(Updated on 7/12/2010)
Following are the recently appeared news paper articles written by Mr. Asoka Abeygunawardana, Executive Director of the Energy Forum.
Please visit the Publication Category for the archives.
(Updated on 7/12/2010)
By Asoka Abeygunawardana
BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster occurred on 20th of April and it has become a transforming incident in the history of deepwater exploration inviting all off-shore drilling countries to revisit their original plans. On 20th of April, BP's Gulf of Mexico oil well pressure tests showed an imbalance between the drill pipe choke, and kill lines running from the drill deck to the blowout preventer. Gas alarms kept piling up on top of each other more and more and the rig was hit by a power blackout, and the explosion came soon after.
The original estimate of the oil leak was about 1,000 barrels per day. Federal authorities later on estimated BP’s oil well leaking between 12,000 and 24,000 barrels a day. Accordingly since the spill began roughly 0.55 to 1.16 million barrels of oil have leaked into the Gulf. Scientists now say the blown-out well could have been spewing as much as 47,000 barrels of crude a day before a cut-and-cap maneuver started capturing some of the flow, meaning more than 2.36 million barrels may have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico since the start of the disaster in April. This amount of is about 10 times more than the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred on March 24, 1989, which spilled 0.260 million barrels.
Since the explosion the BP engineers appear to be trying anything people can think of to stop the leak. BP started pumping heavy mud into the leaking Gulf of Mexico well and hoped the mud and concrete could overpower the steady stream of oil. The device that was supposed to shut off the flow of oil failed. The containment box plan of BP, never before tried at such depths, was designed next, to siphon up to 85 percent of the leaking oil to a tanker at the surface. It had taken about two weeks to build the box and three days to cart it 50 miles out and slowly lower it to the well. All together BP took 1 1/2 months to place the containment box over the busted well. The cap has been siphoning an increasing amount of oil since then and it funneled about 10,000 barrels a day to a tanker on the surface, up from about 6,000 barrels initially. BP is drilling a relief well as well which is considered a permanent fix. A relief well to stop the oil could take three months to drill and it will not be completed until August.
A steady stream of pollution from offshore rigs causes a wide range of health and reproductive problems for fish and other marine life. Offshore drilling activities destroy reefs and coastal wetlands. The spill, which is estimated to be more than 200 km long and 110 km wide, will impact the coastlines of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, and threaten hundreds of species in the Gulf of Mexico, including endangered and rare species. The timing of BP’s oil spill was particularly devastating to the Gulf ecosystem because it is peak spawning and nesting season for many species of fish, birds, turtles and marine mammals. Many species remain in long-established breeding areas during this time, some of which are in the direct path of the oil spill. As the oil slick spreads, and pollution travels up the food chain, several important and endangered species will be at risk. The findings suggest that oil spills can have an impact on the environment even decades later.
The Government of Sri Lanka is currently exploring petroleum resources in the territorial waters within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. According to experts in charge of the exploration, the estimated deposit in the offshore of the Mannar basin is roughly one billion barrels. This will be sufficient for Sri Lanka’s needs for about 30 years. However, if demand keeps rising at present levels, then the deposit will only be sufficient for 13 years. Given the current global consumption of oil, deposits in Sri Lankan seas will only be sufficient to meet the global oil demand for a mere ten days.
Offshore oil exploration is complex and is over ten times costly than onshore exploration. In onshore oil exploration a small oil field could be commercially viable but offshore this may not be possible. Massive investment is required for oil exploration, thus, the government was left with no choice but to have international oil companies invest in this venture. This results in the ownership of the oil being divided between the government and the companies even though the oil is rightfully ours. After the 2D Seismic survey government decided to open bidding for six out of the eight oil exploration blocks in the offshore of the Southern Mannar basin.
Cairn Lanka, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cairn India, was selected after the bidding process for exploring oil and gas in the Mannar Basin. Cairn India Limited is a spin-off of Cairn Energy plc for production interests in Western and Eastern India in 2006. Cairn Energy plc was founded in 1981 in Scotland and had revenue of $233.9 million in 2009. Cairn India, which currently produces eight percent of its country’s crude oil requirements, has working interests in 13 fields in India. It conducts 3D deep and ultra deep sea seismic studies in the Mannar Basin covering approximately 3000 km2 in water depths of 200 m to 1.8 km. Cairn Lanka has committed an initial investment of US$ 110 million for the project. The work program includes proposals to acquire 5000 km of 2D, 1000 km2 of 3D seismic and drill three wells in the first three years, of the eight year exploration period.
BP plc which had to face the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster is a British global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world. BP which was founded in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company became the British Petroleum Company in 1954 and had revenue of US $246.1 billion in 2009 implying it is 1000 times larger that Cairn Energy plc. BP says the cost of the company's response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has reached about $1.25 billion. Based on the maximum amount of oil possibly spilled to date, that would translate to a potential civil fine for simple discharge alone of $2.8 billion. If BP were found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, the civil fine could be up to $4,300 per barrel, or up to $11.1 billion. It is worth exploring what will be the response of Cairn Lanka if such a disaster happens in Sri Lankan waters.
There was a campaign against offshore drilling in America during the last 2 decades. In 1990 President George H.W. Bush placed a 10-year executive blanket moratorium on all new leasing or preleasing activity in offshore areas. President Clinton in 1998 extended the 1990 offshore drilling moratorium until 2012, and announces a permanent drilling ban within 12 marine sanctuaries. President Obama's 2010 March announcement however to open Eastern coastal areas to offshore oil drilling was a shock to many. He may have to reverse his decision after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
There is a worldwide trend to protect sensitive ecosystems from oil pollution and promote maximum conservation to curb dependence on all fossil fuels. Global oil production is peaking right about now. Everyone must get ready for sustainable alternatives to survive oil scarcity. It's time for revisiting offshore oil drilling as a form of fossil fuel combustion. It’s time to protect the environment and stop giving out more corporate welfare to the polluting energy companies. It's time to assess the possible impact on the Sri Lanka coastal belt civilization if such an accident occurs in the Sri Lankan waters. This incident should be considered as a transforming incident in the history of deepwater exploration and it's time for Sri Lanka to revisit its original plans of off-shore oil exploration.
