggesting a "Cap and Dividend" scheme to reign in CO2 emissions.

Only problem is, Hansen made no such proposal.

Hansen did not propose "Cap and Dividend", the term he used was "Tax and Dividend" something entirely different. I suggest Fowler looks up Hansen's testimony again. What Hansen has proposed is actually more commonly known as a revenue neutral carbon tax. This what it should be called. I don't know who re-invented this term but calling it "tax and dividend" is evidently a very bad idea as people confuse it with "cap and dividend".

---

To understand Carbon Tax visit Carbon Tax Center (CTC), an excellent resource on the topic.

---

Carbon Tax refers to a stipulated amount (such as a starter tax of $37 / ton) of tax applied to carbon content in fuels. Applied at the top most level of fossil fuel chain, i.e., - at the point they are extracted from earth. At the retail level, the starter tax would translate into about 10 cents/gallon of gasoline.

Revenue neutral because the collected amount is returned to the public. This is how it'll work, according to Carbon Tax Center:

Each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO₂ into the atmosphere.

How would Carbon Tax reduce emissions? The same way high gasoline prices are doing that - by reducing consumption and generating investment into alternatives. That said, it would be foolish to depend upon oil prices because they tend to fluctuate depending on a number of factors. Carbon tax on the other hand will grow by a predictable amount year after year, as CTC proposes. The $37/ton tax would become $74/ton the second year, $111 the third and so on until it reaches $370 by the tenth year.

It is simple economics that a high and constantly increasing price of energy would create incentives for conservation and efficiency. Industries would go all out to reduce their consumption and pursue alternatives. Money would begin pouring in to find cheaper sources of energy. It's a market driven mechanism and not one that relies on the governments or politics.

A carbon tax has nothing to do with a cap and trade. A large number of people have shown that cap and trade doesn't work. But don't confuse it with carbon tax. There is no cap applied anywhere and no emission credits traded with anyone. Cap and trade schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism, are very complex, highly susceptible to corruption, take years to implement and have failed miserably in the past as a BBC investigation recently exposed.

Carbon tax on the other hand is a transparent way of putting a price on carbon. It has been applied very successfully in Sweden and elsewhere as well. It's no surprise therefore that so many economists and other eminent people support a carbon tax. In his book, Plan B 3.0, renowned environmentalist Lester Brown calls it an exciting new option.

I briefly met Mr. Brown couple of weeks ago when he visited India to launch his book and deliver a talk. I've been a big believer in Carbon Taxation for a long time so it was great to see him endorse it. I asked him about the support that Cap and Trade traditionally gets versus Carbon Tax which is much less understood by the general public. He responded that almost all economists of the world agree beyond doubt that carbon tax can be a very effective solution in reducing emissions.

When I pointed out that Nick Stern isn't a proponent, his response was that Nick was a supporter earlier but more recently he's changed his position perhaps in view of the political opposition that any taxation scheme receives.

Some of the prominent economists that support carbon tax include Paul Volcker, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; Lawrence Summers, former president, Harvard University; Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute.

Al Gore is another longtime supporter of carbon taxation and in fact he even tried to introduce a version of it during the Clinton administration.

I think the blogosphere is full of far too many people talking authoritatively on issues related to climate change when in fact they have no clue what they're talking about. This is a classic example. The blog where this was posted - It's getting hot in here - is a popular team blog so it's all the more surprising that Fowler wasn't led to the corner and politely told that she's a little off in her evaluation. A day after the post, it still stands without a correction or an update.

For further evidence, check out comments to Alisha Fowler's post. Commentor after commentor goes on and on about why she's wrong and why "cap and dividend" "as proposed by Hansen" is a great idea! None of them have any idea that what Hansen proposed was quite different from what they're talking about.

More Cluelessness Courtesy The Breakthrough Blog

Fowler has cross posted her entry on The Breakthrough Blog where even more cluelessness prevails. Her colleague, Teryn Norris has another post on similar lines vehemently attacking Hansen titled "Is James Hansen Undermining his Credibility." In which he says: "Dr. Hansen declared he would fight against any agenda other than cap-and-dividend." Really Teryn? Did he say that?

Climate Change Solutions: Delhi Youth Summit Presentation

I just attended the Delhi Youth Summit on Climate organised by the enterprising folks at Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) who put this event together in three weeks!

I made a presentation on Countering the Challenge: Youth and the role of media in social and political transformation. I talked about the challenge from climate change (its severity, scale and the speed of changes needed), causes of this challenge and how we should counter it.

What I hoped to achieve through the presentation is instill a sense of urgency about the problem and show a path towards solutions. I proposed that a widespread and comprehensive media campaign targeted both at the society and the leadership can bring about the required changes in our attitudes and policies so that we can begin to tackle this problem.

The underlying argument is that personal lifestyle changes although important will not bring about the change needed and that it can be meaningfully addressed only through policy changes. I also argue that technology is not holding us back, rather it's lack of social awareness (about severity, scale and speed) and lack of political will. I've tried to show how we can change this with the help of media.

The presentation contains some video clips so it's quite large. There are two ways to download.

Download presentation & videos separately and add videos to it later.
Presentation (876 kb zipped)
Videos (32 mb zipped). Also on YouTube.

Get entire presentation including the videos.
Available here (36.4 mb zipped).
This method is not recommended but still provided for those who don't have time and have the bandwidth.

It's a little crude in its present state (I put it together the night before presenting it). But the message is important and I hope it gets through. I will continue to work on it to refine and make it more compelling. Will update this post as and when I do.

You are free to use this in any way you wish (as long as you don't call it your own!). If you use the material without changing the intended message, please attribute the source and provide links (you'll find them on the last page). If you want any help in presenting it, feel free to email

Our Inefficient Cars & The Poulsen Hybrid Solution

You may be surprised to learn how inefficient that shiny new car is that you drive to work everyday. Thankfully, there's a solution in sight.

I think a lot about cars and urban transport. I honestly believe that cars are unsustainable for a large number of reasons and that we must give them up in favor of walking, using the bicycle, two wheelers and public transport. In my personal life, I've taken the first step towards that by placing a moratorium on single and dual passenger car travel - will only take out the car when there are three or more people traveling (more on that later).

One of the reasons cars are unsustainable is their horrible inefficiency. I've mentioned this before but here's what Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute has to say:

I've been thinking in background for 20 years about the physics of cars and why are they so inefficient that you know, your car's using a 100 times its weight in ancient plants everyday and yet only 0.3% of that energy ends up moving the driver. This didn't seem very good.

Of all the fuel energy you put into the car, 87% (seven eighths of it) never gets to the wheel. It's lost first in the engine, driveline, idling and accessories.

Of the 1/8^th of fuel energy that does reach the wheels, half of that either heats the air that the car pushes aside or heats the tires and roads. Only the last 6% of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car and then heats the brakes when you stop.

- Amory Lovins in Car of the Future

Not everyone is as inspired to give up their cars -- most people actually love theirs -- so we must live with them for some time. The only alternative then is to produce more efficient cars. But the auto industry has refused to budge so far, you say. Soooo... you get the independent auto makers to produce efficient cars. But how do you do that? It's not as simple as producing water bottles, you know. Well, give them an incentive. Announce a $10 million prize for a car that is over 3 times as efficient and sells in large numbers.

This is precisely what Auto X-Prize is all about.

I've been following Auto X-Prize development for almost two years. I think it's a great initiative though I feel they should have aimed higher -- 300 MPG instead of 100 (today's cars average about 29 MPG in US). We need to make a big leap to make up for the inefficiencies of the past century. Nevertheless, it's an exciting venture and I can't wait to find out who among the 64 contenders wins the X-Prize and what it does to the industry.

