Not Such Good News from India

[Bob Wallace]

In a blow to American hopes of reaching an international deal to fight global warming, India’s new environment minister said Wednesday that his country would not offer a plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions ahead of a climate summit next year in Paris.
The minister, Prakash Javadekar, said in an interview that his government’s first priority was to alleviate poverty and improve the nation’s economy, which he said would necessarily involve an increase in emissions through new coal-powered electricity and transportation. He placed responsibility for what scientists call a coming climate crisis on the United States, the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas polluter, and dismissed the idea that India would make cuts to carbon emissions.
“What cuts?” Mr. Javadekar said. “That’s for more developed countries. The moral principle of historic responsibility cannot be washed away.” Mr. Javadekar was referring to an argument frequently made by developing economies — that developed economies, chiefly the United States, which spent the last century building their economies while pumping warming emissions into the atmosphere — bear the greatest responsibility for cutting pollution.

Mr. Javadekar said that government agencies in New Delhi were preparing plans for India’s domestic actions on climate change, but he said they would lead only to a lower rate of increase in carbon emissions. It would be at least 30 years, he said, before India would likely see a downturn.
“India’s first task is eradication of poverty,” Mr. Javadekar said, speaking in a New York hotel suite a day after a United Nations climate summit. “Twenty percent of our population doesn’t have access to electricity, and that’s our top priority. We will grow faster, and our emissions will rise.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?_r=1

I'm hoping Prime Minister Modi takes him aside and has a little talk with him.  India is among the countries likely to be hurt most by climate change.  It is not in their best interest to wait until other countries have cleaned up their grids.  We're all in this one together.

[Neven]

I don't agree. We need to lead by example, just like our example is now what India wants too. If we want them to do things differently, we might have to show them how.

We can't be all in this together as long as inequality is too large. Of course, inequality is what the system demands.

We will grow faster, and that’s our top priority.

[ccgwebmaster]

I'm hoping Prime Minister Modi takes him aside and has a little talk with him.  India is among the countries likely to be hurt most by climate change.  It is not in their best interest to wait until other countries have cleaned up their grids.  We're all in this one together.

By definition most of the hurt that will be done to India will be historical emissions released by the US and countries like the UK, followed by industrial emissions - still largely from the US and Europe but with an ever increasing share from places like China (a lot of it for export to the US and Europe, mind - the carbon emissions related to the consumption of those populations has continued to rise, whatever games you want to play with emissions within the geographic borders).

So from their perspective, how does their action affect their own situation? It doesn't a lot - they can be just as damned without acting as if they do act - as it depends upon others.

The responsibility for leadership here really ought to lie with the countries that have the greatest historical share, to show that it is possible to move on from these power sources, and to reflect the fact that they have developed their economies (and indeed interfered with much of the world) using those resources. That is a historical advantage and benefit that now ought to be repaid in the name of fairness by leading the way.

I would agree with him - America - and Western Europe somewhat - owe it to the world to lead the way, it is a nonsense for the US (or Europe) to demand international agreement first, in doing so they are purely trying to establish a mechanism by which to consolidate their dominance over other nations by denying them the same options. And besides, nobody internationally agreed that we in the westernised nations could create this problem in the first place!

[Bob Wallace]

You agree with Javadekar that India should not bother doing anything about climate change for the next 30 years?

The US is moving on climate change.  Our CO2 emissions peaked in 2005 and have been falling since.  We're one of the top countries in terms of wind and solar generation and adoption of EVs/PHEVs.  We're  closing a lot of coal plants.  We're increasing our efficiency.

Is the US doing enough?  No.  But we are accelerating our efforts.

I think Javadekar is talking stupidly.  He should be talking about improving the national economy and bringing electricity to the under served with clean energy.  It makes no sense to build coal plants which have higher capex costs and require fuel when the job could be done with cheaper wind and solar.

[Bob Wallace]

"So from their perspective, how does their action affect their own situation? It doesn't a lot "

India is the #3 coal consumer in the world.  They burn 8% (2012) of all coal used.  The US, #2, burned 11.7% - not that much more.

If India increases coal use rather than cuts they simply increase the hurt climate change will visit on them.

It really doesn't matter all that much as to who shot the hole in the bottom of the boat.  It's time for all to bail.

