by Shaleen Jain, Assistant Professor, University of Maine

Read the article (.pdf)

by Kamaljit S. Bawa, Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Boston

by Debika Shome, Assistant Director, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED)

The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) is an interdisciplinary center that studies individual and group decision making under climate uncertainty and decision making in the face of environmental risk. CRED’s objectives address the human responses to climate change and climate variability as well as improved communication and increased use of scientific information on climate variability and change. Located at Columbia University, CRED is affiliated with The Earth Institute and the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP).

CRED was already conducting research in other parts of the US to gauge residents’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors related to climate change when we conceived of a similar study in New York City. While New York City may not be experiencing climate change in the same dramatic way as our other field sites in Alaska and Florida, we believed there was valuable insight to be gained from surveying this influential and global population.

Methodology
Telephone interviews were conducted in English and Spanish from November 28 to December 16, 2007 with a representative sample of 1,000 adults living in New York City households.

Study Results
Overall, a large majority of New York City residents say that they are personally convinced that global warming is happening (78%). Of those personally convinced, 82 percent believe that global warming is caused mainly by human activities (70%), or caused equally by humans and natural changes (12%), while only 15 percent believe it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.

A majority of New Yorkers (60%) say they personally worry either a great deal (26%) or a fair amount (34%) about global warming, whereas 39 percent say they worry only a little (24%) or not at all (15%). Yet most New York City residents believe that global warming is a greater threat to species, people, and places relatively far away, than to themselves or other people in the city.

That is not to say, however, that New Yorkers believe the city will escape unscathed. In fact, 22 percent believe global warming is already having dangerous impacts on people in the city now, while another 56 percent believe these dangerous impacts will occur within either the next 10 years (30%), or the next 25 years (26%). More specifically, large majorities of New Yorkers believe that during the next 50 years, global warming will cause more heat waves (85%), energy blackouts (79%), worse storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes (79%), increased rates of disease (72%), and flooding of subways, tunnels, and airports (70%). Finally, a majority (69%) believe it is somewhat (34%) or very likely (35%) that parts of New York City will need to be abandoned due to rising sea levels over the next 50 years.

Support for PlaNYC Initiatives
In April 2007, PlaNYC 2030 was unvelied, a long-term plan to reduce New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% and manage future population growth. This survey measured public support for several initiatives proposed by PlaNYC.

PlaNYC 2030 has proposed to establish a New York City-specific surcharge to help finance energy efficiency and education projects. This survey found that New Yorkers are broadly supportive of such a proposal. For example, 66 percent strongly (35%) or moderately support (31%) a $2.50 surcharge on the average household’s monthly electric bill for a special fund to help make buildings more energy efficient and teach New Yorkers how to reduce their energy use. Further, 76 percent of residents strongly (49%) or moderately support (27%) a city subsidy to encourage building owners to replace old furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners, light bulbs, and insulation, even if the subsidy increased the average household’s taxes by $5 a month.

Finally, New Yorkers say they are willing to make individual lifestyle changes to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Large majorities say they are likely to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs (71%), spend $5 more a month for electricity produced from renewable energy sources like wind or solar (68%), make their views on global warming clear to politicians (67%), use less air conditioning in the summer (66%), and turn down their thermostat in the winter (60%).

Study Conclusions
Overall, a large majority of New Yorkers believe that global warming is happening and caused by human activities. Many are worried about climate change and think it will have a variety of dangerous impacts on New York City. New Yorkers think city officials, state officials and Con Edison should be doing more to address global warming and are broadly supportive of city initiatives to reduce local energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, they say they are willing to take individual action to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Links to India
Many Americans view climate change as distant in space and time. It is a serious problem, but not one that engages affect (dread). In fact, many residents think the United States will be able to implement adaptation measures in time to deal with the impacts the US is likely to feel from climate change.

How would residents of major Indian cities answer the questions posed to New York City residents? What are their perceptions, attitudes and behaviors related to climate change?

For residents of major cities like Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai, climate change is likely to seem closer in space and time. For many Indians, extreme climate events like flooding, droughts and heat waves are all too common occurrences. Additionally, India does not have the same adaptation options as the US due in part to the country’s economic situation, its population size and distribution along coastline, and the intensity of climate change impacts India is likely to face in the future.

Below are some climate change impacts India is likely to face according to the February 2007 IPCC report and reported by The Hindu Newspaper :

• Sea levels will rise by at least 15.75 inches (40 cm) by 2100, inundating vast areas on the coastline, including some of the most densely populated cities. In the South Asian region as a whole, millions of people will find their lands and homes inundated.
• The Ganga, Brahmaputra, and Indus will become seasonal rivers, dry between monsoon rains as Himalayan glaciers will continue their retreat, vanishing entirely by 2035, if not sooner.
• Water tables will continue to fall and the gross per capita water availability in India will decline by over 1/3 by 2050 as rivers dry up, water tables fall or grow more saline. Water scarcity will in turn affect the health of vast populations, with a rise in water-borne diseases such as cholera. Other diseases such as dengue fever and malaria are also expected to rise.
• Crop productivity will fall, especially in non-irrigated land, as temperatures rise for all of South Asia by as much as 2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees C) on average by 2040, and even greater crop loss — of over 25% — as temperatures rise to up to 9.7 degrees F (5.4 degrees C) by the end of the century.

