Dr. Ajay Mathur acknowledged the contribution of Mr. Anil Razdan in realization of this mission, under whose leadership as Secretary Power, NMEEE was conceived and steered to its present shape. In his presentation, which is available for download from the link at the end of text, Dr. Mathur presented key features of the Mission. Summary of presentation is given below-

NMEEE is one of the Missions under National Action Plan on Climate Change and includes four initiatives for making Energy Efficiency Programme operational in India.

• Perform Achieve Trade (PAT) - A market based mechanism to enhance cost effectiveness of improvements in energy efficiency in energy-intensive large industries and facilities, through certification of energy savings that could be traded.
  
  
• Market Transformation for Energy Efficiency (MTEE) - Accelerating the shift to energy efficient appliances in designated sectors through innovative measures to make the products more affordable.
  
  
• Energy Efficiency Financing Platform (EEFP) - Creation of mechanisms that would help finance demand side management programmes in all sectors by capturing future energy savings.
  
  
• Framework for Energy Efficient Economic Development (FEEED) - Developing fiscal instruments to promote energy efficiency

Labeling programme for AC and refrigerator was started in December, 2006 and the market mechanism worked effectively. 50% of ACs and 75% of refrigerators were labeled by the summer of 2008. MTEE proposed to accelerate this programme further by an initiative SEEP (Super Efficient Equipment Programme). SEEP envisages developing equipment 50% more efficient than five star appliances; and ceiling fan has been chosen as the first product for this programme, wherein this super efficient fan will have a consumption of 20-30 watts compared to the five star rating fans’ consumption of 50 Watts.  An incentive shall be payable for every SEEP fan sold by the manufacturers.  This could then be further extended to other products like Television in collaboration with other countries.

Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, speaking on the topic of the day, “Ethics, Economics and Climate Change”, reiterated India’s stated stand on Climate Change that it will not allow its carbon emissions to cross the world average.

The present average per capita carbon emission of the world is 4 tons. Of this, a large contribution comes from developed countries and the emissions from developing countries are steadily rising. The stand of developing countries has been to set the desired per capita allocation with minor variations allowed for climate differences. This has also been suggested that equalization should also take into account the historical emissions, which would mean Carbon entitlement for industrialized countries will be less than developing countries. India’s position is never to increase per capita entitlement of developed countries. Many do not consider the proposal of equal entitlements as reasonable. If the temperature rise has to be limited to within 2 deg centigrade of pre-industrial times, the per capita CO2 emissions have to reduce from the current 4 tons per capita per annum to 2 tons, which is a gigantic task.

In this context, he requested Prof. Stern to also comment on these observations during his presentation and with this Mr. Ahluwalia invited Prof Stern to make his presentation.

Prof Nicholas Stern began with addressing the remarks made by Mr. Ahluwalia. He said there is no ethical justification on the right to damage the environment; the right can only be on responsible use of space. He opined that equal entitlement theory does not have any ethical foundation. He compared this with financial assistance, which can not be given equally to the Rich and Poor. Therefore, he said, ethically we should have something more than equal entitlement. But he was appreciative of India’s stand as a good beginning. He said it can not be a choice between leaving a better environment and lesser infrastructure or better infrastructure and worse environment. Methods need to be devised through which a better environment and a better life can be given to future generations.

In his presentation, which is available for download, he spoke of risks and consequences of rising CO2 concentrations. Currently the CO2 concentration is 435 ppm CO2e, and adding at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year; that rate is rising and business as usual scenario (BAU) is likely to take us to 750 ppm this century. A scenario with 750 ppm CO2e will have a 50% probability of temperature being 5 deg centigrade above pre-industrial times. This kind of temperature rise is likely to have catastrophic results. Rich countries are responsible for bulk of past emissions but the poor countries will be hit most. But what needs to be recognized is that in another twenty years, more than 2/3 emissions will be from developing countries, which have 6 billion of the current 7 billion global population. He emphasized that emissions do not come only from electricity generation but a diverse set sources as shown in the Pie chart.

Speaking of emission reductions, he said that for a reasonable (say 50-50) chance of staying below 2 degrees, it is necessary to hold CO2e below 500ppm and then reduce from there,. This requires bringing emissions down from 47Gt CO2e today to below 20Gt CO2e (approx. 50% of 1990 levels) by 2050.

• Scale that comes of all participation;
• Use of markets and competition;
• Direct promotion and sharing of technology;
• Rich countries leading in pace of emissions reduction.
• Financial support from rich countries of at least $100bn p.a. by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation. Needs for investment funding may be double of this amount (although there are co-benefits).
• Recognising the ethical centrality of overcoming poverty and of advancing development, thus the industrial revolution can and must centrally involve poor people, including access to energy.

Interactive Session:

Mr Anil Razdan (Former Secretary, Ministry of Power) observed that the talk of Prof Stern did not make any mention of obligations of Kyoto Protocol, which has been the starting point of climate change and environment debate. The developed world has to first fulfill the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol and also find a solution the inequities that have come up between the Kyoto Protocol and now. Since we are not allowing population movement, restricting the same by immigration laws, per capita emissions become important. Talking of permit or “parking fee”, first penalty has to be paid for cumulative addition of CO2 and then permit can be given. So there is a need to move to per capita emissions. So what is to be done for future? One is transfer of technology, next is mitigation expenses and number three is adaptation. Technology transfer costs are definitely high, even mitigation and adaptation costs are very high.  McKinsey has estimated that annual investment of US$ 175 billion is required for mitigation and only     10 billion is being spent. Similarly US$ 175 billion is required for adaptation and only 1 billion is being spent on this. So we need to find the finances for mitigation and adaptation.

Some of other observations and questions were as follows-

• If are targeting 2 tons per capita by 2050, the Kyoto commitments are peanuts compared to the task at hand.
• In the context of relationship between ethics and equity, what is the range of inequality that can be accepted and can there be any criteria for measuring this?
• After COP-15, there is a concern that if commitment period is not going to be increased for another five years after 2012, what another mechanism can work towards emission reductions?

Responding to observations, Prof Stern commented that he does not think that any kind of inequality can be accepted. Kyoto protocol was a good beginning and though much greater efforts are needed to reach the 2 ton per capita level, we need to continue to move ahead with Kyoto protocol by means of second commitment period till better options are found. The most difficult part in climate negotiations has been to make the people understand the magnitude of risk and the size of change that is necessary and the need of collaboration to bring about this change. It is also important to trust the countries that are taking action; to learn from them and collaborate with them. He said that at the moment we may call what we are doing as peanuts, but these actions can be escalated till we reach a level required for our desired target.