By Vijay Jayaraj
As host of the Sept. 9 G20 summit, India is ready to defend its use of fossil fuels despite the hostility of some of its guests toward the energy source.
Speaking at a pre-summit conclave organized by local media, Union Power Minister R.K. Singh answered criticism that his country is a large emitter of carbon dioxide from its use of fossil fuels, particularly coal. Calling the criticism ridiculous, he said that “you don’t decide on the emissions depending on the size of the country. A small island will be consuming huge quantities of energy per capita, yet its total emissions will be less. You have to talk about it in per capita terms … The narrative has to change.”
India’s per capita emissions are lowest among the top users of fossil fuels and much lower than the global average. This means many Indians continue to consume energy at a rate well below levels reached decades ago in the developed West.
G20 attendees will include the U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany and others, whose leaders seek to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in developing nations even though coal and oil helped to produce western wealth in the Industrial Revolution.
“If you have an economy that is growing at 7%, electricity from coal will also grow,” the minister said. “We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow. The hypocrisy of developed countries is amazing.”
Mr. Singh pointed out the inconvenient fact that renewables are not a realistic alternative to fossil fuels for generating large amounts of electricity. The requirement to back up wind and solar with batteries increases their cost by nearly fivefold, he said.
The cost of renewables is not just an issue in developing economies. Even in the wealthiest countries, wind and solar are notorious for increasing the overall cost of power.
Writer Michael Shellenberger argues that consumers have been bearing much of these costs. For example, he says that “renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the U.S. despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.”
Availability and affordability of raw materials for batteries are also a growing concern. Contrary to popular claims that the prices of storage systems have declined, data show that their raw materials are becoming more expensive.
According to Energy Storage News, “Lithium-ion battery pack prices have gone up 7% in 2022, marking the first time that prices have risen since BloombergNEF began its surveys in 2010. The finding that average pack prices for electric vehicles and battery energy storage systems have increased globally in real terms … confirms the consequences of what the industry has been confronted with in recent months.”
Given these uncertainties, countries like India will not commit to any ambitious renewable transition goals. This is evident, given how India has been increasing its dependency on fossil fuels while simultaneously increasing its renewable capacity.
While India may give outward signs of interest in renewable energy installations, it will not risk the cost of risking blackouts or stunted economic growth by overreliance on high-cost wind and solar energy.
This commentary was first published at Daily Caller, September 8, 2023.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.
“We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow. The hypocrisy of developed countries is amazing.”
And he is correct. They can do it. They have a right to do it. They will do it.
And the biosphere will accelerate due to CO2.
As I have often quoted from Space Odyssey II “Something wonderful is going to happen…”
Besides if the lights go out the deplorables will lose faith in their elites to do the transitioning-
NSW govt makes contentious decision over fears blackouts would derail renewable transition (msn.com)
In coal they trust!
The India (Bharat) per capita CO2 deflection trick is a nice try, but doesn’t work.
China in total is #1, and India is # 3. Of course with Biden at G20, it goes without saying that US is #2. Hence the India deflection, which addled Biden might buy.
True. When I worked on computer system performance, many years ago, we knew that we had to work on the parts of the system that took the most time in total, because only there could we get a meaningful return in terms of total performance. Of course, this CO2 thing is permeated with politics – something we didn’t have to deal with.
I don’t follow you- what’s wrong with the per capita thing?
It means that fewer people have access to electricity.
The “per capita thing” Takes no account of country size nor population size. Transportation is a big emitter. In a big country with few (relatively) people, the emissions per capita are large.
The “Per Capita Thing” gives China an excuse to continue to produce 1/3 GLOBAL emissions as 1/2 of their population is actually energy impoverished. Almost 400,000,000 Chinese have zero access to electricity and more than 300,000,000 more have extremely limited access dramatically skewing their Per Capita figures.
If total GT of CO2 atmospheric load matters then producing 1/3 of the total global emissions is where reductions need to happen.
China’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita overtook those of the EU in 2013. What will their emissions be like when all Chinese people have access to electricity?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
So what!!!! Who cares how much CO2 is emitted anywhere? It is a positive benefit to the eco-system.
