Breaking News: Carbon Sequestering to Add Fizz to Aerated Drinks

In the hullabaloo on the War on Terror Wikileaks the media missed out on a startling piece of news: two international soft drink giants are competing against each other to corner the Carbon Sequestering market.

Carbon Sequestering, an idea that carbon can be stored under ground at high pressure, is similar to sweeping dirt under the carpet. Till now humans had no use for such ‘dirt’, it was also seen as a health and environmental problem. As there is so much unwanted CO2 floating around the idea of sequestering came up.

The higher echelons of these aerated drink companies have realised they may have hit the jackpot if they combine carbon sequestering and manufacturing aerated soft drinks. CO2 floating around or confined in small spaces would still be a waste therefore seeing it as a resource has them gassing about it.

Using modern deep sea drilling techniques, made famous recently in the Gulf of Mexico, on dry land the soft drink manufacturers are planning to sequester carbon under aquifers and then release the carbon into the aquifer at the required quantities. This would convert the water in the aquifer into soda. There would be a ‘soda-fountain’ like dispenser on the ground directly connected to the aquifer. The carbonated water from the aquifer would mix with colouring and taste agents inside the ‘soda fountain’ which would then dispense the liquid to the consumer.

This reporter was able to get a passing glimpse of the plan during an interview with one of the CEO's.


The companies are racing to not only patent this technology but also make it into a CDM project. Representatives contacted from both companies are of the opinion that such a technology will reduce the amount of sequestered carbon and therefore make room for the increasing carbon spewed out into the atmosphere. According to them, it would also reduce their operating costs as the carbonating process will be hived off the aerated drinks production process and will therefore further decrease the carbon footprint of these companies.

Both companies agreed that there would be need to increase the consumption of aerated drinks to make such a project 'viable'. Therefore they are planning to change their advertising strategy. To know more about their advertising strategy this reporter contacted their advertising companies independently; strangely their ideas revolve around similar concepts. The creative’s hinted that there would be a paradigm shift from the current advertising which teach new ways to hold cans or link happiness and thrill to coloured liquids. They would now be milking consumer consciousness and peoples concern for the environment and link increase in consumption to better environmental protection. The advertisers are thinking of catchy lines like ‘whats in you.’ Hoping that there would be a growing consumer base that will proudly say ‘sequestered carbon’.

In a developing story a major vehicle manufacturer known for its polluting vehicles plans to enter the aerated drinks business. But instead of retailing their drinks they intend to capture the niche Door/Home-Delivery and Do-It Yourself (DIY) market. They have filed a patent for an aerated drink manufacturing technique which will also be an end of pipe solution for vehicular pollution. The exhaust pipe will be fitted with a pressurised chamber containing sweetened water. The exhaust would mix with this water in the high pressure chamber to make a drink similar to the famous drink that the world loves with Rum.

Mr. Jairam Ramesh’s bold proposal had possibilities

India wants the world to recognize it as a nuclear and emerging economic power but does not want to take the responsibility that comes along with it. This is seen in the ongoing climate negotiations where the Indian position is no different from that of developing countries and China. This position is based on historic emissions of the developed countries. India, the developing and less developed world, countries that form the non-Annexe 1, do not have binding carbon emission targets as laid down in the Kyoto Protocol. This has lead the United States of America and others to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh nicely summed up India’s position when he stated that India’s per capita emissions will always be less than that of developed nations.

This stance which India held for almost 2 decades was in muddy waters a few days earlier. A letter from Mr. Jairam Ramesh the Indian Minster for Environment and Forests to the Prime Minister states that India should no longer toe this line and should break from the G 77 developing country ranks and take on emission reduction targets. The letter went on to suggest that this be done without any counter guarantees of finance and technology.

Politicians (both from the ruling party and BJP), and civil society groups saw the suggestion as detrimental to India and to other developing countries. Even though not much has been made public from this letter one does discern a ‘out of the box thinking’, which takes a relook at India’s international stature in and outside these talks.

The recently concluded UN climate talks in Bangkok saw the G77 countries staging a walk-out. Negotiators were trying to find ways to get countries including the US to accept binding targets this lead to fears that developed countries were trying to dilute their emission responsibilities in the new climate pact due in December. The need for a global climate compact is a no-brainer however it needs a leader to step up to the plate. Though the US sees itself as a world leader it has effectively destroyed the Kyoto Protocol and may just do the same in Copenhagen.

Jairam Ramesh saw this debilitating vacuum in the ongoing climate negotiations and proposed India take up pole position. This suggestion would have done many things -first it would have recognised India’s technical prowess, second it would have coerced the US and others to play game and alienated the Chinese and mostly importantly there were political and economic reasons for such a proposition clearly elucidated by Ramesh earlier ‘We are not doing the world a favour; rather we are doing ourselves a favour by undertaking these actions'.

Estimates from ASSOCHAM suggest that from July, 2008 to February, 2009, average annual CER from CDM projects grew by 20.92% from 218,345,930 to 264,022,976 respectively. However at the same time Indian companies are earning CERs through technical innovation, for example the Tata Steel plant in Jamshedpur has installed a Top Pressure Recovery Turbine to generate electricity replacing power from a coal powered thermal plant. Their Clean Development Mechanism Project Design Document Form states that approximately 66.68 GWh of electrical energy per annum will be generated which would lead to a reduction of 60,811 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which is the expected amount of annual CERs. According to the annual report of ITC, the ITC Sonar hotel in Kolkatta is the only project in the building sector that is earning CERs. There are other innovations that are reaching the lay person. TataBP and New Delhi Power Limited (NPDL) are planning to install solar panels on residential rooftops in Delhi which will be connected to the grid, this will not only generate power but provide additional income to households if they choose to sell the additional power to the grid.

Mr Ramesh saw the climate negotiations as a real opportunity for India to make a global mark. The new position suggested by the minister embarrasses developed countries to better their emission targets because the suggestion is being made by a poorer country. India would have become the ‘gold standard’ and provided relieve to developing nations who till date have not been very successful in forcing the developed world to reduce their emissions. A few weeks earlier the minister acknowledged that the Indian position is not favoured by small island states and others thereby recognizing the uncertain future the small island states face and the traditional role India played being non-conducive to the talks. His new suggestion indicated that India was in a position to do something more and provided a direction on how it intended to go about it

The new stance was a diplomatic barb against the Chinese who have been very active against India in the past months. The minister’s proposal would have isolated the Chinese internationally as they do not want to take emission commitments - a major reason for the failure of the Kyoto Protocol. This shows a high level of maturity in dealing with the Chinese who have found ways to constantly unsettle India. In dealing with China in such a manner India shifts focus to its positives while directing international pressure on the Chinese for its bull headedness. The proposal which would have plugged the flaring nostrils of the dragon has been nixed and the elephant has got into a warm embrace with the dragon.

A recent Maplecroft study states that between 1980 and 2008 the mean annual natural disaster economic loss was 1600 million dollars for India. An Oxfam study predicts that there will be a 9 to 13 per cent of loss of GDP by 2010 due to climate related disasters. The recent few months have seen India swing between droughts and floods. A lack of water in reservoirs and rivers not only threatened agriculture but power generation faced a dip. Then in October floods destroyed paddy in Andhra Pradesh, submerged the hydel power station in Srisalem, while also rendering over 1.80 lakh people homeless in northern Karnataka.

The suggestion made by the minister is path breaking and commendable because it sees the threat of climate change and the opportunities that come from mitigating it; these include improving the Indian economy, making it climate resilient and enhancing India’s position internationally.

Mr Jairam Ramesh had made the first step and it should have been taken further. However shortsightedness on the part of those who claim to speak for equity and for the rest of political India ensured that India remains like the veritable Indian crab.