Pakistan’s government has proposed to eliminate taxes associated with manufacturing of solar and wind energy equipment in the country, in an effort to boost the production and use of renewable power and overcome power shortages.

A new government budget bill, expected to be approved in parliament within a month, would give renewable energy manufacturers and assemblers in the country a five-year exemption from the taxes.

“Pakistan is paying the heavy cost of an ongoing energy crisis prevailing for the last many years,” Finance Minister Asad Umar said last week in a budget speech. “In this difficult time, the promotion of renewable energy resources like wind and solar has become indispensable.”

Only about 5 to 6 percent of the power to Pakistan’s national electrical grid currently comes from renewable energy, according to the country’s Alternate Energy Development Board (AEDB).

The proposed tax reduction should boost that by encouraging greater local manufacturing of equipment needed for renewable power expansion, said Asad Mahmood, a renewable energy expert with the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which sits within the Ministry of Energy.

Remaining hurdles

But manufacturers said the tax breaks likely would not be sufficient to spur expansion of local renewable energy industries.

Naeem Siddiqui, the chairman of Ebox Systems, which assembles solar panels in Islamabad, said the new tax breaks were good news but Pakistani manufacturers would still struggle to compete with tax-free, low-priced imports of foreign-built solar panels and other renewable energy equipment.

“The government has already waived off taxes and duties on the import of renewable energy products, and local manufacturers cannot compete with the low-priced imported items,” he said.

Pakistan today imports more than 95 percent of the solar panels and other renewable energy systems it uses, largely from China, said Aamir Hussain, chief executive officer of Tesla PV, one of the largest manufacturers of solar energy products in Pakistan.

“As long as the government will not impose duties on the import of finished products, the local market cannot grow,” he said.

Pakistani manufacturers also might need government help in pushing sales of new Pakistani clean energy products abroad, in order to build bigger markets and lower manufacturing costs, Siddiqui said.

Mahmood, of the energy ministry, said he believed the government would also move to cut existing duties on the import of components used in manufacturing finished renewable energy products, in order to help Pakistani manufacturers.

Taxes on those components have pushed up prices of Pakistani-made renewable energy systems, making them harder to sell and leading several companies to the brink of failure, he said.

Certification system

Local manufacturers should work with the government to determine which components should be manufactured locally and which imported to ensure costs of locally made wind and solar systems are competitive, he said.

Muhammad Abdur Rahman, managing director of Innosol, a company that imports and installs renewable energy systems, said that cheap imports of renewable energy systems from China remain the main barrier to building more such systems in Pakistan.

“The local industry is facing pricing issues because of low-quality solar energy appliances being imported in the country that are very cheap as compared to the local market,” he said.

That might be resolved in part by the government starting a certification system for renewable energy products to grade them according to quality, he said.

Amjad Ali Awan, chief executive officer of the Alternate Energy Development Board, said the aim of the new policies was for renewable energy to supply 28 to 30 percent of the country’s national electrical grid by 2030.
…

Pakistan’s government has proposed to eliminate taxes associated with manufacturing of solar and wind energy equipment in the country, in an effort to boost the production and use of renewable power and overcome power shortages.

A new government budget bill, expected to be approved in parliament within a month, would give renewable energy manufacturers and assemblers in the country a five-year exemption from the taxes.

“Pakistan is paying the heavy cost of an ongoing energy crisis prevailing for the last many years,” Finance Minister Asad Umar said last week in a budget speech. “In this difficult time, the promotion of renewable energy resources like wind and solar has become indispensable.”

Only about 5 to 6 percent of the power to Pakistan’s national electrical grid currently comes from renewable energy, according to the country’s Alternate Energy Development Board (AEDB).

The proposed tax reduction should boost that by encouraging greater local manufacturing of equipment needed for renewable power expansion, said Asad Mahmood, a renewable energy expert with the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which sits within the Ministry of Energy.

Remaining hurdles

But manufacturers said the tax breaks likely would not be sufficient to spur expansion of local renewable energy industries.

Naeem Siddiqui, the chairman of Ebox Systems, which assembles solar panels in Islamabad, said the new tax breaks were good news but Pakistani manufacturers would still struggle to compete with tax-free, low-priced imports of foreign-built solar panels and other renewable energy equipment.