India’s heavily-populated cities are likely to face some of the worst effects of climate change. A report released in December 2007 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) listed cities most likely to be impacted in terms of population and cost, focusing on 136 port cities around the world. Kolkata headed the list of the top 10 cities at risk in 2070 in terms of population exposure, with Mumbai coming in second.

While Indians are likely to feel some of the strongest results of climate change, they are among the lowest contributors (per capita) to the problem. The average Indian produces about 1/20th of the greenhouse gases of the average American. In fact, about half of Indian homes today do not have any electricity at all. Of course, as development continues to increase in India, individual energy consumption will inevitably start to creep closer to US levels.

CRED research has shown that both experience and worldview strongly influence climate change risk perception, policy preferences, and behavior. Actual experience of both gradual climate warming and extreme weather events associated with climate change play an important role in public responses to climate change. Many parts of the world still have the luxury of viewing climate change as a threat to other people and places in the far-off future because these regions have no first-hand experience with climate change. In the coming years, India’s residents are going to be among the first to experience many of the serious impacts of climate change. What is still to be determined is whether these vivid, personal experiences will lead to long-lasting behavior change.

About the Author
Debika Shome is the Assistant Director at the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). In addition to her work coordinating research, she is responsible for the center’s outreach and policy projects. Her focus is on perceptions of climate and improving climate change communication.

Before joining CRED, she worked as a research analyst for the Nonprofit Technology Leadership Program (NTLP) at the Marc Lindenberg Center for Humanitarian Action, International Development and Global Citizenship in Seattle, WA. She coordinated the program that provided seed funding, education and technology expertise to organizations in the developing world. In addition, she has a range of experience that includes work in the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

Debika completed her Masters in Public Administration with a concentration in Environmental Policy from the University of Washington—Seattle. She holds an undergraduate degree in environmental science from Barnard College.

by Andre Dzikus

by Vikram Sheel Kumar

By Dr.Rathin Roy, UNDP

Implications of Fiscal Policy in India
By Dr. Rathin Roy,

India encountered a serious macroeconomic crisis in the early 1990s. A series of economic reforms, implemented in response, supported a higher growth rate and a more secure external payments situation. Decreased trade barriers and modernization of regulatory institutions characterized reforms in industry, trade and finance. However, growth only marginally accelerated in the 1990s compared to the 1980s. At times, structural reforms seem to have stopped and little progress has been made in labor markets and bankruptcy reforms.

The most striking aspect of reform is the lack of progress in restoring fiscal balance. A high fiscal deficit of around 9.5% of GDP contributed to the crisis of 1991. Containing this deficit was one of the key structural adjustments undertaken by the Indian government at the time.

A key element to learn is how to control fiscal deficits. The difficulty lies in not being able to accurately measure off budget elements. The uncertainty associated with this makes formulating budgetary policies more challenging. Fiscal policy cannot be analyzed in isolation. Other factors like monetary policy, exchange rates, microeconomic polices and institutional reforms have to be carefully studied in order to achieve the desired results of growth and stability under realistic assumptions about sustainable capital inflows from abroad

Fiscal Policy and its impact on development

A major concern with any fiscal adjustment is its potential cost in slowing economic development, and its possible adverse effects on the poor, whose dependence on public services is higher than the rich. There are two factors that suggest that such cost may not be high. First, India is in a position to implement some fiscal adjustment before a crisis possibly hits. This allows India’s government the opportunity to choose carefully how to go about getting its fiscal house in order, without constraints that would be imposed in a crisis situation. There appears to be a reasonable technical consensus on needed reforms and on how sufficient political support can be mobilized to implement these reforms.

In India, delivery of public services is often ineffective due to high domestic debt, which remains a long-term national concern. The delivery of health and education services in rural areas can be significantly improved through restructuring government efforts and involving the private sector and NGOs.

Current Situation-Tight Fiscal Policy isn’t a solution

Multilateral lenders and investors believe that fiscal consolidation should be the centerpiece of economic policy changes implemented by India’s current government headed by Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. The call for fiscal consolidation is supported by the mistaken conviction that reduction of the fiscal deficit will accelerate long-term economic growth in India. As proven in Latin America since the early 1990s, fiscal consolidation in India will lead to slower economic growth and political and social instability.

If the current government intends to accelerate economic growth it must increase public sector investment and government subsidies. A more effective income based tax structure should also be aggressively pursued where substantially higher tax rates are imposed on the wealthiest.

India should take advantage of the economic policy latitude it enjoys as a result of the limited leverage multilateral lenders hold over the country.