(Updated on 6/8/2010)
by Asoka Abeygunawardana
The year 2010 is declared as the International Year of Biodiversity. The theme of this year’s World Environment Day was 'Many Species. One Planet. One Future'. The relevance of biodiversity to human is becoming a major international issue, as scientific evidence is gathered on the global implications of biodiversity loss. In 2002, Governments set 2010 as a deadline to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity. Since then the year 2010 has been seen as an end goal, so that biodiversity, life on Earth, is no longer threatened. All assessments of progress indicate that we are far from reaching this goal. The ecological footprint of humanity exceeds the biological capacity of the Earth by a wider margin than at the time the 2010 target was agreed. The International Year of Biodiversity is to revive this effort and to help raise awareness of the importance of biodiversity through activities and events in many countries. This is to elevate biological diversity nearer to the top of the political agenda.
Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or on the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems. The biodiversity found on Earth today consists of many millions of distinct biological species. Rapid environmental modifications typically cause extinctions. Since life began on Earth, five major mass extinctions have led to large and sudden drops in the biodiversity of species. The most recent extinction event, occurred 65 million years ago, and it attracted more attention than all others because it killed the dinosaurs.
At present the species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate known in geological history, and most of these extinctions are tied to human activity. Some conservation organizations estimate species are heading towards extinction at a rate of about one in every 20 minutes. One figure frequently cited is that the rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate which means that between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species of 2009 consists of 47,677 species. The list reveals that 21 per cent of all known mammals, 30 per cent of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds, 28 per cent of reptiles, 37 per cent of freshwater fishes, 70 per cent of plants and 35 per cent of invertebrates assessed so far, are under threat.
An indication of the magnitude of the combined pressures we are placing on biodiversity and ecosystems is provided by humanity's ecological footprint, a calculation of the area of biologically productive land and water needed to provide the resources we use and to absorb our waste. The world average ecological footprint is estimated as 2.7 global hectares per capita whereas the biological capacity is 2.1 gh per capita. This "overshoot" has increased from some 20 per cent at the time the 2010 biodiversity target was agreed in 2002.
The pressures do not act in isolation on biodiversity and ecosystems, but frequently, with one pressure exacerbating the impacts of another. Fragmentation of habitats reduces the capacity of species to adapt to climate change, by limiting the possibilities of migration to areas with more suitable conditions. Pollution, overfishing, climate change and ocean acidification all combine to weaken the resilience of coral reefs and increase the tendency for them to shift to algae-dominated states with massive loss of biodiversity. Increased levels of nutrients combined with the presence of invasive alien species can promote the growth of hardy plants at the expense of native species. Climate change can further exacerbate the problem by making more habitats suitable for invasive species. Sea level rise caused by climate change combines with physical alteration of coastal habitats, accelerating change to coastal biodiversity and associated loss of ecosystem services.
Indirect drivers primarily act on biodiversity are population increase, higher per capita consumption, and increasing demand for energy, water and food, each of which contribute to direct pressures such as habitat conversion, over-exploitation of resources, nutrient pollution and climate change.
Biodiversity is not distributed evenly on Earth, but is consistently richer in the tropics and less rich in Polar Regions where fewer species are found. Sri Lanka being a tropical country is amongst the most floristically rich in Asia and for some faunal groups, its forests has the highest density of species diversity in the world. Sri Lanka is home to 3,210 flowering plant species, of which 916 species are endemic and 16% of the mammals in the island are also endemic. Sri Lanka has a wide range of topographic and climatic variation and this contributes to the special features of its biodiversity.
Chemical agriculture and deforestation are two of the most serious drivers for biodiversity depletion in Sri Lanka. Between 1990 and 2000, Sri Lanka lost an average of 26,800 ha of forests per year. During the period 1990-2005 Sri Lanka has had one of the highest deforestation rates of primary forests in the world. In that period the country lost more than 35 percent of its old-growth forest cover.
In agriculture many modern practices and approaches to intensification aimed at achieving high yields have led to a simplification of the components of agricultural systems and biodiversity and to ecologically unstable production systems. These include use of monocultures with reduction in cropping diversity and elimination of crop succession or rotation; use of high-yielding varieties and hybrids with the loss of traditional varieties and diversity together with a need for high inputs of inorganic fertilizer; control of weeds, pests and diseases based on chemical (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) treatments. Land and habitat conversion to large-scale agricultural production, including drainage of land and conversion of wetlands has also caused significant loss of biodiversity.
The loss of traditional knowledge is also detrimental, as for many local and indigenous communities biodiversity is a central component of belief systems, worldviews and identity. Cultural changes act as indirect drivers of biodiversity loss by affecting local practices of conservation and sustainable use.
The trends from available indicators suggest that the state of biodiversity is declining, the pressures upon it are increasing, and the benefits derived by humans from biodiversity are diminishing. The ultimate message is that despite the many efforts taken around the world to conserve biodiversity and use it sustainably, responses so far have not been adequate to address the scale of biodiversity loss or reduce the pressure. It is important that Sri Lanka recognizes biodiversity and traditional knowledge as its strengths while formulating the country development strategy.
(Updated on 6/8/2010)
by Asoka Abeygunawardana
All energy experts worldwide are aware that there is no future for fossil oil and coal because of the high rate of depletion of resources and the prevalent challenges to control climate change. The pertinent question against this backdrop is “what are the alternatives for fossil oil and coal?” Nuclear power which was considered the most promising alternative in the early 1970's lost its momentum drastically in 1980's. However, it is enjoying resurgence in the minds of policy makers as a cheap power option.
