Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The development dilemma: social or environmental goals? No contest.

For all the lip-service that Western governments make to the new vote winner "climate change" calling on the world to pull together to save the planet one should always be aware of the trade-offs faced by the governments of developing countries.

As reported by Reason a recent panel discussion on climate change at the Centre for European Policy Studies included a contribution by Surya P. Sethi, the principal energy policy advisor to the Indian government.

Whenever Western politicians, in their air conditioned offices, pontificate about using energy saving light bulbs it should be remembered that no government of a rapidly developing country is ever going to sacrifice a fall in the infant mortality rate, a rise in life expectancy and a fall in the percentage of those living in absolute poverty just to reduce emissions of a pollutant with little or no local impact.

The following paragraphs provide food for thought. All "environmentalists" should put themselves in the position of Surya Sethi or indeed a local Indian trying to feed a family.
Next, Surya P. Sethi, the principal energy policy advisor to the Indian government, showed that the CEPS study is basically an exercise in climate change policy whimsy. Sethi began by reviewing the development challenges faced by India. He pointed out that 50 percent of its people have no access to electricity; cooking was the largest use of energy for 75 percent of households; and 70 percent of cooking was done using traditional biomass, wood and dung. In addition, 35 percent of India's people live on less than $1 per day and 80 percent live on less than $2 per day. He pointed out that lack of access to modern energy supplies correlates with high infant mortality, low life expectancies, high gender inequality, and low literacy rates.

Sethi then noted that India's economy must grow at 8 percent per year for the next 25 years in order to lift the bottom 40 percent of its people to a decent standard of living. He pointed out that India was falling behind in achieving it Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty due to persistent energy shortages. "Energy is central for development. Our energy consumption must go up," declared Sethi. Today India uses 471 million tons oil equivalent (MTOE) of energy each year of which 327 MTOE is primary commercial energy. The rest comes from burning traditional biomass. In order to achieve its poverty reduction goals, Sethi asserted that India needs to grow its energy supplies by 4.3 to 5.1 percent per year and to consume 1536 to 1887 MTOE by 2031. (For comparison the US consumes around 2300 MTOE annually now.) "India will need to tap all available energy supplies and pursue all available energy efficiency technologies. For India it is not a choice between energy supply and energy efficiency. It is both." said Sethi.

Sethi contrasted India's current total primary energy supply (TPES) per capita energy use with other countries. TPES per capita is calculated as the energy equivalent of the amount of oil in kilograms (kgoe) a person consumes per year. In China the amount is 1090 kgoe, Brazil 1094, Denmark 3852, UK 3906, US 7835, Japan 4052, and the world average per capita energy use is 1688. Where does India stand? The average Indian consumes the equivalent of 439 kilograms of oil. The eight percent annual economic growth that Sethi hopes India will experience over the quarter century would mean that the average Indian would be consuming between 1065 and 1279 kgoe in 2031. That's about what the average Chinese uses now and is only 70 percent of world's current per capita average.

Sethi said that India could cut projected CO2 emissions between 2012 and 2017 by 550 million tons at an additional cost of $25 billion for more energy efficient technologies. However, he pointed out that the Indian government spent that amount on its social and poverty reduction goals in the last five years. He then pointedly added, "I do not have the funds for both. My choice is to improve the lot of India's poor or reduce CO2 emissions so the developed world can breathe easier." Paying for the new energy efficiency technologies would also raise the price of power and thereby delay its delivery to the poor. Besides, Sethi observed, Indians already pay the highest rate in purchasing power parity terms for energy in the world. In fact, the average household spends one and a half times more on energy than it does on food. Finally, Sethi told me that even after implementing the most efficient energy conservation technologies over the next 25 years, India will still be emitting 4 times more CO2 in 2031 than it does today.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if you've seen or heard of this:

http://wwwgis.env.uea.ac.uk/Research_Projects/envecon.html.

I like the idea of this a lot. I'm also a big fan of GIS. What do you reckon?

I must say, for me, thats UEA 1, UB nill. :(

Anonymous said...

You're right that is a totally unrelated note :-)

UEA are very good at contingent valuation, that is their speciality (and valuation methods in general). Here at UB we do very different environmental economics to them, namely the environmental implications of industrial activity, trade, investment and so on. Having said that, both David and I have published work on valuation methods (with people from UEA in my case), but these methods are not central to our current research.