The Biophysical Foundations of Indian Cities
Imagining Bangalore

What do we not see on this map (or any other map)?

Bangalore (like any other city) is a living organism
• This is from my nephew’s 1st grade science book
– Living things breathe – Living things need food – Living things excrete – Living things grow (usually only for a part of their lives) – Living things die

The Problem
• We understand a lot about Bangalore’s circulatory system
– The flow of rupee and (especially) dollar through the city. – The circulatory system is what economics and business is interested in.

• However, what about the digestive system?
– What does Bangalore consume? – What does Bangalore excrete?

What are these metabolic flows?
• • • • Food (Organic waste and sewerage) Energy (air pollution) Water (BWSSB) Metals and plastic (recyclable waste)

• Metabolic flows share a two-way relationship with the circulatory system

Three ways to characterise metabolism
• Social Justice
– How are the flows distributed between different people in the city?

• Ecological sustainability
– What volume of flow is sustainable?

• Economic Efficiency
– How are the flows distributed between different activities in the city?

• Bangalore as a living organism is sick and unhealthy on all three counts
– The political economy of distribution is fraught with all sorts of inequity – Most metabolic flows are not physically sustainable – The flows are often not economically efficient either

How has the city grown?
Year Population (million) Density (per sq km) Built-up area
(% urban footprint)

1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

1.65 2.92 4.13 5.7 ~8.5

9,465 7,990 9,997 11,545 12142

20% 26% 39% 69% na

Sources: Census; Iyer et al (2007); this study

Where has the city grown?

Where has the city grown?

Surface Water Supply
Projects Year Installed Capacity (MLD) Present Supply (MLD)

Arkavathy (TG Halli) Cauvery Stage I Cauvery Stage II Cauvery Stage III Cauvery Stage IV, Phase – I Total Supply
As of March 2011

1933 1974 1983 1993 2002

149 135 135 270 270 959

60 135 135 300 270 900

Surface Water Supply

Source: BWSSB

Piped supply : domestic water consumption

Domestic consumption from piped water (lpcd)

Biophysical - human links
Hessargatta L. Yelahanka L.

T.G.Halli

Bellandur L..

The water balance: people + ecosystem
Natural state (no people) Altered state (people)
Evaporation Rain

pumping
External Water Supply

Evaporation ~ 80%

Rain 100%

Streamflow
Streamflow ~ 10% Surface watershed

Surface watershed Percolation (Rainfall Recharge + Leakage + Return) ? Groundwater Aquifer

Percolation (Rainfall Recharge) ~ 10% Net Groundwater discharge ~ 10% Groundwater Aquifer

Net Groundwater discharge ?

Biophysical impact: groundwater
Plausible recharge scenarios: city as one unit Mm/yr Natural Natural + Leakage Natural + Leakage + Return flow 63 140 -360 138

Rainfall recharge Piped supply Leakage (30%) Net pumping (150lpcd –Domestic) Return Flow (30% of domestic consumption) Net recharge

63

63 140 - 360

63

-157

-19

human-biophysical feedbacks
Plausible change in groundwater head

human-biophysical feedbacks
Plausible change in groundwater DEPTH; MONTHLY ANIMATION

Human-biophysical feedbacks: water quality

Source: CGWB

Biophysical impact: Energy and Emissions Energy consumption from public water supply:
• Pumping from river sources and through the distribution network requires a total of 60 booster pumps, 52 reservoirs in the city 277 and close to 6000 km of pipeline. • The total energy consumed is approximately 50 GWH/month • Electricity charges alone account for 280 crore rupees annually (~9.2 million USD)

• ~ 450 Kilo-tonnes CO2 emissions (at 0.75 tCO2/MWh)

Biophysical impact: Energy and Emissions Energy consumption from public water supply:
• Pumping from river sources and through the distribution network requires a total of 60 booster pumps, 52 reservoirs in the city 277 and close to 6000 km of pipeline. • The total energy consumed is approximately 50 GWH/month • Electricity charges alone account for 280 crore rupees annually (~9.2 million USD)

• ~ 450 Kilo-tonnes CO2 emissions (at 0.75 tCO2/MWh)

Biophysical impact: Energy and Emissions Energy consumption from only domestic water use? • Public supply ~ 220 GWh (less uncertain)

• Pvt pumping = 164 GWh/yr (more uncertain)
City-wide assumptions for pvt pumping (probably worst case)
• • • 150m constant depth 65% efficiency of pumping 150 lpcd total actual consumption

Visit our online scenario explorer http://www.seimapping.org/bump/scenario.php

Biophysical impact: Energy and Emissions CO2 from domestic water use
Public supply = 165 Kt/yr Pvt pumping (worst case) = 118 t Co2/yr

However, pvt pumping energy and emissions depend heavily on groundwater water depth. Range of 15kT/yr-118kt/yr

Visit our online scenario explorer http://www.seimapping.org/bump/scenario.php

What about the spatial distribution of the Water-Energy-Emissions nexus?