Though the last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line was way back in February 7, 1996 the current US President Barak Obama recently declared that the US will pay attention to reviving its nuclear power program as an alternative to fossil fuels. In July 2009, the Italian Parliament passed a law that cancelled the results of an earlier referendum of facing out nuclear power and allowed the immediate start of the Italian nuclear program. The Sri Lankan government took the initiative of exploring the possibilities of nuclear options last year despite the fact that CEB has ruled out nuclear power as a candidate option for its long-term generation expansion strategy. As the climate negotiations reached its climax the energy community worldwide has become excited over the development plans of fourth-generation reactor technology that can use spent uranium fuel as its feed-stock. Bill Gates has been advocating one version of that technology, the “travelling wave reactor”, and has invested in a company developing it.
The wind that has shifted in the nuclear industry’s favour is the desire of governments to be less reliant upon increasingly pricey oil imports and concern over the fossil-fuelled climate catastrophe. Many governments look set to fail to meet their meagre greenhouse-gas reduction commitments set out under the Kyoto Protocol. This shines a new and more flattering light on the nuclear power industry. Every pro-nuclear organization now touts the technology’s carbon-free credentials.
The nuclear power industry so far has gone through three generations. The first generation from the mid 1940's to the mid 1960's was dominated by early prototype reactors which were retired some time ago. The second generation (which is called the generation of commercial power reactors) started in mid 1960's and came to an end in the mid 1990's. Second generation reactor safety systems are 'active' and led to accidents in the event of malfunction. Third-generation reactors which had passive safety features were less vulnerable to operational upsets, and had a higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years. Further it reduced the possibility of core melt accidents, resistance to serious damage that would allow radiological release from an aircraft impact, higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste, and burnable absorbers to extend fuel life. Current reactors in operation around the world are generally considered second or third generation systems. In 2007, there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries. Still in 2009, only 15% of the world's electricity came from nuclear power.
Despite the current popularity of nuclear technology amongst decision makers, we must take a sober look at the dangers that they pose. The Chernobyl catastrophe was 400 times more potent than the Hiroshima bomb. Today, children are still being born with genetic defects and higher incidences of thyroid cancer and leukaemia. The Chernobyl threat is far from over and stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of this "arrogant” technology. Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, there have been at least 22 major accidents at nuclear power stations of which 15 involved radiological releases. Of these, 2 came close to meltdown. The huge cost, and delays and budget over-runs in construction of third generation reactors, along with concerns about their safety, has inspired a search for new, smaller designs, including some that are only the size of a garden shed. Generation IV reactors are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. The primary goal of Generation IV is to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste and natural resource utilization, and to decrease the cost of building and running such plants. However most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030 and solutions to the climate catastrophe are an immediate requirement and there is no time for further research.
Nuclear fusion reactions which are safer and generate less radioactive waste than fission, is another option currently under consideration. Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel. Many experts and civilians alike believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output. These reactions appear potentially viable, though technically quite difficult and have yet to be created on a scale that could be used in a functional power plant. Fusion power has been under intense theoretical and experimental investigation since the 1950s; it is however not going to be a reality for decades to come.
The European Commission estimates that there may be only 2-3 million tonnes of exploitable uranium sources globally. The global nuclear industry requires approximately 68,000 tonnes of uranium ore a year to operate. At current projections of nuclear capacity, uranium mining operations will need to increase output by 100% within 10-20 years to meet demand. It is estimated that global exploitable reserves of uranium will likely be depleted within 30-40 years. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlines a scenario whereby 3,000 nuclear reactors would be needed by the year 2100. This would mean an average of 75 new nuclear reactor-builds each year for 100 years. If all the world’s existing fossil fuel based power stations were replaced by nuclear, there would only be enough uranium for 3-4 years. Hence it is clear that Nuclear Power is not a sustainable replacement for fossil fuels.
Another alternative currently under discussion is to breed uranium from thorium as fission fuel in the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is about 3.5 times as common as uranium in the Earth's crust, and has different geographic characteristics. India has looked into this technology, as it has abundant thorium reserves but little uranium. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a Thorium centred fuel cycle. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a Thorium blanket is under construction at the Madras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station. This would extend the total practical fissionable resource base by 450% but still, there is a long way to go on this front. We should keep in mind that without uranium, conventional reactors stop reacting and it is by no means a replacement for fossil fuel.
As of 2010, India has 19 nuclear power plants in operation generating 4,560 MW out of total plant capacity of 140,000 MW which is just 4.2% of the total power requirement of India. India; the sleeping giant which is about to be awakened can by no means rely on nuclear power. A new nuclear renaissance, such as that already being seen in India, only introduces more risks of future accidents.
Is nuclear power really a solution to climate change? Unfortunately it is not. Nuclear power plants may not directly emit climate-damaging carbon dioxide, but if you look at the whole lifecycle of a nuclear power station (uranium mining, enrichment and transport across the globe; the construction and decommissioning of facilities; and the processing, transport and storage of radioactive wastes) it produces 20-40% of the CO2 of a typical gas fired power plant.
France has long been seen as the model nuclear nation – deriving over 70 per cent of its electricity supply from nearly 60 nuclear power reactors. However, in the past few years, heat-waves have brought a number of stations near to closure. The French Government has temporarily allowed the plants to breach safety rules rather than force costly closures. The irony is that with global warming expected to bring hotter summers and more prolonged droughts, the nuclear industry seems unlikely to be able to cope in such overheated conditions.
In 2009, estimates for the cost of a new plant in the U.S. ranged from $6 to $10 billion. In 2008, new nuclear power plant construction costs were rising faster than the costs of other types of power plants. Sri Lanka by no means can afford such high capital costs for power generation at present.