Well with their per capita thing that allows the virtue signalling hypocrite wokester elites to play footloose and fancy free with your ‘deplorable’ lifestyle-
‘This issue will destroy New York City’: NYC Mayor slammed for changing ‘sanctuary city’ views (msn.com)
Well until it affects them personally of course.
The planet cannot tell where national borders are drawn or how many people are benefiting from the energy that is being produced.
1 x CO2 molecule warms the world the same, whether it is shared by one person or a billion.
So if you think the world is doomed from CO2 then the per capita thing is irrelevant. The world is doomed anyway. Gaia does not care who is emitting what, just what is being emitted, because she is not sentient.
Of course, if you think AGW isn’t very important but the politics is then the per capita thing is very relevant.
As I said in my earlier comment, you have to look at totals if you want a meaningful total result. NB. I don’t want the same meaningful total result that climate activists say they want, so as far as I am concerned India can just go for prosperity for the people, and I hope they get there.
So what? Atmospheric CO2 isn’t harmful in the least. Which is what R.K. Singh is saying.
The west has benefited from fossil fuels, now it’s the developing nations turn. If it causes the west problems, too bad. The west didn’t hold back when it began burning the stuff.
“If it causes the west problems, too bad.”
That’s right!
And the only real problem India’s coal burning causes is mental problems for Western Elites, considering there is no evidence CO2 is harmful to anything.
The U.S. and other Western nations need a little practical, common-sense governance like India has.
Western leaders are not hypocrites if they seriously believe CO2 is a threat, their position is the only logical one.
India’s position indicates that they do not believe the proclamations of the IPCC and western politicians.
As soon as you introduce a concept of per capita into CO2 emissions, you’ve destroyed the whole premise of the scam. It’s the totality of emissions that matters. Either CO2 is a threat or it isn’t. Fairness has no place in such a decision.
If you are India trying to deflect Paris Accord ‘blame and shame’ it obviously does.
Doesn’t work logically, but then nothing about climate change is logical.
‘“If you have an economy that is growing at 7%, electricity from coal will also grow,” the minister said. “We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow. The hypocrisy of developed countries is amazing.”’
True. If developed countries want to set an example, let them prove that they can maintain their living standards while reducing their per-capita emissions to below that of India.
At that point (and only then) can they begin their CO2 preaching. India has every right to increase its per-capita CO2 emissions to match that of developed economies.
If the West was serious about climate we would already see hundreds of plans for nuclear power plants. It’s obvious to everyone that it’s a hoax by simply looking at the response. All we see is the wind and solar toys which the politicians invest in and control.
Politicians invest OPM in
Yes, always keep that in mind: It’s not the politican’s money they are spending. They feel no restraints on spending because spending other people’s money is easy to do.
I just looked at the numbers and 4.5tons/capita-yr seems to be the minimum for developed countries. India is at about 1.9 right now. After they double CO2 emissions (or the West further halves theirs) the conversation can perhaps begin.
Thanks to India for pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy in all of this.
Of course his per capita argument has some validity.
But what can’t be ignored is that the US is REDUCING its use of fossil fuels while India and China are INCREASING.
We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow.
Every nation, including the US has a “right” to grow. Stagnation leads to a death spiral.
“the US is REDUCING its use of fossil fuels”
well, maybe- we export our industries- then buy products from those other nations which produced those goods with fossil fuels- so the US isn’t really reducing its true carbon emissions
then we have all the carbon emissions resulting from the production (mostly in other nations) and installation of “clean and green energy”- which also happen to damage the environment, such as destroying green landscapes like farms and forests, resulting in a further carbon footprint.
Wokeachusetts loves to brag now that it’s the most energy efficient state- yet it exported almost all its heavy industry yet it’s rich so it can important anything from anywhere, mostly meaning China. Most of its remaining industry and economy is high tech and academics and medical which all have a relatively low carbon footprint.
Not that I worry about carbon footprint because I don’t- just saying.
For a time, US CO2 emissions were falling because we were replacing coal power plants with natural gas plants plants. This was because fracking had made natural gas cheaper than coal, it had nothing to do with global warming or renewable energy.
As western nations continue to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, they will contract.
They will become nothing.
They are currently destroying their own self-worth in many different areas.
Moral degradation, economic degradation, energy degradation, social degradation.
It seems to be all part of some hideous plan.