“The government has already waived off taxes and duties on the import of renewable energy products, and local manufacturers cannot compete with the low-priced imported items,” he said.

Pakistan today imports more than 95 percent of the solar panels and other renewable energy systems it uses, largely from China, said Aamir Hussain, chief executive officer of Tesla PV, one of the largest manufacturers of solar energy products in Pakistan.

“As long as the government will not impose duties on the import of finished products, the local market cannot grow,” he said.

Pakistani manufacturers also might need government help in pushing sales of new Pakistani clean energy products abroad, in order to build bigger markets and lower manufacturing costs, Siddiqui said.

Mahmood, of the energy ministry, said he believed the government would also move to cut existing duties on the import of components used in manufacturing finished renewable energy products, in order to help Pakistani manufacturers.

Taxes on those components have pushed up prices of Pakistani-made renewable energy systems, making them harder to sell and leading several companies to the brink of failure, he said.

Certification system

Local manufacturers should work with the government to determine which components should be manufactured locally and which imported to ensure costs of locally made wind and solar systems are competitive, he said.

Muhammad Abdur Rahman, managing director of Innosol, a company that imports and installs renewable energy systems, said that cheap imports of renewable energy systems from China remain the main barrier to building more such systems in Pakistan.

“The local industry is facing pricing issues because of low-quality solar energy appliances being imported in the country that are very cheap as compared to the local market,” he said.

That might be resolved in part by the government starting a certification system for renewable energy products to grade them according to quality, he said.

Amjad Ali Awan, chief executive officer of the Alternate Energy Development Board, said the aim of the new policies was for renewable energy to supply 28 to 30 percent of the country’s national electrical grid by 2030.
…

Faced with potentially ruinous lawsuits over California’s recent wildfires, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday in a move that could lead to higher bills for customers of the nation’s biggest utility and reduce the size of any payouts to fire victims.

The Chapter 11 filing allows PG&E to continue operating while it puts its books in order. But it was seen as a possible glimpse of the financial toll that could lie ahead because of global warming, which scientists say is leading to fiercer, more destructive blazes and longer fire seasons.

The bankruptcy could also jeopardize California’s ambitious program to switch entirely to renewable energy sources.

PG&E said the bankruptcy filing will not affect electricity or gas service and will allow for an “orderly, fair and expeditious resolution” of wildfire claims.

“Throughout this process, we are fully committed to enhancing our wildfire safety efforts, as well as helping restoration and rebuilding efforts across the communities impacted by the devastating Northern California wildfires,” interim CEO John R. Simon said in a statement.

PG&E cited hundreds of lawsuits from victims of fires in 2017 and 2018 and tens of billions of dollars in potential liabilities when it announced earlier this month that it planned to file for bankruptcy.

The blazes include the nation’s deadliest wildfire in a century — the one in November that killed at least 86 people and destroyed 15,000 homes in Paradise and surrounding communities. The cause is under investigation, but suspicion fell on PG&E after it reported power line problems nearby around the time the fire broke out.

Last week, however, state investigators determined that the company’s equipment was not to blame for a 2017 fire that killed 22 people in Northern California wine country.

The wildfire lawsuits accuse PG&E of inadequate maintenance, including not adequately trimming trees and clearing brush around electrical lines, and failing to shut off power when the fire risk is high.

The bankruptcy filing immediately puts the lawsuits on hold and consolidates them in bankruptcy court, where legal experts say victims will probably receive less money.

“They’re going to have to take some sort of haircut on their claims,” said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy attorney who teaches at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. “We don’t know yet what that will be.”

In a bankruptcy proceeding, the victims have little chance of getting punitive damages or taking their claims to a jury. They will also have to stand in line behind PG&E’s secured creditors, such as banks, when a judge decides who gets paid and how much.

But legal experts also noted that state officials will be involved in the bankruptcy, and that could soften the blow to wildfire victims.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that his administration will work to ensure that “Californians have access to safe, reliable and affordable service, that victims and employees are treated fairly, and that California continues to make forward progress on our climate change goals.”