The promise is great. However, cheap nuclear power without underlying waste problems is yet been solved. There are also some nuclear experts who warn that the promise is a snare and a delusion. The arguments against nuclear power are as valid today, as they were 20 years ago. The technology is still extremely dangerous; relies on dwindling supplies of uranium; and remains so costly that massive government subsidies are required. It is also vulnerable to terrorism; can feed weapons proliferation; and produces volumes of toxic waste with no satisfactory storage solution. It’s not that something new and important and good has happened with nuclear, it’s that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change. Nuclear power is neither a short term solution nor a medium-term solution to the power crisis. Further it is unlikely to be a long-term solution as well.
Nuclear power is only a straw for the drowning human civilization and the more fundamental questions about the way we live, the nature of our economic system, and how we build meaningful movements for change still remain.
(Updated on 4/22/2010)
by Asoka Abeygunawardana
We are about to witness an economic war in Sri Lanka. All Sri Lankan are anxiously waiting for a victory in the “economic war". President Mahinda Rajapaksa says he is well prepared and ready to face this challenge. He goes on to say that during his tenure of office in the past 4 years, Sri Lanka was able to quickly generate exceptional growth and to double its per capita income and reach a PCI level over US $2,000. At the very beginning of the Mahinda Chintana - A vision for the future statement it is stated that 'Over the next six years, I will dedicate myself to increase our per capita income to well above US $ 4,000, thereby placing our country in the ranks of middle income nations. I am confident that we will be able to now maintain a continuous growth rate of 8% per annum, during the next six years.' At a glance this looks like the conventional way of thinking on economic development which is currently challenged at all levels as it commonly known to lead us towards disaster.
An economy is said to be growing if the financial value of all exchanges of goods and services within it increases. The absence of growth gets described negatively as a recession. Prolonged recessions are called depressions. Growth tends to be used with all things that are good. Plants grow, children grow, but, even in nature, growth can be damaging as in the case of cancer cells. Similarly an economy may grow due to a number of harmful factors of socially and environmentally destructive growth in which a kind of false monetary value is created by liquidating irreplaceable social and natural assets on which livelihoods depend. Economies may pretend to be growing when money is spent on clearing up after disasters, pollution, to control rising crime or widespread disease.
Growth forever, within fixed, though flexible limits isn’t possible. Sooner or later human being will hit the buffers of society and the biosphere. This can happen either due to the over-exploitation of natural resources to the point of exhaustion or because more waste is dumped into an ecosystem than it can safely absorbed or social unrest due to breakdown of social relationships leading to social collapse. Sciences now seems to be telling us that these are happening - and sooner, rather than later.
The fact that an economy is growing tells us nothing about the quality of economic activity that is happening within it. As an example, people may become healthier by consuming less and exercising more, using cheaper, more active forms of transport such as walking and cycling in times of recession. It is possible to have both ‘economic’ and ‘uneconomic’ growth and we should not assume that growth per se is a good thing, to be held on to at all costs.
Once people have enough to meet their basic needs and are able to survive with reasonable comfort, higher levels of consumption do not tend to translate into higher levels of life satisfaction or well-being.Instead, people tend to adapt relatively quickly to improvements in their material standard of living, and soon return to their prior level of life satisfaction. Higher levels of consumption are sought in the belief that they will lead to a better life, whilst simultaneously changing expectations leave people in effect having to ‘run faster’, consuming more, merely to stand still. As a person makes more money, expectations and desires are raised in tandem which results in no permanent gain in happiness.
In industrialized countries, patterns of work and rising consumption were promoted and pursued that repeatedly failed to deliver expected gains in life satisfaction. At the same time, these patterns of overwork potentially erode current well-being by undermining family relationships and the time needed for personal development. A recent survey conducted by 'new economies foundation' (nef) shows the pattern of life satisfaction and consumption in Europe. The web-based survey contained questions about lifestyle such as consumption patterns, diet, health, family, history as well as subjective life satisfaction. Over 35,000 people in Europe completed the survey.
The distribution of the ecological footprint across the total sample showed the number of planets’ worth of resources that would be required if everyone on the planet were to live the same way as each surveyed individual. The people participating in the survey varied from 'one planet living' to 'seven planet living' (See the graph). The survey results were harsh and showed the extent of European over-use of planetary resources. Not only is the distribution of the footprint extremely unequal in this sample, it is also far too high in absolute terms. The results clearly show that well-being has little to do with consumption. It allows for the possibility that the collective footprint of the developed world could be reduced significantly without leading to widespread loss in well-being. On the other hand the results highlight the fact that the developing world needs only a little growth to reach the satisfaction level of the developed world. The developing world can easily reach the satisfaction level of the developed world without drastically increasing their energy and resources consumption levels.
This raises the question whether the 'Vision for the Future' is trying to follow the mirage of economic development or not. It is however somewhat different from blindly following the path of the economic development. President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his 'Vision of the Future' says 'I also truly believe that our economy should be independent, resilient and disciplined, with a strong growth focus, operating as per international standards, whilst maintaining our local identity. Therefore, over the next six years, I will lay special emphasis on implementing our country’s National Economic Policy; which takes our collective aspirations into account.'
The original version of Mahinda Chintana published in 2005 is more focused on this matter. The priority of the Chintana was not given to economic development but to spiritual development. The document at the very beginning discussed ' A virtuous citizen' and goes on to say 'Wisdom and virtue are essential for the physical and spiritual development of a person. My intension is therefore to eliminate hatred and promote favorable and fruitful bonds between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and students, employers and employees and rulers and followers.' This is the same concept that is clearly explained in the Sigalovada Sutra in the Buddha’s teachings. This approach should be the basis of development in Sri Lanka for the next 6 years. However, this aspect may be neglected due to over emphasis on economic development in the 2010 version of the Mahinda Chintana.