Why western country leaders are going along with this plan, is beyond any rational thought.
Follow the money.
Just ask yourself who benefits and the answer will be apparent to you.
“Why western country leaders are going along with this plan, is beyond any rational thought.”
I think you hit on it right there. Western leaders are not thinking rationally. Those that are True Believers, anyway. It’s hard to sort out the True Believers from the Truly Corrupt. The climate alarmists are one or the other, because there is no evience that CO2 is harmful or needs to be controlled.
Since histroy began, a thirsty person meeting a stream would sip a sample. A hunter making a spear head would take and shape a rock. All people partook of breaths of air.
Natural resources are at the property of the people.
In modern times, there have been numerous arrangements made about the use of natural resources, like royalties on miners, dams on rivers and recently, curbs on CO2 into the air.
This article is fundamentally about these arrangements – about whether we, the people, accept or reject these arrangements.
Groups like the United Nations must abide by property rights fundamentals that start with the foundation that people are to be left to enjoy their per capita existences as free as possible from such arrangements.
The United Nations does not own our rocks and minerals, our water, our air. It has no innate authority to dictate terms of arrangements that are objectionable to the will of the people. The U.N. is a human construct with the many imperfections that are revealed when groups with special interests try to take advantage of arrangements that the people do not want.
Has the U.N. ever asked you or me if their arrangements are acceptable?
Geoff S
If natural resources belong to everybody, then land belongs to everybody, things that grow on the land belong to everybody.
The natural result of your claim that natural resources belong to everyone is that there is no such thing as private property.
The claim that natural resources belong to everybody also naturally leads to the conclusion that only people acting collectively (IE government) has the right to decide how these natural resources are to be distributed.
Only if you deny individual rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
MarkW,
Yes, there is private property because it is one of thoise arrangements that I mentioned.
Some of those arrangemnts are good, some are bad in terms of the continuation of human contentment.
The present problem is that new arrangements are being made and old ones modified with little or no reference to the bulk of the affected people. IOW, there is an erosion of proper democracy.
Geoff S
The problem is that your declaration that natural resources should belong to everyone completely contradicts the very notion of private property.
I’m with Geoff on this. The argument is not just about private property, it is about people having a say. People not having a say leads eventually to bloodshed.
There is no perfect political/economic/social system. The best we can ever achieve is a kind of unstable equilibrium, where no matter how good a system is it will still need to be tweaked (or more) at times to keep it working. A mix of public and private property has worked very well for quite a long time, but it now needs tweaking because too much private property has ended up in too few hands. There are signs that the public are becoming aware of this, and hopefully they will get to a workable tweak.
Let’s just stop feeding the UN parasites.
Calling on Chris Bowen, Australia’s equivalent of Mr. Singh…your response to that comment Bowen?
As I’ve always said — Nut-Zero – It-Will-Never-Happen.
I’m glad to see that India is essentially telling the developed world to take a hike regarding increasing renewables and reducing fossil fuels. If those countries have been able to grow their economies and living standards with oil, coal and natural gas, there’s no reason for anyone else to be restricted in their use. Never mind Net Zero because no one’s going to reach it anyway, and next to no one is particularly concerned if they don’t. At least China and India, unlike the other big emitters, don’t pretend they are making emissions reductions a priority.
China and India don’t give a flying fish about Co2.
Whilst the postmodern woke green west — can’t provide a definition the word woman, re-write history, extinguish the Western cannon, re-define biological human sex, chase wind and sun “power” and are beholden to the globalist power elites that think a county’s sovereignty must be destroyed, China and India continue to industrialize, urbanize and build their defense forces.
As they told Big Pharma to take a hike and stuff their carte blanche indemnity demands upwards into a narrow cavity….
“Mr. Singh pointed out the inconvenient fact that renewables are not a realistic alternative to fossil fuels for generating large amounts of electricity. The requirement to back up wind and solar with batteries increases their cost by nearly fivefold, he said.”
This statement will be like water off a duck’s back to our (lack of) energy Minister ‘Blackout’ Bowen. He never misses an opportunity to tell us the renewables are the cheapest form of electricity generation, perhaps because he is making all other sources more expensive.
That’s a race in which he is falling behind.
