The founding of the fossil fuel infrastructure in India

 The longest fuel pipeline is being built from Kandla to Gorakhpur across 2805 kms, that saves transportation costs. That is great. 

The commentary in the video is bombastic, implying ‘this is being done for the first time’. Obviously, this is not the first time. 

The longest cross-country pipeline in India before this one was the Mundra-Delhi pipeline running 1055 kms, commissioned in 2009. 

Oil production started in India in 1889 in Assam. Oil in colonial India was mostly exploited by a number of British companies to support British troops and industries in the United Kingdom.

After independence, the foreign companies continued to play a key role in the oil industry. This changed in 1956 when the government adopted an industrial policy that placed oil as a “schedule A industry” and put its future development in the hands of the state. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission was established for this purpose. 

In order to find the expertise necessary to reach these goals, foreign experts from West Germany, Romania, the US, and the Soviet Union were brought in. The increased focus on exploration resulted in the discovery of several new oil fields most notably the off-shore Bombay High field, which remains by a long margin, India's most productive well.

The Indian Oil Corporation which owns most of the refineries putting it within the top 20 oil companies in the world, was also established in the 1950s. 

The insurance industry and fossil fuels..

The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events across the globe has been noted by studies. The specific types of weather events include hurricanes, extreme precipitation, tornadoes, landslides, mudflows, drought, wild fires, heat waves, flash floods and rising sea levels.

It is sobering to realize that only a little over a fourth of the losses due to natural disasters In 2016 were covered by insurance. That is, over a 100 billion pounds worth of losses in 2016, were not covered by insurance and the owners of the assets or services affected, had to bear those losses.

The increasing severity of weather events has been linked to continued fossil fuel use, dumping more and more CO2 every day in the earth's atmosphere, increasing its 'blanket' such that the heat from the sun cannot fully be released back into space.

The insurance industry is one of the world’s biggest institutional investors in fossil fuels.

In the United States, the city of San Francisco has potentially become the first US municipal body to try to force insurance companies to stop insuring and investing in fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels were long considered a ‘safe bet’ until climate scientists declared that the bulk of all known reserves had to stay in the ground if humanity is to limit global warming to 1.5ºC. The risk lies in these fossil fuel investments becoming what is known as stranded assets, which essentially means investments in coal, oil and gas could potentially suffer from a sudden and unexpected drop in value as society puts measures in place to prevent their use.

Whether it’s a drop in demand, new legislation or the threat of legal action, the sheer speed and unanticipated manner in which these factors could take hold could, at some point in the not to distant future, render the bulk of the insurance industry’s fossil fuel investments worthless.

There is also the question of what the insurance industry chooses to insure, or rather, not insure. Fossil fuel companies can’t operate their facilities or build new power plants without insurance coverage. They depend on insurers to cover the legal, financial and natural risks of their projects. Coal has been highlighted as the most carbon heavy of all fossil fuels generating not only nearly half of the world’s CO2, but also creating the most atmospheric pollution.

Researchers have concluded that we cannot afford to build any new coal power plants and have to retire existing plants early in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid the worst impacts of runaway climate change. Yet there are currently 1,600 new coal plants planned globally. If the insurance industry was to cease underwriting such intensive fossil fuel production sites it is likely that many of these projects would never go ahead.

However, in spite of their rhetoric, insurers continue to enable climate-destroying coal projects. They offer insurance coverage without which these projects could not go forward, and have invested more than 500 billion dollars in fossil fuel companies.

An increasing number of insurance companies have divested from providing insurance coverage and investment funds to new coal projects, they are selling holdings in coal companies and refuse to underwrite their operations.

Fifteen insurance compaies have fully or partially halted financial relations with coal companies, representing $4 trillion in global assets. The first-movers, including Allianz, Aviva, AXA and SCOR, are almost exclusively located in Europe and represent 13 percent of all global insurance assets. 

Allianz recently pledged to immediately withdraw from insuring single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, either in operation or planning. Zurich insurance Group announced in nov 2017 that it will stop providing insurance or risk management services for new thermal coal mines or for potential new clients that derive more than half their revenue from mining thermal coal. It will also stop supporting utility companies that generate more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. Swiss Re and Lloyd’s will also be announcing plans to divest from coal in the coming months. AXA and Swiss Re have also limited their underwriting of tar sands projects

Unfortunately when it comes to the climate change time horizon, the very industry which could have more impact than any other is clearly not taking action quickly enough. Even the bold pledge by Allianz has significant limitations, as the company also stated it will continue to insure businesses that generate power though multiple fossil fuel sources, including coal, until 2040.

The eight top US insurance companies that do not consider climate change in their investments are State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway/Geico, Travelers, Nationwide, Progressive and USAA. Only one US insurance company, Lemonade, has pledged not to support fossil fuels.

Worsening impacts of a warming world..

The UN warns that for every increase of one degree globally, grain yields fall by about five per cent.

Advances in technology and management have meant that total yields of maize, wheat and other major crops have increased, but they would have increased more — by 40 megatonnes per year between 1981 and 2002 — in the absence of climate change.

That implies that already in 1981, the world grew 3 % less grain and in 2002, 2 % less grain, than it would have, but for a warming world.

If greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2040.

The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.

To limit ourselves to 1.5°C with no overshoot, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions should reduce by about 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, and should reach net-zero around 2050. We also need serious cuts to non-CO2 emissions. Both methane and black carbon need to be reduced by 35 per cent or more of 2010 levels by 2050.

If strong action to curb use of fossil fuels isnt taken, decline in crop yields, unprecedented climate extremes and increased susceptibility could push poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050.

Little appreciated aspects of Renewable Technologies..

Renewable energy technologies such as rooftop solar panels and wind turbines tend to rely on smaller, more distributed units, greatly reducing the impact on the grid when weather damages them. And many renewable energy facilities have weathered storms and heat waves better than conventional power plants.

Wind turbines and solar panels are more resilient to drought and heat because they do not require water to produce electricity.

Renewable resources are far less vulnerable to interruptions in fuel supplies stemming from extreme weather, because most renewables do not use fuels that must be extracted, processed, and transported. The fossil fuel supply chain, in contrast, entails many steps that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Drilling for fossil fuels and producing them often require freshwater resources, for example, which are expected to decline with climate change in many regions and some seasons. And the delivery of oil, natural gas, and coal requires transportation networks such as pipelines, railroads, and waterway barges—all vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Because most renewables do not rely on fuels that are subject to price spikes, they also add price stability for consumers.

Methane..

Methane accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is the main one, because the atmosphere holds 200 times as much of it. But a given amount of methane traps at least 25 times as much heat—unless you burn it first. Then it enters the atmosphere as CO₂.

A lot of methane is being burned these days. In the past decade the technology called hydraulic fracturing, “fracking” for short, has enabled drillers in the United States to extract natural gas from deeply buried shales they couldn’t tap before. Natural gas supplies have surged; prices have plummeted. Fracking is now spreading around the world, and it’s controversial. The gas boom has degraded landscapes and polluted water. But it has also had environmental benefits. Natural gas burns much cleaner than coal. In part because American power plants have been switching from coal to cheap gas, U.S. emissions of CO₂ from fossil fuels fell last year, even as the world set another record.

India's situation vis-a-vis Co2 emissions..

This amazing graphic shows that as of early april 2017, just 10 countries were emitting 75 % of the current CO2 emissions, India at no. 4 ! The graphic treats the EU as one country and in many respects it behaves like one.

In 2015, just 13 % of the energy used by the world was not sourced from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are dominant in the global energy mix, supported by $523 billion subsidies in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than subsidies to renewables.

In India in 2016, just 7 % of the total energy use was drawn from non-fossil fuel sources. Over 60 % of the Indian population used solid fuels (wood, charcoal, coal, etc.) for their energy needs in 2016. A 2016 paper says that traditional energy sources such as biomass account for over 26% of India’s total primary energy consumption. That is more than India’s consumption of oil, which stands at 24%.

A sizeable quantum of energy requirements (40% of total energy requirement), especially in the rural household sector, is met by non-commercial and traditional energy sources, which include fuelwood, crop residue, biomass and animal waste, including human and draught animal power. 

Biomass is a renewable energy source and its use for energy generation is carbon-neutral fuel. It is carbon neutral because it would also release global warming green house gasses like methane and carbon dioxide when it is left to degenerate without using as energy source. In 2009-'10, over 80 % of Indian rural households and nearly 20 % of urban households, used biomass for cooking. Nearly a third or more of urban households in four states used biomass for cooking : Orissa, Kerala, Bihar and MAdhya Pradesh. 

Over half the world's energy use was consumed by industry in 2012. Half that by transport and 20 % by residential and commercial applications. 

68 percent of India’s emissions between 2005-2013 came in from the energy sector. Within the energy-sector, about 77 percent emissions come from electricity generation.

Air pollution in India is a serious issue with the major sources being fuelwood and biomass burning, fuel adulteration, vehicle emission and traffic congestion.^[1] In autumn and winter months, large scale crop residue burning in agriculture fields – a low cost alternative to mechanical tilling – is a major source of smoke, smog and particulate pollution. A 2013 study on non-smokers has found that Indians have 30% lower lung function compared to Europeans.

We are headed to average temperature increase by 3-4 degrees C by 2100..

A report by the Centre for Science & Environment (CSE) just out, says : 1. धरती के वायुमंडल में ग्रीन हाउस गैस का स्तर पिछले 8 लाख वर्षों में उच्चतम स्तर पर पहुंच गया है. 2. 1901 से 2017 के बीच, भारत का औसत वार्षिक तापमान लगभग 1.2 डिग्री सेल्सियस बढ़ गया है। 3. हम 3 से 4 डिग्री सेल्सियस के औसत तापमान वृद्धि की ओर बढ़ रहे हैं (by the year 2100).

Bangkok traffic jam /Ahoerstemeier
/ CC-BY-SA 3.0

Many articles are pointing out that at the current rate of Co2 burning (via use of petrol, coal, cooking gas – all energy essentially – that we use in homes, for transport and in manufacturing the products we buy, and via burning of crop residues & forests), we are hurtling towards raising the temperature on earth (compared to pre-industrial levels) by 2 degrees C in just 30 years. Our children will certainly experience those impacts and worse, as the worldwide temperature increases beyond 2 degrees to 3+ and then 4+ after 2050 uptil 2100.

How does this temperature increase impact our day to day life ? As we go on, it will spell the difference between life and death for vast numbers of humanity – and trees, forests and animals. I request that you urgently see this film by the National Geographic Channel – Six Degrees can change the World - Much of the film’s data is from 2005 – so we are already 10+ years ahead in the curve.