[domen_]

Developing countries should have larger proportion of the remaining carbon budget, but this Indian minister is taking it too far. 30 years is way off any reasonable timeframe. It also doesn't make sense from other perspectives: India has cities with one of the worst air pollution on the globe, it has huge problems with power outages (particularly during heat waves) and transmission is nonexistent in many areas where millions of people don't have electricity.

It would make much more sense to go for solar power (for which India is geographically well suited). That would actually make a meaningful difference for all those millions that don't have access to the grid (like in Bangladesh), and it would be very beneficial to areas that have grid but suffer power outages due to overloads during heatwaves.

India electricity supply: http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/india2.pdf

[Bob Wallace]

Absolutely.  Plus a fair amount of India's electricity is produced by diesel generators.  That is some very expensive power.  Putting solar arrays and a wind turbine or two on that sub-grid would lower the cost of electricity for those who are connected.

[AbruptSLR]

The following article indicates that the politics of climate change are toxic (implying that we should not expect too much from the Paris meeting in 2015). 
The obvious solution is for rich countries to not only to impose a carbon tax, that they should re-distribute the tax revenue to their citizens to off-set the higher cost of energy (due to the carbon tax); but also for the rich countries to impose an import tax on items that they are importing from countries that do not adequately regulate carbon emissions (such as China and India) and then to give these import tax funds to third world countries that agree to use these funds to fight carbon emissions.  Since the US and Western Europe import so much of what they consume the import tax could pay for a large fraction of $13 trillion that needs to be sent by 2030 to address climate change (see extract below), and the rest of the investment could come from private industry seeking to reduce their carbon tax payments:


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102032341#.

Extract: "A UN report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last April said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030.
But a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that damages from uncontrolled climate change—an increase of 3.4 degree celsius—could cost $12 trillion or 2.8 percent of global output by 2095.
And delaying action could increase costs by 40 percent every decade, making it ever more costly to do what what's needed."

[ccgwebmaster]

If India increases coal use rather than cuts they simply increase the hurt climate change will visit on them.

It really doesn't matter all that much as to who shot the hole in the bottom of the boat.  It's time for all to bail.

Your arguments make no sense to me. On the one hand you argue that market forces are going to solve this problem for us, and that the US will proceed on that timetable - on another you seem to be arguing it is not acceptable for the Indians to do the same thing as the US - to address the problem when they feel like it (ie market forces).

For any concept of justice, it does matter (at some point at least) who made the hole in the boat. When they keep making the same hole naturally others won't want to bail them out. Indeed why even try to bail out the boat when people keep making holes in it? The US wields influence both directly and indirectly, and to take a contrary path is probably a fruitless endeavour, at least until US power wanes sufficiently.

[Bob Wallace]

I'll try to explain it more clearly.

If market forces are allowed to operate without government interference then renewables will push out fossil fuels.  The cost of new wind/solar is cheaper than the cost of new coal.

That does not mean that market forces will operate as fast as we would like to see change happen.  It would most excellent were governments to assist the rate of change by use of things like subsidies, carbon pricing or installation requirements.

If governments interfere with market forces, as it seems the environment minister of India is threatening to do, then progress will be slowed.

This is happening right now in Australia where their current government is propping up their coal industry and doing what it can to prevent cheaper renewable generation from being installed in larger amounts.  It's also happening in Spain.

[ccgwebmaster]

This is happening right now in Australia where their current government is propping up their coal industry and doing what it can to prevent cheaper renewable generation from being installed in larger amounts.  It's also happening in Spain.

Ever checked out the tax breaks or subsidies in various forms given to fossil fuel energy by countries like the US and UK? Or countless other nations around the world. This is common practice. No real point singling out India.

[Bob Wallace]

I'm not singling out India.

This thread is about India.

[crandles]

This is happening right now in Australia where their current government is propping up their coal industry and doing what it can to prevent cheaper renewable generation from being installed in larger amounts.  It's also happening in Spain.

Why are they doing this? Is it that there is a genuine problem of storage being too difficult to cope with matching supply and demand or are you saying it is all down to corruption or something else?