A national average has no real meaning when there is a huge income disparity within society. For both high and middle income countries what is economically needed is not more growth but better distribution. Economic growth is a very inefficient way to reduce poverty and is becoming even less so. Relying on the wished-for trickle-down of income from growth as the main economic strategy to meet human needs, maximize well-being and achieve poverty reduction appears ineffective, frequently counter-productive and is, to all intents and purposes, impossible. Hence the focus of development in Sri Lanka should be on sustainable development lifestyles with more emphasis on addressing the issue of income disparity prevailing in society.
(Updated on 4/22/2010)
by Asoka Abeygunawardana
The urban population across Sri Lanka has increased from 10% in 1970 to 40% in 2010 with accelerated economic and social development, increase of population and efforts to increase the standard of living. Colombo and its suburbs have developed into a metropolitan area and several provincial city clusters such as Kandy, Kurunegala, Galle and Matara, too have expanded. Rapid economic changes and urbanization resulting from open economic policies introduced since the 1980s have not been balanced by improved urban infrastructure service facilities, particularly in the area of urban solid waste management (SWM). As a result solid waste is openly dumped in a few locations in the towns.
Local Authorities are obliged by law to collect and dispose of solid wastes put out by residents in areas in their jurisdiction. Collection and transport of solid waste are carried out by the Local Authorities with different levels of service and little capacity for meeting minimum accepted health or environmental standards. Daily waste collection by Local Authorities is estimated at 2,500t, of which the Western Provincial Council accounts for 60%. There are six MCs with a waste collection greater than 100 t/day and three MCs between 50-100 t/day, with the Colombo MC collecting 680 t each day.
It is important to recognize the basics and the complexity of the waste management process before attempting to find a sustainable and lasting solution to the problem in Sri Lanka. Waste management is important as it is visible; politically sensitive, consumes a considerable share of the municipal budget, and, has a direct impact on public health, environment and natural resources. It isdifficult to find a solution as there are many different stakeholders with different aspirations and agendas that include social, technical, political, institutional, environmental, and financial aspects of waste stream elements. All these are related yet they are often not connected.
The main weakness in most of the programs implemented so far has been focus on just one or two aspects of the problem only. Common problems encountered are copying models from the North, lack of a comprehensive policy framework for waste management and the shortage of tools to analyze and improve efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. For addressing these issues, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources formulated a National Policy on Solid Waste Management and National Solid Waste Management Strategies in October 2007. Playing a role beyond that of a regulator, Hon. Minister Champika Ranawaka took the initiative of implementing a Rs 5.7 billion project titled 'Pilisaru' for developing the solid waste management infrastructures of Local Authorities. The Government in 2008 introduced a 'Green Levy' by applying the 'polluter pays' principle to earn Rs. 6 billion during the period 2008-2010 out of which Rs. 3 billion would be allocated for the Pilisaru program. Another Rs. 2.7 billion will be provided by the General Treasury. This was a bold decision made by the present Government but, unfortunately, it has not been implemented so far. Under the present policy framework, non-polluters also have to pay for pollution.
The 3 year “Pilisaru” project was for establishing infrastructure facilities at LAs to address the core issue of the problem, namely, managing the bio degradable part of the waste by establishing compost plants and low cost sanitary land fills for disposing residual waste. The facilities were to be established and managed by the local authorities with the financial assistance and guidance of the Ministry of Environment. The necessary management setup is yet to be established for the sustainability of these schemes.
Establishing the infrastructure for waste management alone cannot resolve the issues prevailing in the sector. The ultimate solution for managing municipal solid waste in the modern world is Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM). The basic principle of ISWM is integrating all stakeholders to a single process which is of utmost importance for sustainability of such schemes.
Though the waste on public land is the property of the Local Authority it is not the only stakeholder in the sector. Waste generators, waste collectors, compost producers, the recycling industry, landfill operators, donors, NGO’s/CBO’s and Universities are often neglected but vital stakeholders in the waste management industry. Ministry of Environment, citing the importance of having all stakeholders on board, has established the National Pilisaru Platform which includes representatives of all key stakeholders to oversee the implementation of the program as an essential element in the ISWM process.
We have to accept the fact that most of the LAs have no inbuilt capacity to formulate, establish and run proper waste management plants due to lack of professional staff and skilled labour as they are currently working mainly with the less educated and unprivileged community in the society. Hence, parallel to providing funds, the Pilisaru program should conduct a continuous capacity building program with the input of the academics, professionals and experts in the sector. It is essential to introduce and establish public-private and civil society partnerships in the waste management sector to enhance the efficiency and productivity as a foundation for ensuring the long-term sustainability of the sector.
Another important issue that needs to be addressed is labour management. The LAs similar to other government bodies are less efficient in terms of labour management. A proper partnership of public, private and civil society entities, together with workers incentives and welfare can drastically improve the efficiency of the workers as has been proven in many sectors. Balangoda and Hambantota Urban Councils together with some other LAs have successfully demonstrated different types of Private-Public and Civil Society partnerships in waste management during the last 5 years. Accordingly legislative environment is needed to be strengthened and reformed.
The biggest bottleneck in the waste management sector is meeting the costs of Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The LAs annual revenue and grants received from the central government for municipal waste management is only sufficient to meet waste collection and transportation related costs. There are no funds available for operations relating to separation, composting, recycling & final disposal. It is assumed that these costs should be met by the revenue collected by selling recycled products and compost. A healthy revenue stream will create an environment for improving the quality of products, expanding the facilities and encouraging the staff to perform better.
The all recyclable waste i.e. sheet metal, iron, paper, cardboard other than plastics and glass rarely reach waste management centres at present as they are mostly collected and sold by the informal sector. The income of the recyclable waste i.e. plastics and glass, is negligible when compared with the overall costs at waste management centres. Compost is supposed to be the main product of these centres but it is important to note that only 4-6% (by weight) of waste received at the centre is converted to compost and waste separation and processing for producing compost is a labour intensive activity.
The maximum retail price of a compost kg is Rs. 9 at present. Even if the entire quantity of compost produced is sold at the current price, only about 50% of the full operational cost can be covered thereby. In costal towns like Hambantota the income is only one third of the total cost as over 60% of waste received by the centres is sand. Further it is not possible to sell even 10% of the compost produced at some of the waste management centres even at a price of 9 Rs/kg. Therefore a large quantity of compost remains heaped up in compost production plants that have a monthly production over 15,000 kg. It is reported that all compost produced is sold only in the Bandarawela UC area albeit at an average price of Rs 7 as vegetable growers in the area do not get the chemical fertilizer subsidy. The sale of compost has hitherto remained an unresolved and grave problem. The breakdown of production programs is evitable unless an immediate change is brought about to this situation and the intervention of the Government is essential to change it.
There are two major reasons for low market prices for compost. Firstly, the main competitor of compost; chemical fertilizer is 95% subsidized at present. Secondly, the compost produced from municipal waste cannot compete with agriculture residue compost as there is additional labour involved with waste separation. There are two things to be done to create a better market for compost. Firstly the Pilisaru program should have the facility to test the compost produced by the LAs to ensure that quality compost is produced for agricultural applications. Former Chairman of the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) in 2008 November, realizing the need, agreed to establish a laboratory at the CEA for that purpose and give the required certification. Unfortunately there has been a long delay in implementing this decision since the resignation of the former chairman.
Secondly, and most importantly, there is a need to give a subsidy for compost similar to the chemical fertilizer subsidy for compost to compete with imported chemical fertilizer in the open market. The government recognizing the need took steps to establish the Compost Authority under the Ministry of Agriculture. However, most unfortunately, nothing significant is happening on that front. If the government is to give a similar subsidy for compost then compost producers can sell compost at a price of 180 Rs/kg; a subsidy of 170 Rs/kg. The government should phase out the chemical fertilizer subsidy for at least two reasons: to reduce chemical fertiliser imports and to stop land degradation. The best way to encourage farmers to use compost is to give at least a 20 Rs/kg subsidy. This proposal, if implemented, will resolve all issues in the municipal waste management sector.
(Updated on 4/22/2010)
Rights and responsibilities of the modern day electricity consumer
World Consumer Rights Day has been held annually on 15 March since 1983. The day was announced by Consumers International (CI), formally known as International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) to honour former US President John F. Kennedy’s historic speech to the US Congress 20 years earlier.
Consumers International which was formed in 1960 celebrates its 50th year in 2010. Its vision is a world where people have access to safe and sustainable goods and services, exercising their individual rights as consumers and using the force of their collective power for the good of consumers everywhere – laudable goal that all of us can agree upon.
Life on earth requires two actions. First, it needs to obtain matter and energy from the environment. Next, it needs to release matter and energy into the environment. Life consumes what it wants and releases what it does not want. For life to maintain itself, it consumes orderly matter and energy from its surrounding and releases disorderly matter and energy back into it. This, in a nutshell, is what life process is all about. Both are required – not just one. This is explained in the second law of thermodynamics. Life, in order to maintain its low entropy status consumes low entropy energy (orderly) and releases high entropy energy (disorderly). Human beings are no different and all 6.8 billion of us engage in this give and take in order to exist. As such, we call ourselves consumers.
As there are issues prevailing in the world the two terms 'consumer rights' and 'consumer responsibilities' emerged. It is simple to understand the two terms. 'Consumer rights' indicate the right to have access to quality matter and energy. 'Consumer responsibilities' indicate how the consumer should release waste matter into the environment so that it can be recycled by other organisms living on earth and through them, back to human beings again.
Access to products and services for satisfying basic human needs is the most important consumer right. The consumer should have the right to the satisfaction of basic needs. The basic, essential goods and services of the modern day human being are adequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, energy, water and sanitation. Above all, we need to recognise the importance of the right to breathe quality air which is rapidly becoming a scarce resource. The present world population should be able to exercise the right to satisfaction of all these basic needs.
Let us look at this in terms of the use of electricity.
Electricity is recognized as a basic need of the modern human being. However, it needs to be recognized that electricity per se is not a basic need but rather it is electricity to operate certain appliances. The basic domestic electrical appliances needed for the modern human being are lighting bulbs and television sets. It is an accepted norm that having domestic lighting till late evening and in the early morning, and viewing TV are basic needs modern human needs. In this context all people should have the right to satisfaction of basic electricity needs and the 'Electricity for all by 2011' program is a great initiative geared towards it. Most of the other domestic electrical appliances used cannot be considered as basic needs as the use of such appliances is limited to about 30% of the population in countries like Sri Lanka.
Ensuring the quality of the product/service is the next most important consumer right. Having standardized, reliable power is of utmost importance for the electricity consumer. Lack of interrupted substandard power is not acceptable and it may damage electrical appliances. The right to redressis another important consumer right to receive fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for unsatisfactory services. Both these rights are not adequately met with respect to the present Sri Lankan consumer of electricity. It is one of the most pressing rights issues that need to be addressed by the newly empowered power sector regulator - the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL).
Price of the product/service is also an important consumer right. There is no choice (to be able to select from a range of products and services, offered at competitive prices, with an assurance of satisfactory quality) for the electricity consumer due to monopolistic nature of the distribution system. Hence it is important to set the power sector tariff by the regulator to protect the rights of the electricity consumers in Sri Lanka. The present government's bold decision to go ahead with power sector reforms and complete the process has created an enabling environment to address this issue. Providing electricity for satisfying basic electricity needs at an affordable, reasonable price to electricity consumers is essential. Additionally, it is also essential to charge the true cost of electricity from the affluent for satisfying their luxury wants. This is not happening in Sri Lanka at present. The affluent is supplied with luxury electricity at a subsidized price while the state owned utility is running at a loss burdening the government and thereby the poor. The PUCSL should conduct a proper energy audit and rectify the situation soon.
The right to be informed, given the facts needed to make an informed choice, and to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising and labelling is also a consumer right. The right to consumer education to acquire knowledge and skills needed for making informed, confident choices about goods and services, while being aware of basic consumer rights and responsibilities and how to act on them is the other consumer right that should be recognized by all parties. The right to be heard is an accepted consumer right through which consumer interests are integrated into the formulation and execution of government policy, and, in the development of products and services. These rights of the electricity consumer of Sri Lanka have been perennially neglected until recently and the efforts of the PUCSL to establish these rights are commendable.
Consumer responsibilities and consumer rights are two sides of the same coin. There is now global recognition that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption result in grave social and environmental impacts worldwide. It is the responsibility of consumers to release their waste in a sustainable way or else change their consumption patterns. The waste generated by electricity consumers is not directly visible. It is not seen in the backyard of the consumer. Electricity is generated some where else and then transported to the point of consumption via transmission and distribution lines. Consumers should keep in mind that waste is generated at the power plant and they cannot wash their hands off completely and keep quiet.
It is the responsibility of the consumer to intervene and decide how electricity should be produced for their consumption. The international consensus is resoundingly clear: climate change is real; it is caused predominantly while generating power and energy, and it will have far-reaching consequences for ecosystems and human lives unless the consumers act swiftly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions). Electricity consumers therefore, have a responsibility to be concerned about climate change and about its causes and effects. The long-term solution is energy efficiency and renewable energy.
It is clear that consumer behaviour has enormous potential to reduce climate change and that some consumers already recognise this responsibility. Where consumer behaviour and demands advance, business will move with them. While Consumer impact is critical in a range of areas, its impact is most significant and put to best effect in relation to energy and the role that the use of energy plays in consumption. Consumers have a central place in the roadmap towards a low emissions future that includes radically higher levels of energy efficiency and radically lower use of fossil fuels. Two billion consumers worldwide need increased access to energy on one hand while on the other hand energy intensive consumption from those who already have access needs to change.
The electricity consumers in Sri Lanka need to organize themselves to look after their rights and responsibilities. An enabling environment is created with the presence of the power sector regulator, for forming a formidable electricity consumer movement in Sri Lanka and it is the responsibility of the consumers to utilize this opportunity to the maximum.
(Updated on 4/22/2010)
by Asoka Abeygunawardana
The ambition of the people living in the Third World is to develop and reach the level of the First World. In Sri Lanka after successfully defeating the terrorism, enthusiasm for becoming a First World country has built up. The classification of the different worlds arose during the Cold War to broadly categorize the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions. The First World represented the capitalist countries, NATO and its allies. The Second World was the communist countries lead by the Soviet Union. The Third World included countries which remained non-aligned or not moving with either the capitalist or socialist blocks. Although the term Third World continues to be used colloquially to describe the poorest countries in the world, the term no longer holds any validity after the fall of the Soviet Union which denounce the terms First World and Second World. Since then only two phrases are used: the First World and the Third World.
There was another definition for the First, Second and Third worlds. This definition took a completely different view point and was based on the human development index. This definition was proposed by Mao Zedong, the Chairman of China Communist Party, in 1974 where the United States and the Soviet Union was named as the First World. Japan, Europe, Australia, Canada were the Second World and the rest of the countries were the Third World.
The common alternative used for the Third World is 'developing world'. The other term used is the 'Global South'. The Global North represents wealthy developed countries whereas the Global South represents poorer developing countries. Although most nations except Australia and New Zealand comprising the "North" are located in the Northern Hemisphere the divide is not wholly defined by geography. The North is home to four out of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and all members of the G8. "The North" mostly covers the West and the First World, with much of the Second World.
This classification of different worlds is based on the concept of economic development. The GNP per Capita and the economic growth rate are two of the main tools used to measure economic development. It is important to note that this concept of economic development was the dominant concept of the fossil fuel era. This currently dominant economic framework is unable to simultaneously achieve the three goals of high life satisfaction, high life expectancy and one-planet living. Never ending economic development is a mirage and this vicious path is leading human civilization towards a catastrophe.
As human civilization has reached the end of the fossil fuel era it is necessary to review the concept of development to establish the path, the targets and goals for the new era - the Post Fossil Fuel era. The Happy Planet Index (HPI) a newly introduced tool to measure the progress of human society can be used to get a better understanding of the present situation. The HPI ranking is done using data sets for 143 countries, covering 99 per cent of the world’s population. Scores range from 0 to 100 – with high scores only achievable by meeting all three targets embodied in the index – high life expectancy, high life satisfaction, and a low ecological footprint.
According to this indicator the level of development can be measured on two independent fronts. Firstly, the level of well-being at present and secondly, the level of sustainability of lifestyles. The well-being is measured using two main indicators: Life satisfaction and Life expectancy. The Life satisfaction indicator has a range of 0-10. Life Expectancy is a well known index used for the Human Development Index (HDI).
The sustainability of the lifestyles is measured using the index: Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint which is expressed in units of ‘global hectares’ (gha) is a measure of the amount of land required to provide all human requisites. This is the land required for cropping, grazing, forestry, fishing, buildings and carbon sequestration. A person using up to 2.1 gha is, in these terms at least, using their fair share of the world’s resources for one-planet living.