Water: domestic consumption, million litres/year
From public supply From private self-supply (pumping)

Energy consumption for domestic water supply , MWh/year
From public supply From private self-supply (pumping)

Per Capita CO2 Emissions from domestic water consumption, kg/yr
From public supply From private self-supply (pumping)

Total Per Capita CO2 Emissions from domestic water consumption, kg/yr

Uncertainties
• Uncertain knowledge today
– We do not know extraction rates and demand by source, other than piped supply (e.g., tankers, private borewells, local water bodies), or how much is being pumped from what depth – We do not know leakage rates from piped supply with certainty – We only have partial information about the groundwater level – We do not know return flows and consumptive use

• Uncertain futures
– Changing economic opportunities (high-tech, manufacturing) – Growing population and expanding city – Changes in the Cauvery and Arkavathy watersheds beyond the city boundaries – Attitudes toward “reclaimed water”, PPP arrangements, etc.

Uncertain Futures: Scenarios
• Evaluate system performance over a range of plausible conditions; different from traditional “design event” approach • Explicitly recognize that critical uncertainties—highimpact and high-uncertainty drivers and events influence the system • Rely upon two way communication with stakeholders to capture their understanding of the system and the way in which they evaluate competing goals • Can result in robust decisions—strategies that are least likely to fail across a range of plausible futures

Don’t let expectations of the future be dictated by your experience of the present

The User’s Mental Model Becomes Part of the Model

Control Panel Mockup for Scenario Explorer

Output Example

Tools for Integrated Water Resources Management
Will retail customers practice conservation? Demand side models Will recreation remain compatible with future operations? Recreational use surveys with future projections Will groundwater remain viable? Groundwater flow and transport models Will hydropower management change in response to shifts in the market? Energy policy analysis with energy sector forecast models Will the hydrology change? Hydrology models with land use projections How will climate change? Climate models

324643

How much will new residential construction increase demand? Regional economic

Will industrial discharges change? Regulatory and emerging technology analysis

Will this fish be listed for protection? Habitat and species lifecycle models with Ecosystem

Can we tap into a new supply? River hydraulic and contaminant transport

Will agriculturecompete for shared water supplies or become a potential source? Agricultural production models with water rights database

WEAP Network Schematic
GIS Tool

Model Building

Intuitive GIS-based graphical interface

Scenario Building

Graphs & Maps

Putting it All Together

Environment and Ecology on the World Stage

Sustainability : Allocation or Distribution?

Howarth and Norgaard (1992)

Ends, means, and economics
• Economics is the study of human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses [Rob32]. • The “ends” part of the definition is often forgotten in the contemporary discourse. • Ends are outside the purview of economics, to be studied by political philosophy or ethics. • It is our beliefs about the relationship between ends and means that forms the starting point of economic analysis – the “preanalytic vision” [Sch54].

The ends means spectrum

Daly (1993) and Malghan (2007)

Ends, means, and economics

Malghan (2006,2009)

Standard Economics

Ecological economics’ vision
• Economy as an open subsystem of the larger ecosystem • The physical size of the economy relative to the ecosystem is relevant to the human economic predicament.

Scale, allocation, distribution
• An embedded economy needs three different parameters to describe its relationship with the larger society and ecosystem:
– Allocation efficiency (Technical performance) – Distribution efficiency (Justice) – Scale efficiency (Biophysical sustainability)

Global Environmental Problems

What are “Global” Problems?
• Impacts have a wide geographic scale
– Climate change, ozone depletion, acid rain – Depletion or shortages of resources traded on world markets (oil, food)

• Impacts are geographically local, but the problem is pervasive
– Biodiversity loss – Air, water pollution – Depletion of local resources (water)

In the short time that humans have been around …
• Before humans existed, the species extinction rate was (very roughly) one species per million species per year (0.0001 percent). • Estimates for current species extinction rates range from 100 to 10,000 times that, but most hover close to 1,000 times prehuman levels (0.1 percent per year), with the rate projected to rise, and very likely sharply—E. O. Wilson, Biologist (1) • Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years (2)

