Business chiefs urge carbon curbs

A coalition of 99 companies is asking political leaders to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to establish a global carbon market.

Their blueprint for tackling climate change is being handed to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda ahead of next month's G8 summit in Japan.

Companies involved include Alcoa, British Airways (BA), Deutsche Bank, EDF, Petrobras, Shell and Vattenfall.

They argue that cutting emissions must be made to carry economic advantages.

The business leaders hope their ideas will feed through the G8 into the series of UN climate meetings that are aiming to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol when its current targets expire in 2012.

Business can't operate in a policy vacuum - we need strong leadership from governments Willie Walsh, BA

Scientific and economic evidence assembled by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern Review mean, they believe, that taking climate action now would be prudent.

"While recognising that there are still some uncertainties in the scientific and economic evidence available, these CEOs conclude that a responsible risk management approach to the issue requires political and business leaders to take action now," the document states.

The companies involved span all of the G8+5 countries and virtually every major industrial sector.

Leadership demand

Among the key recommendations are that:

• All major economies, including developing ones such as China and India, should be included in the post-Kyoto deal, with richer countries committing to deeper and earlier emissions reduction
• Governments should aspire to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
• Governments and businesses should urgently explore bottom-up approaches to reducing emissions
• A global carbon trading system should be established as soon as possible
• Emissions caps should be applied flexibly across industry, with some sectors allowed leeway to preserve competitiveness.

"It's important that the business community demonstrates a desire to work with governments to tackle the challenge that climate change represents," said BA CEO Willie Walsh.

"But the report makes it clear that business can't operate in a policy vacuum - we need strong leadership from governments."

Some of the report's elements fall close to aims already articulated by political leaders.

Last week, Mr Fukuda declared an ambition to cut Japan's greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80% by 2050.

But many environmental groups argue that shorter term targets are needed, as progress towards them is easier to gauge and backsliding more obvious.

The EU's ambition is to make cuts of 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. But the business coalition decided against setting a short term figure.

"Creating an environment that will encourage people to do things differently is more important than setting a global target," said Steve Lennon, managing director of the South African energy giant Eskom.

But environmentalists will argue that promoting a 2050 target that is "aspirational" rather than set in stone, and allowing wiggle-room for high-emitting industries, may lead to a relatively weak post-Kyoto deal.

Cap in hand

There is no doubt that some of the companies in this coalition see economic opportunities arising from climate change solutions.

"We see enormous opportunities for the financial industry, beyond the challenge we face as global citizens," said Caio Koch-Weser, vice chairman of Deutsche Bank.

"If leadership is there to create a Kyoto successor that is based on cap and trade, then it creates a global carbon market - and then we are in business."

The CEO Climate Policy Recommendations to G8 Leaders are the culmination of a year of discussions facilitated by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

A space mission that will be critical to our understanding of climate change has launched from California.

The Jason-2 satellite will become the primary means of measuring the shape of the world's oceans, taking readings with an accuracy of better than 4cm.

Its data will track not only sea level rise but reveal how the great mass of waters are moving around the globe.

This information will be fundamental in helping weather and climate agencies make better forecasts.

The satellite left Earth at 0746 GMT atop a Delta-2 rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The spacecraft, built by Thales Alenia Space, represents the joint efforts of the US and French space agencies (Nasa and CNES), and the US and European organisations dedicated to studying weather and climate from orbit (Noaa and Eumetsat).

Down below

Jason-2 will provide a topographic map of 95% of the Earth's ice-free oceans every 10 days. Although we think of our seas as being flat, they are actually marked by "hills" and "valleys", where the highs and lows may be as much as two metres apart.

How Jason-2 will probe the oceans

Elevation is a key parameter for oceanographers. Just as surface air pressure reveals what the atmosphere is doing above, so ocean height will betray details about the behaviour of water down below.

The data gives clues to temperature and salinity. When combined with gravity information, it will also indicate current direction and speed.

The oceans store vast amounts of heat from the Sun; and how they move that energy around the globe and interact with the atmosphere are what drive our climate system.