Popular Mechanics magazine just announced a list of the top 10 contenders according to them. They're all good but the one that has the greatest likelihood, in my opinion, isn't on anyone's radar. It doesn't feature in the list and it's never been mentioned on AutoBlogGreen or TreeHugger, two popular blogs covering green cars and low-impact living. Both of them have dozens of posts on other X-prize contenders.

The Solution

I'm talking about Poulsen Hybrid. A product of a European US company* called Alpha-Core, it's essentially a couple of rear wheel hub motors which can be installed in any conventional car to convert it into a plug-in hybrid, increasing its mileage significantly. So you get 2 hub motors, two controllers along with batteries and a charger which go in the trunk -- all for $3300. Give it a couple of hours and you car's now a plug-in electric hybrid!

(* Founder, Ulrik Poulsen has an unmistakable Scandinavian accent so I assumed it's a European firm but Alpha-Core website says they're based in Connecticut, US.)



I think it's an absolutely brilliant concept. Totally inexpensive, efficient, simple and it doesn't even mean getting a new car. If it works as promised, it should sell in huge numbers - many times more than any of the fancy cars in Popular Mechanics list. Converting an existing internal combustion engine car into a plug-in electric to get mileage in the range of 100 MPG without any substantial mechanical changes to the car and at such low cost is an unbeatable proposition.

More reasons why I like the Alpha-Core/ Poulsen Hybrid solution:

Retrofitting existing cars to make them more efficient is the most effective and sustainable way of tackling auto emissions. There are well over 600 million cars in the world. Any new new alternative automotive solution will take several decades to become mainstream provided it is cost effective and is available worldwide. While we need new technologies, the greatest impact will come from a technology that can improve the existing one running inside each of those 600 million cars.

Alpha-core has been in the manufacturing business since 1982. So unlike most other X-Prize contenders, it's not a startup - it doesn't need any funding to get going.

The product is ready for launch. There's no long development cycle in between by the end of which most companies discover their technology isn't yet ready or that it has a fatal flaw. In an audio interview, founder Ulrik Poulsen says it's expected to be available by June 2008. That's next month!

Go Poulsen Hybrid!


UPDATE 7-May-08: AutoblogGreen makes amend, writes about Poulsen Hybrid. Links to this post. Most people commenting are overwhelmingly positive about this.

Climate Change in Media: HT Reaches New Low

Two recent articles in Hindustan Times challenging human induced climate change raise questions about credibility of its reporting and integrity of its correspondent. It also raises a question for serious environmentalists on how to respond to such reports. (view updates)

Two days ago (Apr 1, 2008) Hindustan Times carried an article titled Climate change not as big a problem: report. Lest anyone should think it as an April Fool's joke, it was a completely serious piece based on real events. Today (Apr 3, 2008), the same correspondent published a report titled: 'Sun too causes global warming.'

Both articles are highly misleading, contain factual inaccuracies and at the very least deliberately hide widely known facts that counter its argument to paint a biased picture. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to highlight the key issues raised by each of the stories.

Climate change not as big a problem: report [1]
by Chetan Chauhan | Page 14, HT New Delhi, Apr 1, 2008 | 353 words

Opening excerpt:

An international civil society report has debunked the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying there is no evidence available to show loss of human life directly due to climate change.

The report of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change [CSCCC], to be released in India on Tuesday, says there is no evidence to suggest climate change has caused an increase in diseases.

Highly Misleading

By pitting CSCCC [2] directly against IPCC [3], the article creates the impression that both organisations are of similar stature. Nothing could be further from the truth. IPCC is a Noble prize winning United Nations body made up of hundreds of scientists and governmental representatives while CSCCC is merely a coalition of so-called global "think tanks" - corporate lobbyists funded by big oil corporations, the likes of ExxonMobil, to further their interests.

The HT article makes no mention of the background of CSCCC - who comprises the coalition and how are they funded. Unlike IPCC, which was formed two decades ago, CSCCC was only organised a little more than an year back [4] by International Policy Network (IPN) which is a well known recipient of Exxon funding. IPN has received $390,000 from Exxon [5]. Several other members of the coalition have also been a beneficiary.

Paul Reiter, the expert cited in the article, for example, sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" [6] of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre." What is Annapolis Centre? It's a US based "think tank" [7] that has pocketed $793,575 from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming.

Reiter doesn't have anything too substantiative in his research papers [8] published in scientific peer reviewed journals to back his claims of lack of relationship between disease and climate change. It's unclear how many other claims of CSCCC report are backed by research in peer reviewed journals.

Yet, here's a newspaper that reaches out to a country of one billion, publishing unsubstantiated "research" of corporate lobbyists that have a direct financial interest in sensationalising their so-called findings; and pits them against a neutral, highly conservative group of scientists and government representatives whose work is completely based on pure scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals.

'Sun too causes global warming' [9]
by Chetan Chauhan | Page 17, HT New Delhi, Apr 3, 2008 | 327 words

Opening excerpt:

FRESH RESEARCH by Danish Space Research Centre can possibly give a new twist to the controversy whether Green House Gas emissions is the major contributor for global warming. The Center's research based on climate date [sic] of 150 years shows that varying activity of the Sun is the most systematic contributor to natural climate variations.

Completely Inaccurate

The article falsely states that new research claiming sun as the cause of global warming has now emerged and that it may alter the widely held belief in man-made global warming. Global warming skeptics have been arguing sun as the cause for several decades. In fact Danish Space Research Centre's (DNSC) Galactic Cosmic Ray theory itself is over 11 years old. [10] So it's absolutely false to imply that this is a new discovery that somehow challenges man made global warming.

Not only is it old research, it has also been debunked several times (see here, here, here, here and here). In July last year the prestigious Royal Society of UK published a study concluding that the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. [11] To quote BBC News on it: Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant [Galactic Cosmic Ray] hypothesis. He said: "It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Mysteriously, the HT article quotes Deepak Lal, former Indian Foreign Service officer in support of the Galactic Cosmic Ray theory. How is Lal related with the Danish Space Research Centre is not mentioned in the article. I looked up his background. Among other things, Lal is the author of a little known book on globalisation called "In Praise of Empires." [12] More interestingly however, he is a Senior Fellow at the CATO institute. [13] What is CATO institute? You guessed it -- a US "think tank" funded by ExxonMobil. It has received $110,000 from Exxon. [14]

Questions about journalistic ethics and accountability

The two articles raise serious questions. Why did the Hindustan Times publish misleading, inaccurate, unsubstantiated and biased reports on climate change. Did the correspondent receive an incentive for publishing these from outside or is there an organisation wide effort to discredit opinion against climate change?

Those of us who understand the severity of this planetary emergency have watched every mention of this issue in mainstream Indian media with interest over the last year. Most of us can also recall a time prior to the release of the IPCC report when climate change was conspicuously absent from Indian media. The Stern report for example, which was hailed as a landmark event in UK (released at the end of Oct 2006), never found a mention in India's two main newspaper for months. This conspiracy of silence was broken only when the crescendo of international reporting on the issue reached mile-high by the time the IPCC report came out (Feb 2007).

Poor reporting is worse than no reporting. In this particular instance, it's hard to accept that this came out simply as a result of ignorance. Chetan Chauhan has been covering environmental issues for HT for some time and it's hard to imagine someone at that position being incapable of making a distinction between CSCCC and IPCC or being unable to conduct simple background checks through web searches prior to writing.

A bigger question for those of us who see through such reporting is: how do we address this problem. How do we respond to such reports to bring the truth to public attention. And how do we make the media accountable for what it writes or does not write.

On my part I plan to follow this post with a formal complaint to the Press Council of India unless HT issues a well-placed corrective article in the following days.