[Bob Wallace]

In Australia it's simply the Abbot government going to bat for the coal industry.  Their view seems to be that a large portion of Australia's future wealth will rely on a strong coal market. 

Tony's just an idiot.

In Spain things are simply batshit crazy. 

The latest nail in the coffin for Spain’s solar energy producers is an Energy Law amendment which allows inspectors to enter private properties without a court order. It's a move lawyers believe could set a worrying precedent.

As if Spaniards had not already been dissuaded by the potential €60 million fines they face for illegally generating their own solar power, they now have to look forward to a knock on the door from the 'solar police'.

A change to the ruling Popular Party’s (PP) Energy Law allows inspectors to “raid” properties they are suspicious of, armed only with administrative authorization.

If the suspect denies entry, Spain’s Industry Department will then ask for a court order that guarantees inspectors access to the property alongside Spanish national police.

Officers will be able to seize all documents related to to energy consumption and seal off entry to the property.

http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door

I'm not sure how things got so crazy in Spain.  I think it's a combination of a too aggressive FiT program that paid too much and put the government in a bind plus a very coal-friendly government. 

The fossil fuel industry has attempted push backs in Germany and the US but haven't been very successful.

It has zip to do with storage. 

[viddaloo]

Compare fossil addiction with alcohol addiction and it's not so surprising. The corporate elite has lied about the past action, is lying about the present action and will continue to lie about future action. Picture them saying "I will stop drinking tomorrow, b*tch", and then decide whether you wish to believe them this time around.

[Shared Humanity]

The engine behind the growth of capitalism over the past couple of centuries, the reason for the accumulation of wealth in the wealthy nations, has been fossil fuels. Despite the increasingly desperate reports regarding global warming, nothing has significantly altered this relationship between fossil fuel consumption and wealth accumulation. This is what Prakash Javadekar is talking about and he is absolutely correct in his assessment that bringing Indians out of desperate poverty absolutely requires more fossil fuel consumption.

While it is true that coal consumption is growing far more rapidly in India and China than in the developed world, If you look at this bar chart.....

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Coal/Consumption#

....India consumes far less coal than the U.S. (I realize these numbers are from 2000 and things have changed since then but not so much as to undermine my argument.) The simple fact is that India could eliminate its coal consumption tomorrow and this would have the same impact as the U.S reducing its reliance on coal by 30% to 40%. Which nation has the wealth, accumulated through the profligate consumption of fossil fuels, to support the investment to effect this transition. The U.S. To argue that India needs to take the lead is to suggest that India embrace its poverty so that the developed nations can continue to live a life of relative luxury.

If I were a politician in India, that horse would be dead before it got out of the barn.

[Shared Humanity]

What are the arguments given by politicians and business leaders in the developed world against a rapid transition away from fossil fuels? They argue that it will have a damaging impact on the economy and the livelihood of citizens. While I believe this rapid transition is absolutely essential  and will have long term benefits, the fact is the short term impacts (And by short term I mean  occurring over several decades) will be very damaging. This damage will affect the financial well being of every single resident of these nations as the value of fossil fuel capital investments, the fossil fuels themselves and every device that depends on energy from fossil fuels are damaged or destroyed.

The U.S. and the rest of the developed world must take the lead on this or we are collectively doomed.

[Bob Wallace]

The US is closing a significant portion of its coal plants between now and 2016.  Do you consider that leading?

[ccgwebmaster]

The US is closing a significant portion of its coal plants between now and 2016.  Do you consider that leading?

Personally - no - not for as long as it's still supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, still pursuing fossil fuel resources in the Arctic, still strongly pursuing shale gas, suppressing climate dissent, etc.

And also no - for as long as its citizens continue to consume vastly more than a reasonably amount of resources in general, including by means of imported carbon from international markets. The global picture matters - who cares if you close down your own coal plants if you then import products from other countries with lots of coal?

True leadership requires more than token gestures and grandstand posturing. We haven't seen true leadership from the US yet (my opinion). Ironically some of the little vulnerable island nations have pledged (and may implement) far more, when talking nation states (eg commitments to be totally renewable for energy by 2030).

[Bob Wallace]

Look, the US nor any other country, company or individual is ever going to satisfy you.

No one can produce "perfect" in an instant.