"The ocean constitutes the long-term memory of the climate system; the time-scales over which the ocean is changing are the climatic timescales," explained Mikael Rattenborg, the director of operations at Eumetsat.

"In order to understand climate, in order to be able to predict the evolution of the atmosphere over months, years, and decades even, you need to understand the ocean."

Number one

Jason-2 is a continuation of a programme that started in 1992 with the Topex/Poseidon mission and is currently maintained by the Jason-1 satellite launched in 2001.

JASON-2 SPACECRAFT 1. Advance Microwave Radiometer - measures signal delay caused by water vapour 2. GPS antennas - ensures knowledge of precise orbit path 3. Poseidon-3 altimeter- measures sea level 4. Doris antenna - tracking and positioning control 5. Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA) - tracks and calibrates measurements Satellite mass: 525kg (1,155lb) Power generation: 511 watts Satellite height: 3m (9ft 8in) Orbit: 1,338km (831 miles) (Source: Eumetsat, Cnes, Nasa)

The project provides the global reference data for satellite-measured ocean height.

Although other spacecraft in service today can acquire similar data sets, none can match the precision achieved by Jason-1; and Jason-2, when in service, will be the benchmark against which all other spacecraft will be judged and calibrated.

At the heart of the latest mission is the Poseidon 3 solid-state altimeter. The instrument constantly bounces microwave pulses off the sea surface. By timing how long the signal takes to make the return trip, it can determine sea surface height.

Additionally, the signal can indicate the height of waves and wind speed.

"It is not a revolution between Jason-1 and Jason-2; it is an evolution, because the main objective is to ensure continuity," explains Francois Parisot, the Jason-2 project chief at Eumetsat.

"Nevertheless, there are some improvements in the instruments. We hope to make better measurements closer to the coast [and over inland waters and rivers]; and also, we will deliver near-realtime products - products that will be available within three hours of the measurements."

Whale watching

The latter will be particularly useful in storm prediction. Jason will see the surface waters rise as warm eddies fuel hurricanes. The data will tell meteorologists how a storm is likely to intensify and allow them to issue better, more timely warnings.

Jason-2 data will have many other uses that may not be immediately obvious. Industry will take the information to make decisions about when conditions are most suitable for undersea drilling or cable laying.

Jason can help identify where wreckage or pollution will drift; and the satellite will assist marine biologists as they track whales by pinpointing waters with the potential to be prime feeding and breeding grounds.

One very important use will be in maritime navigation.

"Now that the fuel price is going up, saving fuel for the companies that run ships has become very sensitive; and knowing the currents, you can select your route so that you go faster and save fuel," said Philippe Escudier, a space oceanography at CLS (Collecte Localisation Satellites), Toulouse, France.

"You can save up to 5% on fuel consumption by making best use of the currents."

Formation flying

Jason-2 will spend its first few months flying a "tandem mission" with Jason-1.

The two spacecraft will be positioned so that they sweep around the Earth, one following the other, with a separation of just 60 seconds.

This will enable, essentially, the two satellites to measure the same patch of ocean surface at very nearly the same time.

Changes in ocean height can be a key indicator of climate cycles More details

Scientists will use this opportunity to cross-calibrate the instruments so that when Jason-1 is retired (or fails), the future data collected by its successor will be directly comparable with past records.

This continuity of information will be critical in recognising long-term trends in ocean behaviour. It is the data which underpins the observation that global sea level is rising by about three millimetres per year.

Once the tandem phase is completed, Jason-1 will be moved to the side, doubling the return of data. The importance of the Jason programme means both spacecraft will almost certainly be run for as long as they are serviceable.

Discussions are already in progress on a Jason-3 satellite. Given Europe's role in the project, there is a compelling case for the next mission to be included in the GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) programme. This would attract significant EU money.

‘Poverty, debt burden major reasons for child labour’

Audit says 1,210 children slogging as labourers in 8 zones

NEW DELHI: Nearly 50 per cent of the child labour in the country is in to employment due to poverty and debt burden of their families, says a social audit on child labour.