Legal experts said the bankruptcy will probably take years to resolve and result in higher rates for customers of PG&E, which provides natural gas and electricity to 16 million people in Northern and central California.

PG&E would not speculate about the effect on customers’ bills, noting that the state Public Utilities Commission sets rates.

PG&E also filed for bankruptcy in 2001 during an electricity crisis marked by rolling blackouts and the manipulation of the energy market. It emerged from bankruptcy three years later but obtained billions in higher payments from ratepayers.

California has set a goal of getting 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources such as wind, solar and hydropower by 2045. To achieve that, utilities must switch to buying power from renewable sources.

PG&E made agreements in 2017 to buy electricity from solar farms. But because of its bankruptcy, some experts have questioned its ability to pay what it agreed to, or to make the investments in grid upgrades and batteries necessary to bring more renewable energy online.

“PG&E’s bankruptcy is going to make it a lot more costly for California to meet its environmental goals, and could make it more challenging just to get the infrastructure built to help cut emissions and increase renewable energy,” said Travis Miller, an investment strategist at Morningstar Inc.

Consumer activist Erin Brockovich, who took on PG&E in the 1990s, had urged California lawmakers not to let the utility go into bankruptcy because it could mean less money for wildfire victims.

PG&E faced additional pressure not to seek bankruptcy after investigators said a private electrical system, not utility equipment, caused the 2017 wine country blaze that destroyed more than 5,600 buildings in Sonoma and Napa counties. The governor’s office estimated that more than half of the roughly $30 billion in potential wildfire damages that PG&E said it was facing came from that fire.

While the investigators’ finding reduced PG&E’s potential liability, it did little to reassure investors. Its stock is down 70 percent from about a year ago.
…

Faced with potentially ruinous lawsuits over California’s recent wildfires, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday in a move that could lead to higher bills for customers of the nation’s biggest utility and reduce the size of any payouts to fire victims.

The Chapter 11 filing allows PG&E to continue operating while it puts its books in order. But it was seen as a possible glimpse of the financial toll that could lie ahead because of global warming, which scientists say is leading to fiercer, more destructive blazes and longer fire seasons.

The bankruptcy could also jeopardize California’s ambitious program to switch entirely to renewable energy sources.

PG&E said the bankruptcy filing will not affect electricity or gas service and will allow for an “orderly, fair and expeditious resolution” of wildfire claims.

“Throughout this process, we are fully committed to enhancing our wildfire safety efforts, as well as helping restoration and rebuilding efforts across the communities impacted by the devastating Northern California wildfires,” interim CEO John R. Simon said in a statement.

PG&E cited hundreds of lawsuits from victims of fires in 2017 and 2018 and tens of billions of dollars in potential liabilities when it announced earlier this month that it planned to file for bankruptcy.

The blazes include the nation’s deadliest wildfire in a century — the one in November that killed at least 86 people and destroyed 15,000 homes in Paradise and surrounding communities. The cause is under investigation, but suspicion fell on PG&E after it reported power line problems nearby around the time the fire broke out.

Last week, however, state investigators determined that the company’s equipment was not to blame for a 2017 fire that killed 22 people in Northern California wine country.

The wildfire lawsuits accuse PG&E of inadequate maintenance, including not adequately trimming trees and clearing brush around electrical lines, and failing to shut off power when the fire risk is high.

The bankruptcy filing immediately puts the lawsuits on hold and consolidates them in bankruptcy court, where legal experts say victims will probably receive less money.

“They’re going to have to take some sort of haircut on their claims,” said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy attorney who teaches at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. “We don’t know yet what that will be.”

In a bankruptcy proceeding, the victims have little chance of getting punitive damages or taking their claims to a jury. They will also have to stand in line behind PG&E’s secured creditors, such as banks, when a judge decides who gets paid and how much.

But legal experts also noted that state officials will be involved in the bankruptcy, and that could soften the blow to wildfire victims.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that his administration will work to ensure that “Californians have access to safe, reliable and affordable service, that victims and employees are treated fairly, and that California continues to make forward progress on our climate change goals.”

Legal experts said the bankruptcy will probably take years to resolve and result in higher rates for customers of PG&E, which provides natural gas and electricity to 16 million people in Northern and central California.

PG&E would not speculate about the effect on customers’ bills, noting that the state Public Utilities Commission sets rates.

PG&E also filed for bankruptcy in 2001 during an electricity crisis marked by rolling blackouts and the manipulation of the energy market. It emerged from bankruptcy three years later but obtained billions in higher payments from ratepayers.

California has set a goal of getting 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources such as wind, solar and hydropower by 2045. To achieve that, utilities must switch to buying power from renewable sources.

PG&E made agreements in 2017 to buy electricity from solar farms. But because of its bankruptcy, some experts have questioned its ability to pay what it agreed to, or to make the investments in grid upgrades and batteries necessary to bring more renewable energy online.

“PG&E’s bankruptcy is going to make it a lot more costly for California to meet its environmental goals, and could make it more challenging just to get the infrastructure built to help cut emissions and increase renewable energy,” said Travis Miller, an investment strategist at Morningstar Inc.

Consumer activist Erin Brockovich, who took on PG&E in the 1990s, had urged California lawmakers not to let the utility go into bankruptcy because it could mean less money for wildfire victims.

PG&E faced additional pressure not to seek bankruptcy after investigators said a private electrical system, not utility equipment, caused the 2017 wine country blaze that destroyed more than 5,600 buildings in Sonoma and Napa counties. The governor’s office estimated that more than half of the roughly $30 billion in potential wildfire damages that PG&E said it was facing came from that fire.

While the investigators’ finding reduced PG&E’s potential liability, it did little to reassure investors. Its stock is down 70 percent from about a year ago.
…

Ireland has alerted the European Commission that it will seek emergency aid in the event of a no-deal Brexit and is considering a range of other ways to help firms cope, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Tuesday.

With close trading links with Britain, Ireland’s export-focused economy is considered the most vulnerable among the remaining 27 European Union members to the impact of its nearest neighbor’s departure from the bloc.

Ireland’s finance department forecast earlier on Tuesday that economic growth could be 4.25 percentage points less than forecast by 2023 in a disorderly Brexit and would disproportionately hit agricultural goods and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Varadkar said last month that Dublin was discussing with the Commission what state aid might be available if Britain leaves the bloc without a deal, and confirmed on Tuesday that it had informed Brussels that such a request would be forthcoming.

“The purpose of this aid would be to help cope with the impact on Irish trade, particularly for the beef, dairy and fishing sectors,” Varadkar said in the text of a speech to be delivered at the Irish Farmers’ Association’s annual general meeting.

Additional exceptional EU supports available in the case of serious agricultural market disturbance that Baltic states used when the Russian market was closed to them “can be used for us too,” Varadkar added.

He said the government has been engaging on these issues with EU Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, a former Irish government minister and member of Varadkar’s Fine Gael party.

Farmers were told that domestic assistance would also likely be made available, with Varadkar saying his cabinet discussed providing funds for storage, restructuring grants and other state aids at its weekly meeting on Tuesday.

“I can assure you that Ireland is seeking every possible assistance,” he said.
…

Ireland has alerted the European Commission that it will seek emergency aid in the event of a no-deal Brexit and is considering a range of other ways to help firms cope, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Tuesday.

With close trading links with Britain, Ireland’s export-focused economy is considered the most vulnerable among the remaining 27 European Union members to the impact of its nearest neighbor’s departure from the bloc.

Ireland’s finance department forecast earlier on Tuesday that economic growth could be 4.25 percentage points less than forecast by 2023 in a disorderly Brexit and would disproportionately hit agricultural goods and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Varadkar said last month that Dublin was discussing with the Commission what state aid might be available if Britain leaves the bloc without a deal, and confirmed on Tuesday that it had informed Brussels that such a request would be forthcoming.

“The purpose of this aid would be to help cope with the impact on Irish trade, particularly for the beef, dairy and fishing sectors,” Varadkar said in the text of a speech to be delivered at the Irish Farmers’ Association’s annual general meeting.

Additional exceptional EU supports available in the case of serious agricultural market disturbance that Baltic states used when the Russian market was closed to them “can be used for us too,” Varadkar added.

He said the government has been engaging on these issues with EU Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, a former Irish government minister and member of Varadkar’s Fine Gael party.

Farmers were told that domestic assistance would also likely be made available, with Varadkar saying his cabinet discussed providing funds for storage, restructuring grants and other state aids at its weekly meeting on Tuesday.

“I can assure you that Ireland is seeking every possible assistance,” he said.
…

U.S. consumer confidence tumbled this month to its lowest reading in a year and a half, tested by the partial government shutdown and roiling financial markets. Still, consumer spirits remain robust by historic standards.

The Conference Board, a business research group, said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index fell to 120.2 in January, down from 126.6 in December and the lowest level since July 2017.

The index measures consumers’ assessment of current economic conditions and their expectations for the next six months. Both declined in January. Consumers’ expectations for the future dropped to the lowest point since October 2016.

The government reopened Monday after the 35-day shutdown, the longest federal closure in U.S. history. The shutdown is expected to cause slight permanent harm to the economy — about $3 billion — according to a new government report.

The January decline in consumer confidence “is more the result of a temporary shock than a precursor to a significant slowdown in the coming months,” said Lynn Franco, the Conference Board’s senior director of economic indicators. He noted that “shock events” such as government shutdowns “tend to have sharp, but temporary, impacts on consumer confidence.”

The U.S. economy is healthy. Economic growth clocked in at a brisk 3.4 percent annual pace from July through September after surging 4.2 percent in the second quarter. At 3.9 percent, the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in five decades.

The U.S. stock market is steadier after its wild gyrations and heavy losses late last year. Still, investors have a lot to worry about. The Federal Reserve has gradually been raising interest rates. A government report issued Monday predicts that U.S. economic growth will slow as the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts for businesses begin to drop off. The Congressional Budget Office report sees the economy growing by 2.3 percent this year, a marked slowdown from 3.1 percent in 2018.

Global growth is sputtering. And the U.S. and China — the world’s two biggest economies — are locked in a trade war that threatens to disrupt global commerce.

On Monday, the Trump administration unveiled criminal charges against the Chinese tech giant Huawei, complicating high-level talks set to begin Wednesday in Washington that are intended to defuse the trade war. The Justice Department alleged that Huawei had violated U.S. sanctions against sales to Iran and stolen trade secrets from telecom company T-Mobile, a U.S. partner. Those charges cut to the heart of some of the administration’s key complaints about China’s trade practices.

Analysts said the trade talks would likely proceed, but reaching any substantive agreement would probably be harder. And unless the two sides can forge some sort of accord by March 1, U.S. tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports are set to rise from 10 percent to 25 percent.

 
…

U.S. consumer confidence tumbled this month to its lowest reading in a year and a half, tested by the partial government shutdown and roiling financial markets. Still, consumer spirits remain robust by historic standards.

The Conference Board, a business research group, said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index fell to 120.2 in January, down from 126.6 in December and the lowest level since July 2017.

The index measures consumers’ assessment of current economic conditions and their expectations for the next six months. Both declined in January. Consumers’ expectations for the future dropped to the lowest point since October 2016.

The government reopened Monday after the 35-day shutdown, the longest federal closure in U.S. history. The shutdown is expected to cause slight permanent harm to the economy — about $3 billion — according to a new government report.

The January decline in consumer confidence “is more the result of a temporary shock than a precursor to a significant slowdown in the coming months,” said Lynn Franco, the Conference Board’s senior director of economic indicators. He noted that “shock events” such as government shutdowns “tend to have sharp, but temporary, impacts on consumer confidence.”

The U.S. economy is healthy. Economic growth clocked in at a brisk 3.4 percent annual pace from July through September after surging 4.2 percent in the second quarter. At 3.9 percent, the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in five decades.

The U.S. stock market is steadier after its wild gyrations and heavy losses late last year. Still, investors have a lot to worry about. The Federal Reserve has gradually been raising interest rates. A government report issued Monday predicts that U.S. economic growth will slow as the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts for businesses begin to drop off. The Congressional Budget Office report sees the economy growing by 2.3 percent this year, a marked slowdown from 3.1 percent in 2018.

Global growth is sputtering. And the U.S. and China — the world’s two biggest economies — are locked in a trade war that threatens to disrupt global commerce.

On Monday, the Trump administration unveiled criminal charges against the Chinese tech giant Huawei, complicating high-level talks set to begin Wednesday in Washington that are intended to defuse the trade war. The Justice Department alleged that Huawei had violated U.S. sanctions against sales to Iran and stolen trade secrets from telecom company T-Mobile, a U.S. partner. Those charges cut to the heart of some of the administration’s key complaints about China’s trade practices.

Analysts said the trade talks would likely proceed, but reaching any substantive agreement would probably be harder. And unless the two sides can forge some sort of accord by March 1, U.S. tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports are set to rise from 10 percent to 25 percent.

 
…

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sees coal as a key way to boost the economy, but burning more coal may worsen pollution in a country already choking on some of the world’s most toxic air.

With the country staggering under the weight of international sanctions over its nuclear weapons program and human rights violations, defectors and analysts say Pyongyang has increased the domestic use of coal, which is blocked for export.

Seven coal power plants and one oil-fired plant produce nearly 50 percent of North Korea’s electricity, with the rest coming from hydro power, according to South Korean government data. For households, coal is also a key fuel source for cooking and heating.

But an increased reliance, which Kim announced in his New Year address, may have deadly implications.

Per capita, North Korea’s air pollution mortality rate was the world’s highest at 238.4 deaths per 100,000 population as of 2012, a 2017 report from the World Health Organization (WHO) showed. That was 10 times higher than the rate in South Korea and higher than those of China and India, where smog often envelops major cities.

North Korea has acknowledged the correlation between coal and polluted air, but said it has had limited access to cleaner options.

“A combination of limited capital investment in infrastructure, limited access to efficient and low emission technologies … and reliance on energy produced from coal in low efficiency thermal power plants has impacted air quality in urban and industrial areas,” North Korea’s 2012 report on environment and climate change outlook submitted to United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) said.

According to the report, coal is the main fuel used by homes in North Korean cities. In rural areas, wood is the main source, while coal comes in second.

Many rural North Koreans say they’re aware of the pollution, but have more pressing problems.

“From the moment we woke up, we had to think about how much rice was left in our jar and how much firewood we had,” said Ji Cheol-ho, a North Korean defector who lived in a coal mine town in North Hamgyong province before fleeing to the South in 2007.

“We don’t die right away from eating dust, but we do if we don’t eat food,” said Ji, now an official at NAUH, a human rights activist group, who regularly talks to sources inside the North.

Hard to monitor

Analysts say North Korea has typically reserved its higher-quality coal for export. Using it domestically instead would have at least a small impact on minimizing additional pollution, experts say.

“Using good quality of coal would reduce emissions,” said Kim Yong-pyo, professor of chemical engineering & material science at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

But North Korean facilities lack sufficient filtering, so using more coal of any kind would likely lead to more carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, he said.

Reuters journalists in Pyongyang late last year observed thick smoke pouring from the stacks of several facilities, often covering parts of the capital in smog.

To raise public awareness about air pollution in 2017, North Korea’s state television aired a special warning about it and provided tips such as wearing masks.

In 2003, North Korea set goals to address air pollution, and is working to upgrade older thermal power plants, according to reports the country submitted to UNEP and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But “limited technical and financial resources” prevented detailed monitoring of air quality, the report said, and it is not clear whether the North Korean government followed through on its recommendations.

Regional concern

Experts say a lack of reliable data make it difficult to gauge exactly how much damage Kim Jong Un’s coal plan might do to the environment and air quality. But they agree it will have an impact outside his country’s borders, especially in South Korea, Kim Yong-pyo said.

Air pollution harms and kills millions of people every year, especially in Asia, according to the WHO.

In South Korea, up to 20 percent of air pollutants are estimated to originate in the North, experts say.

In a 2017 survey by the state-funded Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, South Korean respondents said air pollution was their biggest concern, eclipsing even North Korea’s nuclear threats.

Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in promised last year to restore the North’s damaged forests in an effort to fight air pollution.

“Some air pollutants travel over to the South from the North. If forests are built well … those could be reduced,” South Korea’s Forest Service minister Kim Jae-hyun, who visited Pyongyang last year to discuss the matter, told reporters in January.

Kim Soon-tae, a professor of environment and safety engineering at Ajou University, who has studied the impact of North Korean pollutants, said better data from the North is essential to devising air pollution policies in the South.

“North Korea’s air quality is our homework to do, and we have to think about North Korean people’s health as well,” Kim said.
…

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sees coal as a key way to boost the economy, but burning more coal may worsen pollution in a country already choking on some of the world’s most toxic air.

With the country staggering under the weight of international sanctions over its nuclear weapons program and human rights violations, defectors and analysts say Pyongyang has increased the domestic use of coal, which is blocked for export.

Seven coal power plants and one oil-fired plant produce nearly 50 percent of North Korea’s electricity, with the rest coming from hydro power, according to South Korean government data. For households, coal is also a key fuel source for cooking and heating.

But an increased reliance, which Kim announced in his New Year address, may have deadly implications.

Per capita, North Korea’s air pollution mortality rate was the world’s highest at 238.4 deaths per 100,000 population as of 2012, a 2017 report from the World Health Organization (WHO) showed. That was 10 times higher than the rate in South Korea and higher than those of China and India, where smog often envelops major cities.

North Korea has acknowledged the correlation between coal and polluted air, but said it has had limited access to cleaner options.

“A combination of limited capital investment in infrastructure, limited access to efficient and low emission technologies … and reliance on energy produced from coal in low efficiency thermal power plants has impacted air quality in urban and industrial areas,” North Korea’s 2012 report on environment and climate change outlook submitted to United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) said.

According to the report, coal is the main fuel used by homes in North Korean cities. In rural areas, wood is the main source, while coal comes in second.

Many rural North Koreans say they’re aware of the pollution, but have more pressing problems.

“From the moment we woke up, we had to think about how much rice was left in our jar and how much firewood we had,” said Ji Cheol-ho, a North Korean defector who lived in a coal mine town in North Hamgyong province before fleeing to the South in 2007.

“We don’t die right away from eating dust, but we do if we don’t eat food,” said Ji, now an official at NAUH, a human rights activist group, who regularly talks to sources inside the North.

Hard to monitor

Analysts say North Korea has typically reserved its higher-quality coal for export. Using it domestically instead would have at least a small impact on minimizing additional pollution, experts say.

“Using good quality of coal would reduce emissions,” said Kim Yong-pyo, professor of chemical engineering & material science at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

But North Korean facilities lack sufficient filtering, so using more coal of any kind would likely lead to more carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, he said.

Reuters journalists in Pyongyang late last year observed thick smoke pouring from the stacks of several facilities, often covering parts of the capital in smog.

To raise public awareness about air pollution in 2017, North Korea’s state television aired a special warning about it and provided tips such as wearing masks.

In 2003, North Korea set goals to address air pollution, and is working to upgrade older thermal power plants, according to reports the country submitted to UNEP and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But “limited technical and financial resources” prevented detailed monitoring of air quality, the report said, and it is not clear whether the North Korean government followed through on its recommendations.

Regional concern

Experts say a lack of reliable data make it difficult to gauge exactly how much damage Kim Jong Un’s coal plan might do to the environment and air quality. But they agree it will have an impact outside his country’s borders, especially in South Korea, Kim Yong-pyo said.

Air pollution harms and kills millions of people every year, especially in Asia, according to the WHO.

In South Korea, up to 20 percent of air pollutants are estimated to originate in the North, experts say.

In a 2017 survey by the state-funded Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, South Korean respondents said air pollution was their biggest concern, eclipsing even North Korea’s nuclear threats.

Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in promised last year to restore the North’s damaged forests in an effort to fight air pollution.

“Some air pollutants travel over to the South from the North. If forests are built well … those could be reduced,” South Korea’s Forest Service minister Kim Jae-hyun, who visited Pyongyang last year to discuss the matter, told reporters in January.

Kim Soon-tae, a professor of environment and safety engineering at Ajou University, who has studied the impact of North Korean pollutants, said better data from the North is essential to devising air pollution policies in the South.

“North Korea’s air quality is our homework to do, and we have to think about North Korean people’s health as well,” Kim said.
…