The HPI report has introduced a new happy planet charter. They believe that a new narrative of progress is required for the twenty-first century and it is possible to have a good life without it costing the Earth. Governments should strive to identify economic models that do not rely on constantly growing consumption to achieve stability and prosperity. The report suggest a HPI target of 89 which means reducing the per capita footprint to 1.7 gha, increasing mean life satisfaction to eight and continuing to increase mean life expectancy to reach 87 years.
The HPI ranking shows a totally different portrait of the world. I wish to introduce a new world classification based on the HPI ranking. Here benchmarks will be introduced to the HPI ranking to classify the world. The goal is to achieve high well-being status with an acceptable ecological foot print. The countries having a HPI over 61.8 are considered satisfactory and can be tagged as the First World under the new classification. The second HPI benchmark is 38.0. Countries that place between 38.0 and 61.8 can be considered the Second World. Countries can come under this grouping due to two reasons. Firstly the countries which are having a high well-being but a high foot print; Secondly countries having a low foot print but a low level of well-being. Countries that come under the Third World are those having a HPI lower than 38.0. These countries either have a very high ecological footprint together with a high level of well-being or a low ecological footprint together a very low level of well-being.
According to this classification for the new era the First World countries are Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guatemala, Vietnam, Colombia, and Cuba. The Second World countries include certain conventional First World countries such as Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Germany. Further the Second World includes developing countries such as Sri Lanka, China and India. The new Third World is a mix of conventional developed countries and very poor countries. This includes countries like USA, Australia, Russia, Sudan and the Congo.
Is the shift from the Third World to the First World the right direction? Yes, not under the conventional classification as it leads to disaster but under the new classification mentioned above. Sri Lanka is ranked at the 22nd position under the HPI and therefore we should not think of reaching the level of America which is ranked far below us at 114th place. Sri Lanka may have improved its HPI ranking further after eradication of terrorism from the country as it may have lifted the satisfaction level of the people.
The country level averages do not give a clear picture regarding its true status. There is a North within the Global South and a South within the Global North due to prevailing inequality within each country. The Ecological Footprint of about 80 percent of the population living in our country is very much within the recommended levels. Hence it is important to manage the consumption pattern of the balance 20 percent of the population (the affluent) to reduce the ecological footprint of the nation. Furthermore, the emphasis should be on improving the quality of life of the poor and unprivileged communities living in the country without compromising the needs of future generations. This is the path to a development paradigm which will improve the average HPI ranking of the country.
(Updated on 9/17/2009)
(Updated on 4/7/2009)
Reviewed by: Prof Arjuna De Zoysa,
Head, Dept. of Mathematics and Philosophy of Engineering
Open University of Sri Lanka
Review
Asoka Abeygunawardana, Executive Director of the Energy Form, and an Electrical Engineer has written a valuable book which questions the present Energy Policy of the government and CEB directly.
It is well known that globally there is a distinct shift away from fossil fuel based energy to sustainable sources of Renewable energies. This shift is significant and covers the entire political spectrum of countries, from China to North America. The depletion of their resources and the problems of climate change have resulted in this situation. Sri Lankan policy on energy stands out like a sore thumb, a lacuna resulting from erroneous advice given to the government, by the CEB and associated motley of consultants, who own consultancy firms and have direct economic interests in the outcomes of Energy Policy. This erroneous policy of coal as the major option has been carefully agued against in Asoka’s excellent book. A must read for any one of the stake holders in Energy supply and use. They are the government (Politicians, such as the Minister for Power and Energy), consumers paying excessive bills, Energy Experts and the CEB Engineers, and the Opposition aligned to trade unions (the JVP as example).
The book begins with the general background to the problem, showing an exponential increase in fossil fuel consumption during the last 150 years. Chapter two shows the depletion of these fossil sources, due to increasing demand and depletion of available sources. A temporary decrease in fuel price is not comforting, as both long terms cost trends and reasoning will predict a final catastrophic increase and thereby the urgency for change.
Chapter 3, links the gradual impact of climate change to use of fossil fuels, and ends with a pithy quote from the Lowadasangarawa, “The crab swims happily in the pot – only as it takes for it to heat up”
Chapter 5, is a critique of both the demand forecasts and the CEB’s generating plan to meet this demand: A plan singularly lacking in solutions for the new challenges faced by the modern world. A simple projection of the past to the future is apparently what the CEB planners demand. A paradigm deeply mired in orthodoxy. The other chapters are very interesting in that, Asoka shows the many options for a country such as Sri Lanka. An ‘Energy Crisis’ does not mean a retreat into darkness. There are Wind, Biomass, Solar thermal, Solar PV as solutions. And he show that they could be obtained at a much cheaper cost then the cost of imported fossil fuels (exception of Solar PV). The last chapter on Wave Energy is a call for us to be alert to new scientific and technology developments in this area. After all we are an island state surrounded by the seas, and waves if it can be tapped as a reasonably priced power source, could be abundant.
There is one aspect on Energy which is not covered in Asoka’s book, which needs to be done: The question of Total cycle expenditure in terms of Energy itself. Some Energy sources merely raise the quality of energy (from a raw state to electricity), but do not produced any net useful energy. A good example is Nuclear Energy, the total energy cycle takes so much energy that the net useful energy transformed in the process could be negative.
In which event they are not solutions to the Global energy crisis. Sri Lanka does not have to worry too much about this problem as it is reflected in its financial costs. For example as Asoka’s book give, solar photo-voltaics are very costly. This could be because they may not be producing net energy. This would be okay for lighting a few lights bulbs in remote areas and not much more. If Asoka’s book is to have a Global Appeal, he needs to address this question perhaps in a separate concluding chapter.
All in all, the book titled ‘A world without coal or oil’, ‘raises a number of thought provoking queries about our energy future. Energy is fundamental to life so is our environment, it is clear that things cannot continue as before.