If you can't recognize and appreciate progress made in steps, and accept that there will be backward steps occasionally on the path forward, you're likely to end up as one of those people who thinks civilization will crash.

Oh, wait....

[Shared Humanity]

The US is closing a significant portion of its coal plants between now and 2016.  Do you consider that leading?

The U.S. will be leading when they reduce per capita CO2 emissions to the level of India.

[Bob Wallace]

There's some truth to that but, realistically, it's not a contest.  We all must do our part.

Some countries may have much higher per capita emission rates but that does not mean they can't be leaders.  Someone has to develop the technology to replace fossil fuels.  Someone has to figure out the best way to utilize that technology.  Someone has to figure out how to minimize the cost of that technology.

[viddaloo]

Shared Humanity has a point. You can't lead in reducing carbon emissions while leading enormously in carbon emissions.

[ccgwebmaster]

Shared Humanity has a point. You can't lead in reducing carbon emissions while leading enormously in carbon emissions.

Well, you sort of can - insofar as you should have MUCH more and much easier cuts to make than most other nations.

But it seems slightly ridiculous to trumpet it and shout about it and expect to be lauded for it.

A bit like expecting abject gratitude because you stop murdering everyone, which one shouldn't have been doing to start with.

The real problem is of course that it's almost certainly too late now. Unless someone cares to invent a time machine - there is no sign that the current rate of behavioural change will be sufficient to avoid major problems at the least (and outright catastrophic failure at the worst). I feel it's important to note that major problems in some affluent nations might mean catastrophic failure in many others.

Worse, a little token behavioural change is proclaimed as a panacea for all our ills, and provides a convenient fig leaf to hide behind while trying to accuse other nations of not doing their bit (in this thread apparently India - though I think the graph Shared Humanity posted puts that in context nicely).

The Kyoto protocol did that for a long time - consumption based behaviour continued as it always had, but the most polluting industries were outsourced to other nations, enabling the proclaimation of compliance and righteousness even as individual consumption patterns continued to soar (er, sorry, I mean - the economies continued to grow, that sounds nicer, doesn't it?).

[viddaloo]

The real problem is of course that it's almost certainly too late now.

I certainly agree with that. I find it, umm, amusing, to watch the Germans just south of my country driving miles and miles in their gas sucking cars in order to recycle, as they've done in great style since well before the nineties. The feeling of «having done their part» trumps reason and afterthought about what that extra mileage did to the common atmosphere and climate.

But then the Germans never get it right, do they?!

[Bob Wallace]

" there is no sign that the current rate of behavioural change will be sufficient to avoid major problems at the least (and outright catastrophic failure at the worst)"

That's true.  If you ignore the accelerating rate of installations.

[domen_]

India, Uganda and Brazil have low emissions because they have a lot of poor people. The real challenge is to provide high standard of living without fossil fuels.

Solar PV, wind power and nuclear are able to provide enough electricity on global scale. Heating and cooling sector is easy, just add some insulation and use heat pumps. It's cost efficient and it will be done. So these are good news.

But there's also some bad news. Transportation is a big problem. It desperately needs cheaper batteries. Lots of cheaper batteries. Tesla is not enough. We need another Germany to drive down costs of lithium batteries.

[wili]

Great graphs, Bob. I want to post them elsewhere. Do you have a link I could use, or a source for the data? Thanks ahead of time.

[Bob Wallace]

First, the graphs are wrong.  Upon checking they are based on only the first five months of the year, not six.  The July data came on line only last Thursday and I worked it up last night.  The last point for wind increased from 4.96% to 5.15%.  The last point for solar increased from .37 to .43.

Things are a bit better than the graphs show. 

The data comes from two places.  Full year data comes from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/         

Current year to date comes from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/      

It's kind of a pain to get the data into spreadsheet form and graph it up.  If you want to send me a private message I'll give you the link to my files and you can get the data from there or just copy off the graphs.  (They've been updated there.)

--

eta:  Top of page - My Messages - Send Message

[Bob Wallace]

India, Uganda and Brazil have low emissions because they have a lot of poor people. The real challenge is to provide high standard of living without fossil fuels.

Solar PV, wind power and nuclear are able to provide enough electricity on global scale. Heating and cooling sector is easy, just add some insulation and use heat pumps. It's cost efficient and it will be done. So these are good news.

But there's also some bad news. Transportation is a big problem. It desperately needs cheaper batteries. Lots of cheaper batteries. Tesla is not enough. We need another Germany to drive down costs of lithium batteries.

Electricity is starting to get to the least served/poorest via micro-solar programs.  Basically people can buy a small solar system that will run a couple of LED lamps, charge a cell phone and power a small B&W TV and pay for it on time.  Payments run less than what they generally pay for kerosene and candles for lighting.  Bangladesh has installed over three million systems so far.


http://www.pv-tech.org/friday_focus/friday_focus_how_bangladesh_became_the_worlds_biggest_domestic_off_grid_pla

Watch not only Tesla and their gigafactory battery plant but also L G Chem who is scaling up to be a major battery supplier.  Rumors are heavy that GM will release a 200 mile EV for less than $30k in 2016.  LGC seems to have contracts with a number of manufacturers.  Big competition should drive prices down.

And China apparently going to release an EV that will sell for less than $15k.  Speed will be limited to 50 MPH and range, I'm sure won't be enormous.  But it should make for affordable transportation for many drivers.  A good city car.

[ccgwebmaster]

But there's also some bad news. Transportation is a big problem. It desperately needs cheaper batteries. Lots of cheaper batteries. Tesla is not enough. We need another Germany to drive down costs of lithium batteries.

Not to mention an awful lot of people simplistically just think about cars, because that's all they interact with in their daily lives and that's as far as their imagination reaches.

There's also the question of aeroplanes, ships, agricultural machinery, mining equipment, industrial machinery of all types...

There isn't necessarily enough lithium in the world to provide battery capacity for all those needs.

[Bob Wallace]

I don't think you realize how much lithium there is in the Earth's crust.  I'll copy in something I wrote a while back...

The 100 mile Nissan Leaf uses 4kg of lithium in its batteries.  Let’s say magic happens and between 2015 and 2035 we put 1.2 billion 200 mile range EVs on the world’s roads, each using 8kg of lithium in their batteries. (And that's if range increase comes only from more batteries rather than the more likely improved anodes and cathodes.)

That would mean that in that 20 year period we would need to produce 480,000 metric tons of lithium per year.

At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Nickel and lead have about the same abundance.  There are approximately 39 million tonnes of accessible lithium in the Earth’s crust.  An 81 year supply.

Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Portugal and Zimbabwe have roughly 13,000,000 metric tons of lithium that can be extracted. That's a 27 year supply.

Bolivia has 5.4 million of the 13 million tons. Over 11 years.

There are approximately 230,000,000,000 tons of lithium in seawater.    A 479,167 year supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

And after that we could just recycle what we've already extracted.
--

Since  I wrote that we've discovered couple large finds in the US...

Western Lithium claims the Humboldt County (Nevada) site's deposits represent the fifth-largest lithium resource in the world. The Nevada Governor's Office of Economic Development says the state's overall lithium portfolio is even bigger.

"Nevada is lithium rich — second only to the size of deposits found in Chile," said Steve Hill, executive director of the Governor's Office of Economic Development.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/f899396a31a348f29371b83482f527b0/NV--Lithium-Production-Nevada


A big find was recently announced in Wyoming.  The find could contain as much as 118 million tons of lithium.  That would be enough for  59 billion Nissan Leafs.  (If I didn't experience a math failure.)

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/lithium-discovery-could-be-new-industry-for-wyoming/article_46d9c438-add8-11e2-be38-0019bb2963f4.html

[ccgwebmaster]

" there is no sign that the current rate of behavioural change will be sufficient to avoid major problems at the least (and outright catastrophic failure at the worst)"

That's true.  If you ignore the accelerating rate of installations.

No need to ignore it, it's been noted multiple times that increasing production of renewable energy does not automatically translate into carbon emission reductions, and also that consumption of population can still entail carbon emissions elsewhere (which is the same globally).

Have you noticd that significant natural feedbacks are showing signs of stirring, the system has decades of committed warming even if we were able to stabilise carbon dioxide levels exactly where they are (your claims are nowhere near this territory - where do you think they'll stabilise...?) and we're only just starting to think about the problem (the increasing rates of carbon emissions annually haven't even shown a real sign of slowing down, let alone reaching stable levels).