Problems such as alcoholism, domestic violence, financial bankruptcy, sudden deaths or crippling of parents and desertions were the reasons for children to quit education and take up work, the audit by World Vision India said.

The exercise found that 1,210 children were slogging as labourers in the eight audited zones. Among them, 762 were in the “hazardous sector” under the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulation) Act, 1986.

More disturbingly, 16 Labour Inspectors, in whose jurisdiction most of the child labourers were found, had not filed cases against employers.

Though boys slightly outnumbered girls in the overall group of identified child labourers, in sectors such as domestic work and babysitting, girls outnumbered boys.

In sectors such as beedi-rolling and match and explosives industry, there was some level of gender parity.

Boys outnumbered girls in some occupations and processes such as construction, shops and establishments and the hospitality sector.

In the automobile industry, boys were in exclusive group. There was no instance of girls working in this sector.

The survey found that 17 per cent of those identified was in the informal economy, without any stable employment, but nevertheless doing varying occupations in accordance with demand and supply, mostly doing seasonal jobs and otherwise helping their parents in household chores.

About 26 per cent of those identified said they were not interested in education.

This underscored the importance of revamping the educational system and making it child-friendly, the audit said.

Judicial activism: a perspective

It is true that on some occasions, courts have overstepped their limits. But, by and large, judicial activism has done a great service to society.

To begin with, what does the concept of ‘judicial activism’ mean? Let me try to put it in proper perspective. The goal of the Constitution, enunciated by our worthy founding fathers in its Preamble, is to secure to the people of India “Justice — Social, Economic and Political; Liberty of Thought, Expression, Belief, Faith and Worship; (and) Equality of Status and [of] Opportunity.” For achieving this goal, the Constitution has created three state organs, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, besides autonomous institutions such as the Election Commission, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. One must say Parliament and the State Legislatures have, by and large, performed their duty fairly satisfactorily; they have enacted many laws touching upon and regulating activities in the social, economic, educational and health spheres — indeed all activities touching the lives of the citizens, in particular the weak and vulnerable sections.

It is, however, common knowledge that the Executive has failed, in a large measure, to implement these laws in letter and in spirit — for reasons which need not be gone into here. This is a feature of the Indian state which has been pointed out repeatedly by several social philosophers and economists over the last four decades and more. Gunnar Myrdal, Scandinavian scholar, famously called (in the 1970s) it a ‘soft state,’ precisely because it does not have the will and the requisite discipline to implement the laws made by it. The result is that several laws and schemes in the social and economic sectors have remained mere declarations of good intentions. A visit to any government school, government hospital, a fair price shop or primary health centre is sufficient to bring home this truism.

In such a state of affairs, if a complaint is brought before court — mainly the High Courts and the Supreme Court — that a particular law or provision or scheme is not being implemented properly and a direction is asked for its implementation, what should it do? Should the court say the matter is none of its concern, that the administrators know their duty and are expected to do it, or call upon the authorities concerned to discharge the functions entrusted to them by the law? After all, the judiciary is also an organ of the state ordained by the Constitution to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble and Parts III and IV.

But when such directions are made, it is called an instance of ‘judicial activism’ in a pejorative sense. If such directions are made at the instance of a public spirited individual or organisation — on the basis of what is called public interest litigation (PIL), a technical objection is raised that the really aggrieved person is not the complainant. The problem is that very often the really aggrieved person does not have the wherewithal to approach the court and hence someone does so on his behalf. The issue in such a case is, and should be, the truth of the complaint rather than the identity of the complainant. Maybe, the court does not have the means or machinery of its own to enforce its orders and directions and has to depend upon the very same official machinery, which is found to be lax. Even so, orders made by the courts do carry certain sanction — the power to punish for contempt — and are thus more effective. No one suggests that court can correct all ills afflicting society but the effort should be to try to do the little good that one can do rather than inventing arguments for not doing anything.

It is true that on some occasions, PIL is abused by some to vent their private grouses, business rivalries or to seek publicity. But then is there a remedy under the law that cannot be, and is not, abused on certain occasions? What about the great constitutional remedy of writ petition? As lawyers and judges dealing with it will vouchsafe, this remedy too is invoked not infrequently for the wrong reasons and by wrong persons. Does a writ petition become bad on this account or should we look to the enormous good this remedy has done to the cause of liberty, equality and the freedoms of citizens? Similar is the case with PIL. There may have been some aberrations but to blame the very PIL jurisdiction on that account would be a mistake. One must look at the generality of the picture and not at individual aberrations.

The other type of ‘judicial activism’ is the field of interpretation of fundamental rights, in particular the right to equality (Articles 14 to 16), the several freedoms in Article 19 and the right to life and personal liberty in Article 21. While interpreting these Articles, there is scope for judges to read their personal philosophies into the provisions. This criticism is not peculiar to India; it has been a hotly debated subject in the United States for long. An example, indeed from the U.S., would better illustrate this aspect. By the 14th Amendment to the American Constitution (1868), equal protection of laws was guaranteed to its citizens. Indeed by the 13th Amendment (1865), slavery was abolished. That was a time when slavery was rampant and blacks were subjected to untold discrimination and segregation in every walk of life. There were separate schools for them. No black student could seek admission to a school meant for the whites. When these segregationist policies were challenged as violative of the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court (in 1898) held that such a treatment did not violate the clause; the court evolved a novel doctrine called ‘separate but equal’ to justify these practices. But come 1954, this very 14th Amendment was differently interpreted by that very court, which held that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ and the segregationist practices it sanctioned were all violative of the equal protection clause and hence unconstitutional. By this decision (Brown) and the others which followed in quick succession, the entire edifice of segregation and discrimination against the blacks was dismantled and outlawed. The consequences of this activist role of the court are there for all to see; in less than 55 years, a black American is likely to become the next President of the U.S. What an enormous contribution by the court — and how welcome, just, equitable, democratic and humane! Could this ever have happened but for the said decision? Maybe, it could have happened but we do not know when and how. It was the court which acted as the agent of change by interpreting the equality clause in its modern and equitable context, without the help of any law made by Congress.

Coming to the Indian scene, the activist phase of the Supreme Court became discernible clearly after the Emergency was revoked in 1977. Look at the substantial contribution on this score. Prisoners’ rights: it was held that a prisoner on conviction or awaiting trial does not lose all his fundamental and legal rights but loses only the right to free movement. Safeguards against arbitrary arrest: clarification of the rights of the accused on being arrested; prohibition of long incarceration pending trial; clarification of the concept and objectives behind bail; condemnation of routine handcuffing; prohibiting quarrying and mining activities endangering natural resources and releasing persons from bonded labour are some of the instances.

The restrictive interpretation placed on personal liberty, indeed the manner of interpretation of the fundamental rights adopted in 1950 (Gopalan) was overruled in 1979, reading Articles 14, 19 and 21 together and harmoniously (Maneka Gandhi). Article 21, to reiterate, has been the main spring from which innumerable rights have been inferred — the right to free elementary education, the right to speedy trial, the right to privacy, the right to medical aid to workers, the right to pollution-free water, elimination of water and air pollution and so on. The issue of air pollution reminds us of the Supreme Court orders mandating all public vehicles to shift to CNG with a view to protecting the health of Delhi citizens. True, there was no law providing for the same. But the question is: was it bad? Maybe, this measure did cause dislocation of and disturbance to the occupations and lives of certain members of the public but, overall, it is undeniable that the measure improved the quality of air over Delhi.

It is quite true that on some occasions, the courts might have overstepped their limits. For example, orders directing the construction of roads or bridges, orders seeking to lay a timetable for the running of trains, orders directing beautification of a railway station and so on. But these again are mere aberrations. To repeat, one must look at the generality of the picture and not draw conclusions from a few wrong examples. Judged from this angle, judicial activism has done a great service to society.

I am conscious that on this issue, differing opinions can be and are held by equally learned people with equal passion and conviction. But that is true of any social or legal issue. Even so, like any issue touching the public interest, this issue too needs to be debated in depth.

(Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and a former Chairman of the Law Commission of India.)