Notes and Links

This entry is also posted on Green-India mailing list and copied to the following:

Chetan Chauhan, HT correspondent and writer of said articles
Vir Sanghvi, Editorial Director Hindustan Times
Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, Director-General TERI
Sunita Narain, Director Centre for Science and Environment
Malini Mehra, Founder & Director Centre for Social Markets

References:

1 HT April 1, 2008: Climate change not as big a problem: report

2 Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change [2] (CSCCC) website

3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Wikipedia

4 The CSCCC is organised by IPN according to this Wikipedia entry.

5 International Policy Network fact sheet on ExxonMobilSecrets.org

6 Paul Reiter on Science and Economic Advisory Council of The Annapolis Center

7 The Annapolis Center fact sheet on ExxonMobilSecrets.org

8 Reiter's research background on DeSmogBlog

9 HT, April 3, 2008: Sun too causes global warming

10 DNSC 1997 research papers on sun-Climate connection [PDF] and cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover [PDF]

11 BBC News on Royal Society study: 'No Sun link' to climate change

12 Deepak Lal's In Praise of Empires

13 Deepak Lal at CATO

14 CATO fact sheet on ExxonSecrets.org


UPDATE 5-Apr 2008: IPCC Chairman, Dr. R. K. Pachauri Writes Back

Words of encouragement and support have poured in from several quarters via various channels. Including one from Noble Laureate and IPCC chairman, Dr R. K. Pachauri himself. Dr Pachauri graciously took out time to reply to my email. My sincere thanks to everyone once again. I've compiled all responses - received via email or on Green-India group - as comments on this page. Read Dr. Pachauri's response. Note: timestamps on these comments may not be valid.


UPDATE 5-Apr 2008 [2]: CSM Issues Press Release

Centre for Social Markets (CSM) headed by Ms Malini Mehra, which last month served as adviser to Al Gore's climate project in India, has issued a press release against the climate change misinformation campaign in the media. It discusses the launch of "Civil Society Report on Climate Change" in India by deputy chairman of planning commission - Montek Singh Ahluwalia.


UPDATE 9-Apr 2008: TreeHugger picks up this story

TreeHugger.com - the US based popular green blog, which has a daily reach of around 200 million (that's as much as Hindustantimes.com), has published a detailed story based on this entry calling it a "complete, excruciatingly well-referenced analysis which elegantly dismantles the erroneous arguments put forth in both [HT] pieces." The TreeHugger post quotes widely from this blog and its author. Thank you TreeHugger!


UPDATE 1-May 2008: Malini Mehra writes in HT

Founder and CEO of Centre for Social Markets, Ms. Malini Mehra wrote an oped piece in Hindustan Times, published on Earth Day, flaying the two HT reports calling threat from climate change exaggerated and unfounded. an excerpt:

Having failed to win the argument in the West, the climate deniers are now moving into India and China. They see our country as a soft-touch for their propaganda and easy to hoodwink through arguments pitting poverty against development. What they do not realise is that there is a domestic movement brewing in India for positive action on climate change.

Complete article can be found here.


UPDATE 11-May 2008: Frontline Magazine writes on this issue

Well known political analyst, journalist and activist Praful Bidwai penned a column in Frontline magazine (Apr 26 - May 09) on this issue. Opening excerpt follows:

Falling back on pseudo-science?
Indian policymakers are clutching at straws to duck their responsibility to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

AS Indian policymakers come under growing pressure from global scientific and political communities on climate change, they are increasingly resorting to disingenuous, devious or downright specious arguments to avoid taking purposive action to cap and reduce the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are rising 3.5 times faster than the world average.

The detailed article calls the CSCCC report flimsy and "an exercise in charlatanry and sophistry." It also references this blog post as containing "some interesting facts" on the issue. Complete article can be read here.


UPDATE 20-May 2008: The Unsuitablog cites this post while parodying CSCCC with a game called "follow the links."


UPDATE 03-June 2008: Filed a formal complaint with the Press Council of India along with related evidence.