India just hasn’t reached the stage of development yet where people are so well off and free of struggle that they can perfect the art of stupidity and illogic that has become fashionable in the wealthy west. In time (possibly very soon) we will switch places on the development scale and those of us who were once privileged will learn what it is to want and to wish we had preserved a sense of discipline and rationality.
“India just hasn’t reached the stage of development yet where people are so well off and free of struggle that they can perfect the art of stupidity and illogic that has become fashionable in the wealthy west” No, but they still demand that “wealthy west” makes payola payments – aka Aid payments for access to their “markets” – that is their version of “rationality” which sits behind funding Putin ( they are not alone in that for sure)….
The United States should not be paying anyone with regard to anything to do with CO2.
There is no climate crisis. Certainly not one that was caused by Western Democracies emitting CO2, so there is no reason to compensate anyone for anything, when it comes to CO2 or weather-related events. it’s ridiculous.
@ Tommy2b and George Daddis – Sep 9.
Developed countries (West) 4,5 tons/year; India (East) 1,9.
I am convinced of the validity of the “per capita thing”. The numbers speak for themselves:
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet (R. Kipling).
But I do not give up hoping that they will once, at least in many aspects, come together. Wishful? maybe.
Mr Singh’s speech seems to be a step in that direction. If the West only …….
.#
“Mr Singh’s speech seems to be a step in that direction. If the West only”
Got rational.
Don’t count on any CO2 rationality while the current batch of Western politicians remain in office.
The only thing that is going to wake some of these people up is when the economy crashes down around them in the form of electricity blackouts. When the blackouts come, the people will notice and complain, and politicians will be put on the hotseat. But the Western politicians will cruise right along headed towards that Net Zero cliff until that time comes.
From the sound of things, blackouts are just around the corner.
I would greatly prefer India to drop the deflection and go for the jugular. This ‘per capita’ thing is meaningless and makes it too darned easy for the forces of evil to skate around it and just keep trampling people. How do you say “CAGW is BS” in Hindi?
Yes, India should demand proof that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, before they cut their own throat trying to reduce emissions.
When are these charlatans going to have to actually prove that CO2 emissions are a major contributor to temperature? I’m so sick of this nonsense. We could eliminate all human emissions tomorrow and no one would even notice on the thermometer. Freaking socialist fools!
“When are these charlatans going to have to actually prove that CO2 emissions are a major contributor to temperature?”
Yes!!!
This is what Indian officials should be asking. Where’s the beef? Show me some hard evidence that CO2 should be regulated. And of course, the truth is noone on the planet has this evidence, and they have been looking for it for over 50 years.
There are a lot of delusional people in this world. When they get to be political leaders, they cause serious problems for the rest of us. That’s what is happening now with this unsubstantiated, unwarranted fear of CO2.
Well Tom, you and I and many that contribute to these Blogs, know that empirical science has already shown that AGW heresy has not been validated, so we don’t have a climate emergency. The BRICS nations have recognized this and are acting in accordance with their self-interest to continue their fossil fueled economic growth. All the current climate environmental drama, and energy sufficiency self-harm, is being enacted in foolish western democracies, the rest of the so-called developing and underdeveloped world is only going along with the UN politics if they can get a free Climate handout – reparations for man’s historical industrialization pollution of nature- whatever! The technological elites pushing this climate nonsense, are benefitting from the rash investment in ‘renewables’. It’s clearly a case of following the money here, but when these technologies fail to deliver, they will get their fingers burnt, blackouts will ruin their big tech experience and their environmental moral superiority complex, bring it on!
So, half the world knows the IPCC climate science is wrong, or doesn’t care what is happening with climate, as long as they can get investments to energize their economies and keep their people happy. South Africa is a case in point where they have trialed cutting back on reliable coal power generation if favour of renewables, only to find they are having constant blackouts because alternative power sources are not sustainable. Thus, the UN, World Bank prohibition on fossil fuel power sources is hurting poor and developed countries, and therefore is immoral and neo colonial in practice.
Australia, Germany and the UK are leading the blindfolded environmental charge from baseload security into unreliable power generation, due misguided green/socialist policies,
and their manufacturing strengths and overall economies have accordingly wilted. When are we going to see a proper cost/benefit analysis of the Net Zero madness, and a realignment of priorities towards a more rational future? Perhaps the next election will sort the duds out.