So really, who is ignoring what? I'll stick with my beans and bullets attitude until I'm convinced things really will avoid catastrophe (which doesn't seem likely currently) - but until then I see anyone making your arguments as like the gentleman falling off the skypscraper convincing himself everything is fine so far. Sure, it's good news that renewable energy installations are taking off - but that doesn't mean it's sufficient to change things.

Who cares how you fall? It's the landing that matters. I'm young enough to expect to see the landing, so no sense deluding myself.

[viddaloo]

I'll stick with my beans and bullets attitude until I'm convinced things really will avoid catastrophe (which doesn't seem likely currently) - but until then I see anyone making your arguments as like the gentleman falling off the skyscraper convincing himself everything is fine so far. Sure, it's good news that renewable energy installations are taking off - but that doesn't mean it's sufficient to change things.

Who cares how you fall? It's the landing that matters. I'm young enough to expect to see the landing, so no sense deluding myself.

You just reminded me I've written a poem about that once when I was a teenager. Ages ago. The man's reasoning while falling. Have to go through my diaries and see if I can find it!

[Bob Wallace]

" also that consumption of population can still entail carbon emissions elsewhere (which is the same globally)."

What you're missing is that the cost of renewables and EVs will be cheaper than the cost of using fossil fuels.  For everyone.  Globally.
--

I don't know how much more pain we'll cook in before we peak and start reducing our CO2 outputs.  I do know that we've hit peak CO2 in Europe and the US.  And I expect some South American countries, but I haven't checked.  And I expect we'll see signs of China slowing soon.  The first sign is likely to be peak coal consumption which could happen before 2016.

[Shared Humanity]

Given the current state of affairs, perhaps a better use for this lithium would be to medicate and pacify humanity as we race headlong to our demise.   

[wili]

Thanks, Bob.

On the China thing, do you accept that the US essentially 'outsourced' at least some of its carbon emissions to China since at least the '90's as manufacturing moved there?

If so, do you think it is possible that China in turn may be in the process of similarly outsourcing at least some of its carbon emissions?

[Bob Wallace]

Certainly.  An incredible amount of US industry moved to China.  But that migration was basically over before CO2 peaked in the US in 2005.

China has, IIRC, already started exporting some of its manufacturing.  They are looking at an aging and shrinking labor force and will probably try to keep the 'best' jobs while moving production to other countries.  I expect to see them doing more business in Africa, which should be a great thing.  Africa really needs some economic growth.

It's hard to say whether China will export a significant amount of its CO2 production.  Africa has a tremendous clean energy potential.  Some energy-intensive Chinese industry might move there to take advantage of cheaper energy.  That would create a global reduction in CO2 emissions.

At this point I don't see any energy intensive industry moving to where they can find cheap coal.

[Sigmetnow]

In an interview with the Guardian, India's new energy minister insists his country's electrification with coal and renewables will still be cleaner than the west's historical path.

India will be a “renewables superpower” according to its new energy minister, but its coal-fired electricity generation will also undergo “very rapid” expansion.

However, Piyush Goyal dismissed criticism of the impact of India’s coal rush on climate change, as western governments giving “homilies and pontificating, having enjoyed themselves the fruits of ruining the environment over many years.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/india-will-be-renewables-superpower-says-energy-minister

[Sigmetnow]

President Obama promises $1 billion for clean energy in India.

Termed a “New Era of Cooperation” the joint statement pledges to expand the U.S.-India Partnership to advance clean energy, work together toward a successful outcome of U.N. climate negotiations in Paris in December 2015, and to expand bilateral cooperation on climate change. This includes the Obama administration allowing $1 billion in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to help India purchase American technology for clean energy projects.

“The fact that the Obama administration announced a cool billion for solar projects in India speaks volumes for the direction Modi, and India is heading,” Justin Guay, associate director for the Sierra Club’s International Climate Program, told ThinkProgress. “For all the hand wringing over Javadekar’s statements about emissions growth, the truth is India’s U.N. stance and its domestic actions are 100 percent divorced. And that’s a great thing.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/01/3574437/indian-american-obama-modi-visit-energy-climate/