Multilateral lenders, foreign analysts and investors expect changes on economic policy to include tighter fiscal policy implicit to which is further reduction of public sector investment, expenditure on subsidies and the decline of social development.

Despite evidence to the contrary lenders, analysts and investors believe that tight fiscal policy will lead to accelerated economic growth in India. Argentina and Brazil, which have long followed IMF-directed adjustment policies, provide concrete examples of the negative impact tight fiscal policy has on economic growth and social and political stability.
Over the past 15 years the IMF has conditioned credit for Argentina and Brazil on the maintenance of tight fiscal policy. The IMF assumed that tight fiscal policy would lead to steady decline of the debt burden in these countries, thus supporting accelerated economic growth and underpinning foreign and domestic investor confidence.

However, the outcome has been quite different. Tight fiscal policy in both Argentina and Brazil undermined economic growth, leading to rapidly increasing debt burdens in both countries.
In comparison to Argentina and Brazil, fiscal policy has been easier in India over the last 15 years. Apart from the short period in the early 1990s following the country’s balance of payments crisis, India has not been subject to IMF-directed fiscal adjustment policies.

Economic growth in India could have been even faster over the past 15 years if public sector investment had not been sharply reduced after the country’s balance of payment crisis in 1991.

The consolidation of public sector investment and subsidy payments has had an enormous negative impact on rural India. In addition, the steady reduction of import tariffs has further contributed to deteriorating social conditions by subjecting both the agricultural and manufacturing sectors to imports that are often heavily subsidized.

Increasing the rate of public sector investment, targeting agricultural infrastructure and consolidating a more effective income based tax structure would significantly increase long-term growth of India. Investment in agricultural infrastructure and increased food subsidies would benefit a large proportion of people promoting political and social stability.

Role of UNDP

The Poverty Group at the Bureau for Development Policy at UNDP is currently working on a series of country studies entitled “Securing Fiscal Space for Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): Pro-Poor Domestic Resource Mobilization”. The objective of this project is to assess the “fiscal space” available to developing countries to mobilize domestic resources for interventions to attain the MDGs. It presents evidence-based work drawing on country studies from Bangladesh, Morocco, Senegal, Thailand, Venezuela and Zambia on enhancing and securing fiscal space for pro-poor policies and financing interventions to operationalize the MDGs.

Most policy research on fiscal reform has focused on efficiency issues, including effective tax administration, enhancing efficiency in tax collection, and debt sustainability. Relatively little attention has been paid to the question of “fiscal space” – identifying concrete policy actions for enhancing domestic resource mobilisation, and the reforms necessary to secure the enabling governance, institutional and economic policy environment for these policy actions to be effective.

UNDP policy research at the country and regional level reveals that scope exists to enhance the “fiscal space” available to governments to enhance domestic resource mobilisation, using both the above channels. However it is important to identify and design modes of resource mobilisation that are pro-poor in nature, meaning that the instruments chosen are such that the net incidence of incremental domestic resource mobilisation on the disposable income of the poor is minimized. This involves designing a progressive tax system but also devising ways to access resources from the relatively well-off parts of the population through recourse to non-tax instruments, including public borrowing. Equity is therefore central to the design of a pro-poor resource mobilisation strategy.

It is now recognised that achieving the MDGs would require countries to undertake a range of appropriate public investments. It has historically been the case that domestic borrowing for public investment has been an important source of resource mobilisation for growth and development in many developing and, indeed, industrial countries. While domestic borrowing to finance government consumption is widely recognised as undesirable, domestic borrowing for appropriate public investments with demonstrable returns in terms of socio-economic and human development are regarded as perfectly acceptable in most developed countries. The ‘rules’ for fiscal deficits advocated by British Chancellor Gordon Brown allow for borrowing for critical public investments. It is imperative that long term strategic thinking on such issues be encouraged and a policy platform found to encourage such thinking in macroeconomic documents like PRSPs, so that an important potential source of development finance is not overlooked by exclusively relying on short term doctrinal evaluations of a countries domestic fiscal “sustainability”.

In partnership with a research institution, UNDP will present a conceptual and analytical review of the existing challenges and opportunities with respect to pro poor domestic resource mobilization in the context of financing the MDGs. This assessment of the “fiscal space” available to developing countries to mobilise domestic resources for interventions to attain the MDGs will therefore be of high relevance for the deliberations of this ongoing work. This project will use this analytical work to present empirical evidence from Asia and Africa on enhancing and securing fiscal space for pro poor policies and financing interventions to operationalise the MDGs.

If you have any questions regarding fiscal policy, please contact Dr. Rathin
Roy, Public Resources Management Adviser at UNDP, Bureau for Development
Policy at Rathin.roy@undp.org

Queenee Choudhury is a Research Associate at UNDP, Bureau for Development Policy. She holds an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh and a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University.

by Indian Young Professionals Network

Read the article (.pdf)

by Sheila Vishwanathan, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University