• • • •

17,291 species out of 47,677 so far assessed are threatened with extinction. (1) Of the world’s 5,490 mammals, 79 are Extinct or Extinct in the Wild, with 188 Critically Endangered, 449 Endangered and 505 Vulnerable. (1) 1,895 of the planet’s 6,285 amphibians are in danger of extinction, making them the most threatened group of species known to date. (1) "In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago.” (2)

What’s an Environmental “Problem”?
• Poses a direct threat to human well-being:
– Urban and indoor air pollution – Water pollution – Solid and hazardous waste disposal

• Poses a threat to natural systems and, often indirectly, an indirect threat to humans:
– Climate change, ozone depletion, acid rain, habitat/ecosystem/biodiversity loss

Direct v. Indirect Threats
• In low- and medium-income countries, direct threats to human health are the most serious environmental problems • Development generally “solves” these problems, but in the process often creates threats to natural systems • Overwhelming majority of money/attention goes to direct threats to human health. In rich countries, this may no longer be sensible.

Environmental Indicators v. Income

Problems in Ranking Risks
• Problems generated by others, that threaten health of the public (v. workers or ecosystems), that activate political constituencies receive disproportionate concern • Environmental problems faced by the “poor” often do not register: – Outdoor v. indoor air pollution – Pesticide residues (v. workers, ecosystems) – Radiation exposures, nuclear waste disposal – Electromagnetic fields, cell phone use – Toxics in water supplies (v. pathogens, or childhood lead exposure from other sources) – Solid waste disposal (and benefits of recycling) – Environmental justice concerns – Oil spills (Nigeria v. Gulf of Mexico)

Why Should We Care?
• Natural systems provide free goods and services that are important to human welfare:
– food, fish, fiber, genetic diversity – clean air and water, fertile soil – regulate climate, absorb UV radiation – limit pests and diseases, pollination – opportunities for recreation, aesthetic values

Value ≈ $16-54 trillion/y (GWP ≈ $20 trillion/y)

The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza et al. Nature 387: 253-260 (1997)

61

Ecosystem Services
Gas regulation Climate regulation Disturbance regulation Water regulation Water supply Erosion control and sediment retention • Soil formation • Nutrient cycling • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Waste treatment Pollination Biological control Refugia Food production Raw materials Genetic resources Recreation Cultural

62

Terrestrial Biome Value ($1012/y) ———————————————————— Forest 5 Tropical 4 Temperate/boreal 0.9 Wetlands 5 Marsh/mangroves 1.7 swamps/floodplains 3 Lakes/rivers 1.7 Desert, tundra, ice, rock, urban 0 0.128 Cropland
———————————————————————

Total Terrestrial

12
63

Marine Biome

————————————————————

Value ($1012/y) 8 13 4 4 0.4 4 33 (16-54)

Open ocean Coastal Estuaries Seagrass/algae beds Coral reefs Shelf Total Marine Total World World GWP (1997)

————————————————————

21

31

Why Should We Care?
• Natural systems provide free goods and services that are important to human welfare • Human activities degrade or alter distribution of these goods and services
– reduce resource availability (fish, water) – alter chemistry of air, water, soil – alter climate – alter or eliminate natural habitat, species

Why Should We Care?
These impacts decrease human well-being: • loss of crops, forests, fish stocks • storms, floods, sea-level rise • death, illness, spread of disease vectors • loss of genetic information • damage to recreation, tourism, culture, aesthetics • conflict over resource redistribution/access; transboundary flows of pollution, refugees, migrants; unrest due to deprivation and growing inequities

Human Impacts Are Not New
• Since Homo sapiens arose 100,000 yr BP
– extinction of large mammals (mammoths)

• Since agriculture arose 10,000 yr BP
– desertification of cradle of civilization

• Since the industrial revolution 250 yr BP
– deforestation of northern hemisphere – ten-fold increase in human population, accumulation of wealth, rise of megacities

What’s New
• Rate of change (absolute magnitude, not %) • Global extent of change • Are there environmental limits to growth?
– How can we best improve overall human welfare (economic + natural goods and services)? – How can we close the gap between rich and poor? – Can the poor approach levels of consumption now enjoyed by the rich without ruining the natural systems upon which human well-being depends?

Disruption By
Index Natural Tradit’nl Baseline Agriculture Energy ice-free land

Industrial Energy
150,000 (2/3 hydro)

Other Activity
1,500,000 cities, transport

Human Natural 0.15 0.2
(of usable)

Land Use 135,000,000 15,000,000 5,000,000 (km2) cultivated sustainable
2/3 harvested

fuelwood

Water Use (km3/y) CO2 Emission (GtC/y) CO2 Added (GtC) CH4 Emission (Mt C)

50,000 total runoff (2/3 unusable)

2,000 irrigation 800 ? 0.2 fuelwood process, cooling, evap

500 all other

150 NPP 594 preindustrial atmosphere

≈1 forest clearing

6.3 fossil-fuels 0.5 cement, urbanizatn

0.004/y

100 210 ruminants, paddies, burning

40

280 100

10 65 landfills, sewage

0.35

160 wetlands, termites, ocean

?

natural gas, coal mines

2.3

69

Disruption By
Index Nitrogen Fixation (MtN/y) N2O Emission (MtN/y) Natural Tradit’nl Baseline Agriculture Energy 200 biological fixation 9 oceans, soils 60 fertilizer 4.4 soils, ruminants 0.8 burning 30 burning 1 Industrial Energy Other Activity Human Natural 0.5

30 1 fossil-fuel industrial combustn processes ? 60 coal, oil burning 1.3 industrial processes 10 smelting

?

0.4

Sulfur 100 Emission decay, sea (MtS/y) spray React HC 800 Emission vegetation (Mt/yr)

0.3 burning 4 burning

0.7

30 20 combustn, Industrial refining processes

0.1

70

Disruption By
Index PM Emission (Mt/yr) Lead Emission (kt Pb/y) Mercury Emission (kt Hg/y) Oil Emission (Mt/y) Radiation (Mrem) Natural Tradit’nl Baseline Agriculture Energy 500 sea spray, volcanoes, dust

Industrial Energy

Other Activity

Human Natural 0.3

40 burning, wheat handling

15 burning 0.2 burning 0.2 burning

40 50 fossil-fuel industrial combustn processes 230 gasoline additives 3 oil, coal burning 3 tankers, platforms 1 100 metals production 13 mining, mobilizatn 2 lube-oil, waste 150 medical, fallout

25 volcanoes, dust 25 outgassing 0.5 natural seeps 800 radon, cosmic rays

0.4 burning 0.7 burning, biocides

13

0.7

10

?

reactors, coal burning

0.2
71

Quartiles of Change: 10,000 BC to mid-1980s
75%
Deforested area Terrestrial vertebrate diversity Carbon releases Population size Lead releases Water withdrawals Sulfur releases Carbon tetrachloride production Phosphorous releases Nitrogen releases

50%

25%
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Where are we headed?
• Ozone – Antarctic hole was a surprise; luckily, we could stop before an Arctic hole appeared • Climate – GHG emissions continue to increase without any clear idea of consequences • Biodiversity – Are we in the midst of a mass extinction? If so, does it matter? • Nutrients – Human flows approach or exceed natural flows; what are the long-term consequences?

Population, Consumption, Pollution
Country

Population( 10^6) 278 82 127 170 61 1280 1010 112 156 129

Per-capita
Income ($/y) Energy (GJ/y) CO2 (t/y) Toxics (kg/y) Organic Metals

Pop. per car

US Germany Japan Brazil Thailand China India Nigeria Pakistan Bangladesh

29,000 21,000 24,000 6,500 6,800 3,100 1,700 1,000 1,400 1,100

190 100 98 25 62 21 11 20 9 5

20.0 12.1 8.8 1.4 2.0 2.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2

150 270 230 5.2 5.9 2.8 0.4 1.6 0.6

3.5 5.1 8.2 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.006 0.02 0.007

1 2 2 10 20 150 150 80 130 900

Population, Consumption, Pollution
Per-capita
Country

Popu- Income lation ($/y) 278 82 127 170 61 1280 1010 112 156 129 29,000 21,000 24,000 6,500 6,800 3,100 1,700 1,000 1,400 1,100

Water (m3/y)

Forest Cover ∆%/dy 1 0 0 -5 -6 -5 -5 -9 -3 -3

Air Pollution (Largest City) TSP SO2 Pb

US Germany Japan Brazil Thailand China India Nigeria Pakistan Bangladesh

1800 580 740 360 600 440 590 45 1300 130

60 40 50 40 170 360

40 20 70 40 1200 90

0.0

7.5

410

IPAT
• Often useful to think of environmental impact as the product of three factors:
Impact = (Population ) ⋅ ( Affluence ) ⋅ ( Technology )  pollution     pollution  $    = ( people )  person ⋅ y   y $     

• Population will increase (in poor countries) • Affluence should increase in poor countries • Can improved technology offset rising population and affluence?

Technology
Technology is both a blessing and a curse: • Provides new goods and services, improves human welfare • Requires energy and resources, generates wastes, all of which have environmental impacts that decrease welfare • Improved technologies can decrease impact per unit good/service (scrubbers, fuel cells, photovoltaics…)

July 20th 2007

79

World Commercial Energy Use
World Energy Consumption (EJ/yr)
400

Renewables Nuclear Hydro

300

Gas
200

Oil
100

Coal
0 1900 1950 2000

80

and the Price… Measured CO2 Concentrations from Atmospheric Samples
380

370

CO2 Concentration (ppmv)

360

350

340

330

320

310

1958

1968

1978

1988

1998

81

Exponential Growth of Flows
• We use growth rates for stocks (population) and flows ($/y, energy/y, tons/y) • When flows increase at a constant rate, we can integrate to find total amount consumed: oil consumption F ( t ) F0ert = = total oil consumed S ( T ) = =
T

between time 0 and T

∫

T

0

F(t) = F0 ∫ ert dt
T 0

F0 rt F0 rT = = S (T) e −1 e r r 0

(

)

Exponential Growth
• If consumption rate is growing exponentially, total consumption in next doubling time equals all previous consumption:
 0.69  F0 rT2 X 0 r  e − e    r  S ( 0 to T2X ) e −1 2 −1 r  = = = = 1 S ( −∞ to 0 ) F0 e0 − e−∞  1− 0 1  r 

In this chart, consumption is growing at 7%/y (doubling time = 10 y) Consumption in the next ten years (blue bars) equals total consumption over all previous years

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10
84

Carbon Emissions: Fossil Fuel + Cement

85

Carbon Emissions: Land Use Changes

86

Carbon Emissions

Historical CO2 Concentrations
380 360

CO2 Concentration (ppmv)

Air Samples
340

320

300

Ice Core Data
280

260 1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

88

The Uncertainty Explosion

emission scenarios

carbon cycle response

global climate change

regional climate change

range of possible impacts
89

Increase in Mean Temperature

Increase in Variance

91

Increase in Mean and Variance

92

CO2 Concentrations: Projections

Change in Monsoon Rainfall, 2xCO2

94

Change in Annual Irrigation Requirements Due to Climate Change 2025 – (1961-90)

95

Change in Average Annual Runoff (2050, ensemble mean)

96

Per-capita water resources

1990 2050, no climate change 2050, climate change scenarios
97

Cost of Weather-Related Disasters

98

Global Thermohaline Circulation

99

Climate Change Timescales

100

Peak Oil??

101

102

103

Stabilization Scenarios

104

Scenarios in Perspective

105

Source v. Sinks
Consumption 1750-2001 (GtC) Oil Gas Coal Unconventional 100 35 145 — Recoverable Resources (GtC) 200 – 400 150 – 400 2000 – 6000 40,000+
106

CO2 Emissions: IPAT
Per-capita Income Structure of energy supply

Emissions

 $   GJ   t  t = P   $   GJ  y    P ⋅ y 
Efficiency of energy use; structure of economy

Population

108

Estimates of Human Population
10,000

Human Population (millions)

8,000

UN medium variant Kremer Blaxter

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 -10000

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000
109

UN Population Scenarios
14,000

World Population (millions)

12,000

10,000

constant fertility high variant medium variant low variant

13.0 10.9 9.3

8,000

7.9 6.2

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060
110

Projections Trending Downward

111

Fertility Declining Faster Than Expected

112

Distribution of Population UN Medium Variant

113

114

Average Growth Rates, 1990-2050
A1F1 P $/P⋅y GJ/$ tC/GJ tC/y 0.83 2.60 – 1.62 0.44 2.25 A1B 0.83 2.76 – 1.85 – 0.11 1.63 A1T 0.83 2.71 – 2.08 – 0.26 1.20 A2 1.26 1.00 – 0.94 0.37 1.69 B1 0.83 2.28 – 2.19 0.19 1.11 B2 0.94 1.82 – 1.71 – 0.01 1.04
115

116

The REAL Challenge

117

Contd..

118

119

BGS : Final Class Exercise
• How many people in India do not have access to ANY electricity?

Household Electricity Consumption

121

The Cost of Global Warming
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Unabated Global Warming Stern Gore Trillion Dollars Cost of Policies

Who should bear these costs?

New Paradigms: Sustainability

What is THE problem? – BGS on a global scale