Jindal Carbon Trading in India

Two hundred miles north of Bangalore and 4,500 miles southeast of Copenhagen, where world leaders will meet next week in a

landmark conference on climate change, sits the southern Indian village of Toranagallu. While the residents of this mostly

rural hamlet may not realize it, the same environmental problems they grapple with in their daily lives may well be on the

table at the UN’s Copenhagen conference, as attendees decide whether to overhaul an international carbon-trading mechanism

designed to help developing nations cut greenhouse gases.

That’s because Toranagallu is also home to a 3,700-acre forest of puffing smokestacks that make up the Jindal South West

steel factory. Opened a over a decade ago, Jindal South West has over the past several years claimed an estimated $150

million in carbon credits thanks to its internationally recognized status as a part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

administered by the UN under the Kyoto Protocol. But while the steel plant’s efforts to reduce its emissions may in a very

small way be helping the earth’s atmosphere, villagers complain any benefits are lost on them. "Since the plant has come,

the village’s water supply is polluted, and the air is polluted from the dust and smoke," says KSL Swamy, the Toranagallu

representative in the state legislature. "Salaries at the plant are very good," he says, "but the pollution is very bad. We

feel it." (See pictures 25 years after India’s Bhopal industrial disaster.)

The controversy in Toranagallu raises questions about the effectiveness of CDM projects and the wisdom of relying on the

carbon market to combat climate change. While carbon trading has helped lower overall global emissions, some argue the CDM

system has significant flaws that need to be addressed in Copenhagen. One problem, critics say, is that the mechanism is

subject to manipulation and creates undeserving winners. For example, the UN body in charge of managing carbon trading

reportedly has suspended approvals that would have awarded credits for the construction of dozens of wind farms in China.

Projects only qualify for credits if applicants can prove they could not be built without them. According to the Financial

Times, the UN determined some 50 wind power projects were in fact viable without the credits because they qualified for

Chinese government subsidies — but Beijing had deliberately lowered subsidies to make them eligible for CDM funding.

Toranagallu illustrates another unintended consequence of the CDM system: it tends to prop up the dirtiest industries in

developing countries such as India, essentially allowing the industrialized West to outsource the heavy lifting of

greenhouse-gas reduction to the world’s poorer nations. "The trouble is the design of the CDM has been to guarantee the

cheapest option for the Western countries to balance their carbon books," says Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and

Environment in New Delhi. "It’s not [just]what is happening in India that is flawed, it is flawed in design

The CDM was meant to create a market-based system to curb global emission of greenhouse gases. To help make this happen,

instead of strictly holding countries to their emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, it allows companies

and countries to continue to pollute if they offset their emissions by purchasing Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) —

each representing 1 ton of carbon — from developing countries —where carbon-reducing modifications to power plants,

factories and other facilities would be less costly. This was meant to promote the dispersion of green technology to the

developing world, and also give emerging economies like India and China a financial incentive to start cleaning up their

dirty industries. In mid-2005 the global carbon market sprang to life and three years later had grown twelve-fold to $126

billion, according to the World Bank. "In terms of total investment it’s been a remarkable success," says Henry Derwent,

President and CEO of the Geneva-based International Emissions Trading Association(IETA). "It’s done exactly what was

expected of it."

But concerns persist about whether the market is generating enough highly effective carbon-reducing projects, such as solar

power plants and public transit systems — or if it is actually retarding the pace of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by

subsidizing the dirtiest industries, which can rather easily and cheaply generate credits because they have the most to

clean up and often have the resources to make improvements. Fluorochemical companies in India, for example, have been the

biggest generators of CERs for the global market. That’s because companies like SRF, a fluorochemical company headquartered

outside of New Delhi, emit a gas called HFC-23 during the process of making chemicals for refrigerators and air

conditioners. HFC-23 is 11,700 times more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. SRF invested $3 million to equip

its factory to burn the gas instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, a project that could earn it some 3.8 million CERs

annually, worth about $600 million over the next decade.

It’s easy to rush to condemn projects like these that seem counterintuitive to the very logic of the CDM. But the planet’s

atmosphere is perfectly happy with the tradeoff, says Derwent of the IETA, "just as much as it would be happy with the

reduction of CO2 over a long period by the adoption of wind power in the place of coal." What matters is the absolute

reduction in carbon emissions, regardless of the source, he says. "That’s what markets do, they find the cheapest, most

cost-efficient way of producing whatever it is that’s demanded," says Derwent. "That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. That

means that the atmosphere gets an emissions reduction at a cheaper cost."

In Toranagallu, the Jindal plant continues to expand as the company pursues carbon credits by generating power through the

burning of waste gas created during steel manufacture. In a bid for more carbon dollars, a second power plant was built.

"The carbon revenues were a major factor in taking up these projects," says Suresh Iyer, the chief coordinator of carbon

trading at Jindal South West. If a project is reducing carbon, he says, "we do take the initiative and put up the plant

because of that." The second plant, which Iyer estimates cost the company $50 million to build, was approved by the CDM in

January 2007 and now earns an estimated 700,000 CERs a year.

The carbon financial windfall has yet to trickle down to the villagers in Toranagallu, many of whom say life has gotten

worse, not better, since the steel mill first arrived. What they don’t know is that, like it or not, the global battle

against climate change is being fought in their backyard.



~ by Cory Morningstar on December 4, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: