“India Looks to New Policies to Promote Scrap Metal Recycling” – Metal Miner, 23 February 2015

India’s recycling rate is the one of the lowest in the world, hovering around 25%, while the US’s rate has climbed, now sitting at 90%. India’s recycling rate remains poor because the government is fairly indifferent, and because the population is unaware of the advantages of recycling. The country’s low recycling rate is a stressor on India’s primary production — constantly having to manufacture primary metals instead of recycling scrap has weakened India’s natural resources.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s main objective is to push India’s government to become generally proactive and organizations are beginning to take notice. The Metal Recycling Association of India has petitioned the government to create and enforce a metal recycling policy. Recently, there was a 2015 Metal Recycling Association of Indian International Conference in Mumbai, where the participants detailed what they believe India’s government should do to boost scrap recycling, including, “Remove the basic import duty of 5% on steel scrap, give it industry status, subsidize lending rates, allow Foreign Direct Investment and increase financing facilities,” which would make scrap recycling more attractive to bigger companies.

India is growing as a leader in the motor vehicles industries — the country is seventh-largest in the automobile industry and second-largest in two-wheeled vehicles, like scooters and motorcycles. Having a fluid recycling practice would let those industries develop even more in India. Currently, India’s stainless steel factories utilize 53% scrap in their manufacturing processes, while US factories use 76%.

For developing country like India with culture of “nothing goes wasted,” it is imperative that India extrapolates her recycling from “personal ” to “industrial.” India should look to developed countries to further understand how to advance its recycling system, so that it may take advantage of secondary materials, rather than constantly having to create primary materials, a harmful practice for the country.

(From Metal Miner)

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

April 3, 2015

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“Greens: Climate march shatters record” – Politico, 21 September 2014

Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio has joined the fight against climate change to promote clean and renewable energies. Last week, he addressed the UN Climate Summit after participating in a climate march that brought almost 400,000 people to the streets of New York. Al Gore, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, New York Major Bill de Blasio, scientist Jane Goodall, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and former Ohio Democratice Rep. Dennis Kucinich joined Leonardo DiCaprio at the protest.

While 350.org — the climate activist group that pounced on the Keystone XL pipeline proposal and shined a light on the repercussions the pipeline will have on the environment — launched the march, over 1,500 environmental groups coordinated the march, expecting only 100,000 protestors to be in attendance. However, the turnout exceeded their expectations four-fold, to the tune of almost 400,000 people; the march was the biggest climate-related protest to ever take place. The organizing environmental groups chartered almost 500 buses to bring people to New York. London, Berlin, Rome, Rio de Janeiro and Melbourne, Australia also staged protests that day. None were as big as New York.

Protestors marched along Central Park West from 59th Street to 86th Street, waving flags, banging on drums, and holding signs that read, “No More Climate Change” and “Climate Action Now.”

The march was intended to bring more attention to the worsening effects of climate change — protestors, activists, and environmental groups feel like the issue hasn’t been getting enough press or enough attention from the federal government.

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

September 24, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“Study: Keystone pollution higher” – Politico, 10 August 2014

According to a report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Keystone XL pipeline — the 1,700-mile pipeline that would send 800,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada sand formations to Texas refineries — could potentially emit four times as much pollution as initially determined by the State Department.

Estimates made by the US federal government didn’t consider that transporting extra oil through the new pipeline can potentially cause prices to fall by almost $3 per barrel. More oil means more consumption, and more consumption means more pollution. Yet, organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) view the study as trivial, as the oil will be produced and transported either way; if it wasn’t being shipped through the pipeline, then it would be shipped using the railroad, which could also increase emission levels.

The report projects that the pipeline can raise greenhouse gas emissions by about 121 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The State Department noted that the pipeline would, at the most, only increase CO2 emissions by 30 million tons this year.

Earlier this year, President Obama was still undecided about approving the pipeline; and his administration’s approval has been extended until after the midterm US elections. Obama has been making an effort to reduce the US’s GHG emissions — the report indicates that the pipeline’s emissions could undercut the government’s new policies to curb pollution.

Many scientists from outside the study claim that the extra 121 million tons produced by the pipeline is insignificant compared to the 36 billion tons that we globally emitted in 2013. Still, approving the pipeline could weaken Obama’s new climate policy, which takes a firm stance on the effects of climate change.

See also:
Keystone pipeline: Obama’s unpleasant options
Pipeline Fight Lifts Environmental Movement

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

August 12, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“Climate change is here, action needed now, says new White House report” – CNN, 6 May 2014

The White House released a new climate change report in early May, as part of President Obama’s attempt to ready the US for the effects of climate change. Obama has made climate change awareness a cornerstone of his second-term, primarily by taking it upon himself by using executive action to implement his Climate Action Plan. The White House report details reasons why Obama wants the US to take precautionary measures against our growing sea levels and progressively unpredictable weather.

However, Obama has been butting heads with conservatives, the fossil fuel industry, and their allies over the debate of whether or not climate change is indeed real, and if carbon emissions from power plants, factories, and cars—or human activity—are the biggest culprits. Conservatives view the report as a means for Obama to push his own agenda, which they believe would damage the economy, and place the burden on middle-income families.

While polling shows that Americans believe that climate change is a result of human activities, they are less concerned about environmental issues than they are about the economy, for instance.

A Gallup poll from March produced interesting results: 34% of those surveyed believe climate change is a “serious threat” to the earth, while 64% didn’t believe that. Over 60% believed climate change is currently happening or going to happen.

The report clarifies the approach of counteracting climate change into two strategies: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation calls for curbing the effects of climate change by reducing the cause; adaptation calls for preparing for the consequences that are currently or likely to occur. The report also analyzes the US by region, pinpointing specific impacts to each region.

The report identifies three major concerns: rising sea levels, increased droughts, and a longer fire season. The report foresees sea levels growing by one to four feet by the end of the century. Those living on tropical islands and on the coast will be the hardest hit. Miami, for example, is spending hundred of millions of dollars to prevent massive flooding. The Great Plains, too, will suffer from prolonged droughts and heat waves, which is likely to cause more wildfires and endanger agricultural and residential areas.

The report upholds regulations that limit carbon emissions, and encourages investing in programs that stop climate change in its tracks.

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

May 24, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2013. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar