Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

What Can India’s Metro Systems Do To Tackle Their Low Ridership?

India has transformed its urban mobility infrastructure in the past two decades, expanding from just two metro systems to a growing network of seventeen—with seven more on the horizon by 2030. This growing expansion shows India's commitment to modernizing its urban infrastructure, a crucial step in alleviating traffic congestion and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its transportation sector. Despite this impressive progress, most metro systems have fallen short of their projected ridership levels. According to studies by WRI India and Delhi-based think tank The Infravision Foundation, many metro systems in India operate at less than 15% of their forecasted ridership, with some networks struggling to reach even 10%. The country's largest, Delhi Metro, currently achieves approximately 47% of its ridership target—a figure that, while better than others, still highlights a gap between expectations and reality. While these figures don't necessarily imply that India's metro system is unsuccessful, they do, nevertheless, highlight an important point: India's large expenditure on developing world-class metro systems is not serving or benefiting as many people as initially imagined. To overcome the low ridership problem facing India's metros, local and regional governments need to address affordability barriers, fragmented transit systems, and inadequate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Integrated Fare System Will Enhance Affordability and Reduce Fragmentation Affordability is a significant hurdle to the widespread use of metro systems in India. According to a 2019 study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Delhi commuters spend 14% of their income on metro travel—almost two to three times more than commuters in cities like Paris and New York (Table 1).

दिल्ली के प्रदूषण से लोग परेशान, दिसम्बर में AQI में हुई गिरावट

राजधानी दिल्ली में प्रदूषण बेहद खराब स्तर पर बना हुआ है। नवंबर महीने में एक भी दिन ऐसा नहीं था जब दिल्ली का एक्यूआई 300 से कम रहा हो। प्रदूषण के लिए पड़ोसी राज्यों में जलने वाली पराली को बड़ा कारण माना जाता है। लेकिन इस साल पंजाब और हरियाणा में पराली जलाने के कम मामले दर्ज हुए हैं। इसके बाद भी दिल्ली में प्रदूषण कम नहीं हुआ है। दिल्ली में AQI हुआ कम दिल्ली में इस साल नवंबर के पूरे 30 दिन ‘बहुत खराब’ या इससे भी खराब वायु गुणवत्ता में बीते. हालांकि, पहली दिसंबर ने 32 दिनों की लंबी प्रतीक्षा को खत्म करते हुए दिल्ली की हवा को कम से कम ‘खराब’ AQI श्रेणी में ला दिया. अक्टूबर 29 के बाद यह पहला अवसर था, जब वायु गुणवत्ता सूचकांक 300 से नीचे रिकॉर्ड हुआ. सुप्रीम कोर्ट का आदेश सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि दिल्ली-एनसीआर में 2 दिसंबर तक ग्रैप-4 की पाबंदियां लागू रहेंगी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि दिल्ली-एनसीआर में स्कूल हाइब्रिड मोड में चलते रहेंगे जैसा कि जैसा कि कमिशन फॉर एयर क्वॉलिटी मैनेजमेंट (सीएक्यूएम) ने सिफारिश की थी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि ग्रैप-4 को लागू करने के दौरान लापरवाही बरतने वाले अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई में तेजी लाई जानी चाहिए। एक्सपर्ट का क्या है कहना? सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट में रिसर्च एंड एडवोकेसी की कार्यकारी निदेशक अनुमिता रॉयचौधरी ने कहा, ‘दिल्ली की हवा की गुणवत्ता में पराली जलाने का योगदान बदलता रहता है और यह हवा की दिशा और गति से बहुत प्रभावित होता है।’ उन्होंने आगे कहा कि यह सच है कि कुछ दिन ऐसे रहे हैं जब दिल्ली की हवा की गुणवत्ता में पराली जलाने का योगदान बहुत ज्यादा रहा है, लेकिन ऐसे भी कई दिन रहे हैं जब पराली जलाने का कम असर होने पर भी दिल्ली का प्रदूषण बहुत खराब रहा है, जो स्थानीय प्रदूषण स्रोतों के ज्यादा प्रभाव को दर्शाता है। पूरे क्षेत्र की हवा को साफ करने के लिए अन्य स्रोतों में कमी के साथ-साथ पराली जलाने को पूरी तरह बंद करने की जरूरत है.

Strange bedfellows: As pollution levels soar, so do housing prices

Real estate prices and rising pollution levels seem to making strange bedfellows. The National Capital Region (NCR) has seen one of the steepest rise in real estate prices in the past few years along with a sharp decline in the air quality level. According to Anarock Property Consultants, average residential prices have gone up 57% between 2019 and the end of Q3FY25. At the end of the September quarter, average prices in NCR touched `7,200 per square feet. Residential prices in Gurugram jumped the most in the past five years from 7,500 per sq ft in 2019 to19,500 per sq ft in 2024, a rise of 160%, according to data analytics firm PropEquity. It’s a strange coincidence that Gurugram’s air quality level has also been declining at an alarming pace. Gulam Zia, executive director at property consultant Knight Frank, puts the nail on the head by pointing out buyer apathy. Buyers, he says, simply don’t care about the quality of air or water. “People don’t mind buying apartments in front of a burial ground or crematorium. This is the reality of real estate,” he said. Zerodha co-founder Nithin Kamath recently proposed linking property prices to air and water quality in cities. He also mooted a “discount on property prices” to solve the pollution problem. “Maybe a property price discount for the quality of air and water is the solution. If economics accounted for this, maybe we would all figure this out. Essentially the air and water quality determine the rate for the property,” Kamath posted on X on November 24. Also, this would probably turn a property owner into the owner of the place, and would have better odds of fixing it if working as a group, he said. While Delhi is getting all the attention, the air quality index (AQI) isn’t good in most urban areas in the country. Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru and others are included in areas with very poor air quality, he said. Kamath also said cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai have seen pollution-related deaths of 11,964, 5,091, 4,678 and 2,870, respectively. “You have to wonder what it will take for us to take air pollution more seriously. By the way, this data only covers until 2019, and things have only gotten worse in the last five years,” he said. Environmentalists such as Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment, said the real estate industry should start integrating these micro environmental concerns into the value of the projects “so that people pay prices for quality of life.” Roychowdhury said that there are instances where green elements of the real estimates are put in front to promote a project like lake view property, green belt and rain water harvesting facilities. “For instance, there are reports about several families shifting out of Delhi-NCR during the winter months to escape poor air quality,” she said, adding that there is a need to study the correlation between property prices and quality of air or water a place offers. Vikrant Tongad, a Noida-based environmentalist and founder of Social Action for Forest and Environment, said, “Decision to buy a property is currently guided by employment opportunities available in the urban centres, concern about the environment often is seen as a temporary annual phenomenon during winter months.” But real estate developers such as Sanjay Dutt, managing director & CEO at Tata Realty & Infrastructure, said governments should have invested in controlling pollution at all levels. “Government collect education cess , water cess and so on. That never gets spend. Then these kind of problems bound to happen,” Dutt said. Dutt added that it is good that cites such as Mumbai have got Coastal Road, new metro lines and so on and it is a welcome move. “But all these should have happened 20 years ago. They are delayed,” he said , adding that electric vehicles have reduced pollution and pre-cast technologies have reduced construction pollution. He said because infrastructure is bad in many cities, people are paying premium to stay in good localities. “Real estate prices are high because infrastructure is bad,” he said.

Gurgaon AQI turns ‘moderate’ after 34-day gap

The air quality index in Gurgaon read ‘moderate' (189) on Monday after a continuous 34-day spell of highly polluted air in which it was ‘poor', ‘very poor' or ‘severe'. The last time it was moderate was on Oct 28, at 187. A rise in wind speed to 6km/h on Monday, up from 3 km/h on Sunday, and a rise in minimum temperature from 10 degrees Celsius to 12 degrees Celsius helped in the dispersion of pollutants from the atmosphere and lowered the AQI. The Gwalpahari station recorded the highest AQI at 267, while Teri Gram was at 191, Sector 51 at 152, and Vikas Sadan at 147. According to the System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting and Research (SAFAR), "The wind, coming from the northwest direction during the afternoon, will increase in speed, at around 12 kmph. It will then decrease, becoming less than 10 kmph, during the evening and night. Smog or fog is likely in the evening or at night, with a mainly clear sky on Dec 3." Moreover, the AQI is likely to deteriorate over the next three days as the ventilation index lower than 6,000 m²/s, with an average wind speed of less than 10 kmph, is unfavourable for the dispersion of pollutants. This will slow down the dispersion rate. Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) say that when AQI is in the 'moderate' category, there can be discomfort in breathing for people with asthma and lung or heart diseases. In 'poor' AQI, discomfort in breathing can be felt by most people on prolonged exposure. An AQI between zero and 50 is considered 'good', 51 and 100 'satisfactory', 101 and 200 'moderate', 201 and 300 'poor', 301 and 400 'very poor', and 401 and 500 'severe'. Experts, meanwhile, attributed the fall in AQI to better meteorological conditions. "Over the years, vehicular emissions as well as construction activities have increased. The pollutants have not reduced at their source. This relief is just temporary, and the region may again see ‘poor' or ‘very poor' days when the wind speed dips and temperature declines," said Shubhansh Tiwari, a research associate at the Centre for Science and Environment. HSPCB officials maintained that local problems are responsible for the higher AQI in the city for most part of the year. Suspension of road dust due to vehicular traffic, an increase in construction activities, and waste burning were highlighted as major concerns. "We have been working towards mitigating pollutants. The GRAP 4 measures are working as we can see improvement in air quality," said Vijay Chowdhury, regional officer, Gurgaon.

Failure of Busan talks exposes fossil fuel barrier to UN plastics pact

The Busan talks which ended in the early hours of Monday were meant to be the final step in agreeing a UN treaty to end plastic pollution. But rumours started swirling on Sunday afternoon – later confirmed – that they wouldn’t be the last. Fighting back the exhaustion from one too many sleepless nights, diplomats and observers wondered why the talks had broken down – and what could prevent the same happening again when countries reconvene next year to try and push a pact over the finish line? One clear, prevailing narrative was borrowed straight from UN climate change negotiations: a vocal minority of defiant, well-coordinated petrostates had killed off the majority’s efforts to clinch an ambitious agreement to end plastic pollution. More than 100 countries – from rich Western states to African, Latin American and Pacific nations – got behind a drive to include provisions to cap plastic manufacturing in the new UN accord, rather than limiting it to a narrower focus on recycling. Anything short of that would be a failure and a betrayal, they repeated in unison throughout the week-long deliberations. “The time for the freedom to pollute is over,” said European Union envoy Tony Agotha on Friday. “Mopping the floor when the tap is open is useless.” “Economic interests” Only around 9% of plastic is recycled worldwide, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It wrote in an October report that only through “stringent policies to curb production and demand”, combined with better waste management, could the world “nearly end plastic leakage to the environment by 2040”. Nearly all plastic is made using plant-heating fossil fuels and, as production is projected to double or triple in the next 25 years, that spells trouble for efforts to limit global warming and stem the flood of plastic waste clogging up the Earth’s oceans and littering its land. But a group of self-defined “Like-Minded” countries led by Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran – which also includes most Arab states and quietly counts on support from India – don’t want to close the door on a key economic sector. In Busan, they pushed back strongly against any attempt to include provisions to cap plastic manufacturing in a legally binding UN pact. They reiterated their view that production curbs fall outside the scope of the treaty, saying they could cause “economic disruption”, trade restrictions and shortages of essential materials. In response, Ghana’s lead negotiator Sam Adu-Kumi told reporters on Sunday it seems that “people are looking at their economic interests without looking at the common enemy” of plastic pollution and “its devastating effects”. Fossil fuel-producing nations and companies see the petrochemicals industry, including plastics, as a lifeline because demand for oil and gas in the energy sector is projected to decline as the world shifts to cleaner sources for power and transport. China, the United States, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia were the top five primary polymer-producing nations in 2023, according to data provided by Eunomia. More time needed The deep divisions between countries were on full display during a marathon seven hour-long closing plenary stretching into the early hours of Monday morning in South Korea. Juliet Kabera from Rwanda, speaking on behalf of the High-Ambition Coalition (HAC) of countries, brought the house down when she asked everyone who supported her statement – condemning calls from a minority of countries to remove “indispensable” binding provisions from the text – to “stand for ambition”. Russia’s delegate spoke of “production regulation models” being imposed “purely for economic reasons”, while Kuwait’s negotiator – on behalf of the Like-Minded group – expressed “concern” over a “rush to showcase progress” in negotiations where “everyone is bringing its lenses”. On Sunday, after the final session was suspended without an agreement, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which is running the talks, said more time is needed to overcome “persisting divergence in critical areas”. “We cannot afford to miss” the opportunity to make tackling plastic pollution a reality at the next session, she added in a written statement. But, given the enduring stalemate, many weren’t sure how that would be possible as they exited the cavernous plenary room. Higher level political involvement Siddharth Singh, programme manager at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), told Climate Home the next round of talks would be “tough as the US would be negotiating under the Trump administration, possibly strengthening the low-ambition countries”. The date for the resumption of the INC-5 talks has yet to be set, with the Earth Negotiations Bulletin reporting some countries want the next session to be convened in the first half of 2025 so as not to lose the momentum built in Busan, and others calling for it to be held in July or August next year given much work is still required before agreement can be reached. Some negotiators and observers are hoping China can play a decisive role in bridging the divide with the petrostates. Its Vice Minister Guo Fang told the closing plenary that all countries should “propose more pragmatic and balanced solutions” that address the “entire life cycle” of plastics, while taking into account their national differences. Aleksandar Rankovic, co-founder of the Common Initiative, a campaign group, called for “a much stronger involvement from heads of states or ministers” – something that was glaringly missing in Busan.

Stress on public transport, cleaner fuel, scientists list steps to keep air clean

Long-term measures like increased use of public transport and reduced dependence on private cars, forcing industrial units to shift to cleaner fuel and proper disposal of solid waste can help lower air pollution during winter, scientists said. Calcutta’s average air quality was “poor” and “moderate” on many days in November. The Air Quality Report, published by the state pollution control board, between November 23 and 30 showed that the air quality was “poor” on four days and “moderate” on the other days. “Moderate” air can cause “breathing discomfort to people with lungs, asthma and heart diseases” and “poor” air can cause “breathing discomfort to most people on prolonged exposure”, according to the Central Pollution Control Board. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) has been watering roads across the city to keep them moist and prevent resuspension of dust. The measure, though important in keeping dust under control, will not bring down the pollution index on its own, the scientists told Metro. Public transport “The government should boost public transport and reduce dependence on private cars. The transport sector is one of the biggest contributors to air pollution in Indian cities,” said Anumita Roy Chowdhury, the executive director of the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). A scientist at the state pollution control board (PCB) said several cars are needed to transport the number of passengers that a single bus can ferry. A Metro train can ferry an even larger number of people. “The more the number of vehicles, the more the emission and volume of pollutants released in the air,” said the PCB scientist. Phasing out of old polluting vehicles is also necessary to curb emissions by the transport sector. Industrial units Industrial units, too, contribute to air pollution in a big way. Their switch to cleaner fuel will be another step in achieving clean air. Many industrial units in and around Calcutta still use oil-fired furnaces, said the PCB scientist. “They should be incentivised to switch to electricity or LPG-fuelled furnaces whose emissions are much lesser,” the scientist said. Many areas surrounding Calcutta — Barrackpore, Belgharia, Rajarhat and Maheshtala — have many small-scale manufacturing units that still use oil-fired furnaces. Solid waste Timely removal of all solid waste from the city is also necessary to curb air pollution. The waste that remains uncleared for weeks or months is burnt by local people or municipal waste collectors, loading the air with a high volume of harmful particles. “Open burning of waste is a major contributor to air pollution. The municipal corporation has to ensure that waste does not accumulate anywhere in the city. That can prevent waste burning in the open,” Roy Chowdhury said. A lot of toxic elements are released into the air when solid waste is burned, scientists said. In many parts of Calcutta people are seen burning waste to keep them warm at night during winter. Construction sites Construction sites are another major contributor to air pollution because of the dust they generate. “All construction sites should be mandatorily covered with geotextile fabric that absorbs the dust emanating from the site. Sand and other construction materials should be kept in a moist condition so dust does not rise in the air,” a scientist said.

Delhi Faces Deepening Smog Crisis Amid Burning Practices

Delhi Battles Toxic Smog Crisis as Farmers Continue to Burn Crop Residue Delhi, the capital city of India, finds itself engulfed in yet another wave of toxic smog, underscoring the urgent environmental challenges faced by its 30 million residents. This smog crisis, aggravated by the seasonal practice of crop burning, raises alarm bells about public health and governmental preparedness. The situation reached new heights on December 1, 2024, when the Air Quality Index (AQI) dipped below 300 for the first time in over 30 days—marking it as the first significant improvement. The drop was attributed to favorable weather conditions, including dry northwesterly winds moving across the region. Yet, some parts of the city recorded AQI levels still classified as “very poor,” with PM2.5 particles measured at 114 μg/m³, outlined by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). According to the CPCB classifications, AQI levels gauge air quality as follows: 0-50 (good), 51-100 (satisfactory), 101-200 (moderate), 201-300 (poor), 301-400 (very poor), and 401-500 (severe). Unfortunately, on many days, many areas within the capital hover dangerously close to this severe end of the spectrum, largely due to agricultural practices aggravated by urban pollution. One significant contributor to the smog problem is the practice of stubble burning by farmers. Despite being illegal, farmers like Ali Sher from Haryana continue this practice as it remains one of the easiest methods to prepare fields for subsequent crops. Ali, who manages less than two hectares, laments, "I am scared of the authorities finding out, but I can’t help it. If I don’t plant the wheat now, it will be too late." Farmers face potential fines for this act, yet for many, the perceived economic necessity overrides legal concerns. This year has seen plenty of discussion around the purview of stubble burning, yet figures indicate it only contributes 1 to 3 percent of the aerial pollution on average, rising to 8 to 16 percent on particularly bad days; it's evident local pollution sources are now the most pressing issue. Research highlighted by the Lancet medical journal links air pollution to 1.67 million premature deaths across India, indicating the dire need for more comprehensive action. The larger question, though, is what steps are being taken to rectify these pervasive issues? Although the government has implemented measures over the years—such as shifting public transport from diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG) and closing coal-based power plants—the problem persists. Despite these actions leading to approximately 25 percent reductions of long-term PM2.5 levels since 2013, there remains the urgent requirement for another 60 percent reduction to meet national standards. Major pollution contributors identified include vehicular emissions, construction activity, industrial discharges, and residential sources. Currently, vehicles are responsible for over 50 percent of pollution emissions, thanks to increased motorization and inadequate public transport. Surprisingly, the number of vehicles registered soared to 79 lakh (7.9 million) as of 2024, marking the highest rate of vehicular growth. Notably, the use of public buses has seen little improvement over the years, with the city operating far short of the Supreme Court directive—a mere 7,683 buses against the mandated 10,000. This lack of public transport accessibility has seen daily reliance on personal vehicles surge, increasing their share from 38 percent to about 49 percent over the past decade, worsening congestion and pollution. Even with intense, multiyear clean air plans established due to the Supreme Court’s intervention, it's clear the results are not meeting expectations. For example, pollution from construction sites remains rampant, and there's little management of dust generated from roads. The government has been criticized for not imposing adequate regulations on these sectors, compounding the pollution crisis. Residents feel the effects acutely; many reported adverse health symptoms, such as persistent coughs, headaches, and other respiratory issues. False claims surrounding agricultural burning strategies exasperate the problem: misinformation abounds on social media, leaving citizens confused about the origins of pollution and their responsibilities toward mitigating it. According to Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director for Research and Advocacy at the Centre for Science and Environment, increased public awareness and engagement could have significant impact. She states, “The public opinion needs to first recognize the role they play.” Communities need to band together to advocate for cleaner air and press for the necessary systemic changes at all levels of government. Further compounding the issue is the role of the construction industry, where dust and debris are barely managed. The city government has failed to demonstrate effective plans for handling waste from construction sites or integrating recycling practices to minimize environmental impact. Effective measures here could dramatically improve urban air quality. Meanwhile, the public engages with the government through social media outcry, often leading to political theatrics rather than constructive dialogue. Cities across the globe have shown tangible improvements when motivated public opinion drives systemic change, pointing toward the need for more concerted community efforts directed at local governments. Government focus on climate-oriented urban planning is imperative, including improved public transit, incentives for clean energy initiatives, and strict action against polluters. This can make air quality improvements significant from one winter smog crisis to the next. Political leaders must acknowledge their role within this dialogue, focusing less on finger-pointing and more on developing long-term solutions. The winter months will continue to bring seasonal smog challenges, and as communities strive against hefty fines for farmers and their burning practices, there’s hope for improved air quality this year. Beyond just hoping for favorable weather, there is pressing need for expansive changes to transportation and waste management policies to improve the lives of Delhi's residents and break this persistent pattern of perilous air quality. For now, as Delhi's smog crisis continues, the questions remain: Can authorities effectively gamify pollution solutions? Will citizens demand accountability? The answer may provide what Delhi desperately needs—a breath of fresh air.

HAMNET Report 1st December 2024

HAMNET Report 1st December 2024 Posted on Dec 1, 2024 by Dave Reece Writing in downtoearth.org.in, Kiran Pandey says that, while internal displacement in Africa has tripled in 15 years amid a spate of conflict and violence, there’s a six-fold increase in the number of internally displaced people whose lives have been disrupted by disasters, according to a new report. The report, released by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) noted that the number of people living in internal displacement as a result of conflict and violence in Africa has increased from 10.2 million in 2009 to 32.5 million in 2023. However, in comparison, the displacements caused by disasters have risen more sharply, increasing nearly six-fold between 2009 and 2023. The number of times people were forced to flee disasters each year increased from 1.1 million displacements in 2009 to 6.3 million in 2023. This surge in 15 years is largely driven by climate-related events such as floods and droughts, highlighting the growing impact of environmental disasters on displacement patterns across the continent. Flooding, which impacts every region of the continent, is responsible for over 75 per cent of these displacements, while droughts contribute to an additional 11 per cent. For example, 69 per cent of the disaster-displacements in eastern Africa were due to floods. Most of those have taken place during the Gu season between March and May, and the Deyr season between October and December. In western Africa, floods accounted for 99 per cent of disaster-displacements. Most of such displacements occurred between June and September. Such trends revealed in the report call for an effective preparedness plan to deal with such events, during the rainy season. These include early warning, land use planning and water management. Climate change is making weather-related hazards more frequent and more intense, acknowledged the IDMC. This has also been evident from the climate attribution studies published by the World Weather Attribution in recent years. It is also amplifying other factors that make communities more vulnerable to disaster displacement, increasing the risk of future movements. Nigeria reported the highest number of displaced people, totalling 8.7 million, with nearly three-quarters affected by two significant floods in 2012 and 2022. These events accounted for over 70 per cent of all flood-related displacements in the country. According to the report, two cyclones—IDAI and FREDDY—were the most significant disaster-related displacement events in Africa over the past 15 years, impacting communities in Southern Africa. The displacement trends over the past 15 years highlight the urgent need for effective implementation of conventions and policies at the regional level. In 2009, the African Union adopted the Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa which is also known as the Kampala Convention. This was the first—and remains the only—legally binding regional instrument that addresses all causes and phases of displacement. It demonstrates the commitment of African nations to tackle the issue and set international standards for its management. Sobering thoughts indeed concerning our continent and climate change. For those of you who may have heard of, and been wondering about the bugs in the encryption algorithms used to secure emergency radio communications, urgentcomm.com says that the algorithms will now soon be released to the public domain, with the aim of encouraging code review and bug hunting. The news comes after multiple vulnerabilities were found in TETRA, short for Terrestrial Trunked Radio, which is a radio voice and data standard mainly used by emergency services, such as police, fire brigade, and military, as well as in some industrial environments. The bugs were found by Midnight Blue Labs earlier this year, and the research was presented at Black Hat USA, showcasing additional zero-day vulnerabilities that could allow anyone to spy on or manipulate transmissions. This decision to go public is a complete 180-degree turn for standard-maintainer ETSI, which originally pushed back against any claims of vulnerabilities within TETRA when they were initially found, claiming that the work to enhance the standard was already underway. Since then, a technical committee overseeing the TETRA standard met in October to decide on making the algorithms open to the public. Ultimately, the group came to a unanimous decision to make all of the TETRA Air Interface cryptographic algorithms open-source. With a bit of luck, the clever fellows or girls will find the bugs, fix them, and thereafter ensure safe and intact emergency comms using TETRA! Writing on his own blog, gadgeteer.co.za, Danie ZS1OSS refers to the FCC authorization to be given to a wireless cell carrier to connect directly with Starlink satellites, and says that satellite connectivity on smartphones can be an incredibly important safety feature, and both phone makers and carriers are working to expand its availability. Now, Starlink’s direct-to-cell service that will be used by T-Mobile has FCC approval. Danie says further: “The big promise of direct-to-cell satellite service is that you will be able to connect to a satellite just like you currently connect to a cell tower, with your current smartphone, whenever you find yourself in a dead spot. It’s like putting a cell tower in space that you can access at all times. “So, this is actually a huge event. Any ordinary cell-phone user, stuck in some rural area (or at sea) where these satellites have coverage, could establish communications as if there was a cell-phone tower in range. “It will be very interesting to see how these pan out in terms of more congested areas, and how operating costs compare. I’m thinking too here of some of the extreme electricity load shedding that South Africa experienced, where cell towers had no grid power for up to 6 hours at a time. South African operators have also had very expensive backup batteries stolen on a regular basis from their terrestrial sites. “When one factors all this in, how do a few satellite units compare? Even for rural communications, due to the reach of the towers, how many towers and interconnectivity infrastructures are required to cover a 200 square kilometre area vs by satellite?” Good Question! Thanks for the comments, Danie, and for permission to use the report. This is Dave Reece ZS1DFR reporting for HAMNET in South Africa.

Unpacking India's fuming response at COP29: What really transpired?

In the wee hours of November 24, while most people in India were fast asleep, a drama unfolded at a sprawling conference hall of the Olympic stadium in Azerbaijan's capital Baku. Diplomats from nearly 200 countries, civil society representatives and journalists had gathered to witness a decision that could determine the fate of climate action in the Global South. But what transpired was far from routine -- it was a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship that left many stunned and India's delegation fuming. As the president of this year's UN climate conference, Mukhtar Babayev, approached the centrepiece agenda item -- the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance -- India's Deputy Lead Negotiator Neelesh Sah rushed to COP29 Lead Negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev to convey that the country wants to make a statement before the adoption of the contentious decision. Around 2:30 am, without so much as a pause for objections or comments, Babayev hammered the gavel, declaring the USD 300 billion climate-finance package adopted. The move was so swift, it left delegates from many developing countries blinking in disbelief. Avantika Goswami, head of the Climate Change Programme at the Centre for Science and Environment, said it happened "quite suddenly and unceremoniously". "We were surprised because the last-known figure on the table -- USD 300 billion -- was far below the latest G77 compromise of USD 500 billion. We also knew that India was preparing to interject in the process. The fact that it was passed before any such objections were raised came as a surprise," she said. Journalists witnessing the drama unfold in the plenary room saw the entire Indian delegation leap to their feet, making a timeout gesture. Sah dashed over to Rafiyev, exchanged a few words and returned to his seat, panting. Meanwhile, Babayev passed the microphone to Cuba for a statement, followed by India, Bolivia, Nigeria and Malawi, who spoke on behalf of a group of 45 least-developed countries. In total, 49 countries objected to the deal. In the UNFCCC process, one objection is enough to block a decision. However, India had no intention of blocking the deal and its outburst was about more than just the money. Delivering India's statement, Chandni Raina, Adviser at the Department of Economic Affairs, described the manner in which the deal was adopted as "unfair" and "stage-managed". Raina was scathing about the new climate-finance package, calling the meagre USD 300 billion a year by 2035 "too little and too distant". She labelled the sum "abysmally poor", "paltry" and an "optical illusion" -- a far cry from the USD 1 trillion developing countries need every year to cope with the warming world. Raina flagged three major issues for India in the deal -- paragraphs 8a, 8c and 9 of the agreement. Para 8a: This suggests that the USD 300 billion will come from all sorts of sources -- public, private, bilateral, multilateral -- and not directly as public money from developed to developing countries. Developing countries have long demanded grants or grant-equivalent funding, not loans that pile on debt. Many poorer nations already spend up to 10 per cent of their GDP on servicing debt. Paras 8c and 9: These allow developing countries' contributions -- whether through their funding to multilateral climate finance (MDBs) or their own bilateral climate finance -- to be voluntarily counted towards the USD 300 billion goal. Essentially, Global South countries might end up footing their own climate bills -- hardly the spirit of climate justice. Raina called it a "deflection" of developed nations' responsibilities. Questions have been raised as to why India did not mention these issues at the heads-of-delegation meeting on Saturday or earlier. To be clear, India had already articulated its concerns throughout the two-week conference. From high-level dialogues on just transition, pre-2030 ambition, climate finance and adaptation finance to the Mitigation Work Programme and its national statement, India has consistently made its case, aligning with the group of Like-Minded Developing Countries. A former negotiator familiar with the backroom drama told PTI that India's 11th-hour objection was not a tantrum -- it was a plea for fairness. India wanted more discussion, especially since the text -- with actual numbers -- only came out a day before adoption. "India was shown a figure of USD 300 billion in closed-door meetings on Saturday (November 23), but public documents still listed it as USD 250 billion. Understandably, India was nonplussed," the former negotiator said. To make matters worse, the COP29 presidency did not share how other countries had reacted to the USD 300 billion figure. India wanted to raise all these points before the decision was finalised, but the presidency did not give it the chance, the former negotiator explained. Another former negotiator pointed out that India's statement in the plenary hinted at its desire for a proper discussion on all these issues. If India and others had spoken before the decision, it might have delayed the agreement. India's actions suggest that it was not trying to derail the deal entirely, the negotiator added. Meanwhile, a civil society member was baffled by how two of the most vulnerable groups to climate change -- the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) -- ended up accepting "such a bad deal" after staging a walkout just hours earlier. These groups had demanded USD 220 billion and USD 39 billion respectively from the total finance package. Most experts PTI spoke to believe that the shadow of the US presidential elections played a big role. "Countries were scared into thinking that next year's deal would be even worse. They felt cornered into accepting this one," said the first negotiator. An observer added that Brazil, set to host COP30, wanted to avoid inheriting a mess, while heavyweights like China and Saudi Arabia were busy safeguarding their interests -- they did not want to be officially recognised as climate-finance contributors. As the world turns its focus to the next climate summit in Brazil, one question lingers -- can meaningful progress be made if such critical decisions are seen as skewed against those most vulnerable to climate change?

Plastic treaty talks in Busan stall, pushed to 2025

New Delhi: The 5th Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution in Busan failed to agree on developing a treaty, pushing talks to another INC session in 2025. “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The text still has brackets...we have made tangible moves and I hope the committee can agree to use the draft text as starting point and basis of negotiation,” said Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of INC 5. Some developing nations including India and China opposed curbing primary polymer production, seeking instead to focus on plastic waste management. “The enormity of plastic problem is such that no nation alone can solve the challenge. India being home to 1.4 billion people understands its responsibility,” said India’s negotiator, Naresh Pal Gangwar, during the closing plenary. “India would like to state its inability to support any measure to regulate production of primary plastic polymer as it has implication on larger right to develop. We also did not support inclusion of any list with phaseout dates at this stage,” he added, emphasising that the instrument must be implemented in a nationally determined manner. India emphasised that the instrument has to be implemented by member states in a nationally determined manner, and due consideration to national circumstances should be given. Technology and finance will be key to implementing this instrument, observers said, asking not to be named. Iran and China echoed these concerns. “Articles 3, 4 and 6 in their totality as well as related annexes are among the most important and divergent issues which are beyond our given mandates. We should keep in mind that in designing the new treaty we should not follow a punitive approach with developing countries under the name of finance or plastic pollution,” Iran’s representatives said. Observers noted that petro states like Saudi Arabia and Russia strictly opposed production curbs, with Russia supporting the stand of India, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the plenary. However, high ambition countries including Rwanda, representing 85 nations, Panama, Mexico, and Norway, supported ending plastic pollution. “It is not about commas or brackets but it is about a child in a coastal village who will drink plastic water, it is about a fisherman who will catch plastic instead of fish. This is the most important global treaty since the Paris climate treaty. Delay is death, action is survival,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama’s negotiator. The final draft showed lack of consensus on whether the instrument would cover the entire lifecycle of plastics and financing from developed nations. Even the basic objective remained bracketed: “to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution, including in the marine environment [based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics].” “At this point we do not have a treaty. We are awaiting the text that will form the basis of negotiation for the next meeting, where countries will come together to negotiate for the final treaty text whose major articles presently are bracketed. Hopefully sooner! We cannot lose the momentum after coming this far, so soon, in merely 2 years,” said Swati Singh Sambyal, Circular Economy Expert, GRID-Arendal. “The INC in its last meeting decided behind closed doors that the committee does not agree to chair’s text and failed to find common ground. The chair dropped its new proposed text in the afternoon- in order to achieve consensus, the level of dilution peaked in the text. Securing a deal is undoubtedly important, but it must not come at the expense of meaningful action. In the plenary today, the member states have been making interventions on what their expectations are from the future treaty. The chairs text released on 1st December 2024 may be considered as the basis of further negotiations. Saudi Arabia has played a major role in pushing back the adoption of an ambitious treaty. It should be noted that the next time we meet to negotiate, US would be negotiating under the Trump administration, strengthening the low ambition countries,” said Siddharth G Singh, plastic pollution expert at the Centre for Science and Environment. The 175 participating nations will reconvene in 2025 to continue negotiations on the treaty text, whose major articles currently remain bracketed.

Plastic treaty talks fail over disagreement on production cuts

Delegates from nearly 170 countries who gathered in Busan, South Korea, failed to agree on a framework agreement to eliminate plastic pollution, despite a week of negotiations. While this was the fifth and officially final round of talks of the Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee that began in 2022, ultimately the chasm between the bloc of countries those that saw cutting plastic production as necessary to eliminate plastic waste and those that didn’t, proved too wide to overcome. Countries however have decided to resume negotiations, likely sometime next year, tentatively called the INC-5.2. As of Sunday evening, the assembly of countries in the final plenary expressed disappointment as well their reservations on several paragraphs in a text, that was synthesised by the Chair of the proceedings, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, following negotiations by countries in an attempt to cobble an agreement. “We share the unhappiness we feel in this room with the limited amount of progress that we were able to make,” said Hugo Schally, who spoke on behalf of the European Union at the closing plenary, “When we reached Busan our agreement was to address plastic pollution by addressing the whole lifecycle. A meaningful treaty must have measures to reduce plastic production to sustainable levels. It must address problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern. We are not discouraged because we have seen growing support through the years for many of these measures.” At the other end, other delegates saw proceedings as trying to reach “beyond” addressing plastic pollution. “We have observed attempts to stretch this mandate beyond its original attempt, which is plastic pollution,” said Salman Al-Ajmi who spoke for Kuwait. “Everyone is bringing their own lenses and turning it into a pretext for trade restrictions, economic agendas and commercial competition disguised as environmental action.” A long-standing sticking point, and vehemently opposed by countries such as Saudi Arabia and other countries whose economies are centred on petrochemicals and the production of plastic polymers, was the push to have countries set targets to cut virgin plastic polymer production. This was a position that was also unacceptable to India, which is not a major oil producer but has significant stakes in producing plastic polymers. “India would like to state its inability to support any measures to regulate the production of primary plastic polymers as it has larger implications in respect of the right to development of Member States,” said Indian delegation leader Naresh Pal Gangwar of the Environment Ministry, at the plenary, “India has always been committed to the principle of consensus in decision making in respect of substantive matters under multilateral environmental agreements. This principle reiterates collective decision-making and reflects shared responsibilities and commitment.” The draft version being deliberated upon had also set out year-wise targets, that countries could commit to until 2040, of phasing out single-use plastics, toys and food products containing Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate (DEHP), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) and Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP). These too were unacceptable to some countries. India had undertaken measures such as banning short-lived plastic products and putting in place an ambitious and robust EPR (extended producer responsibility) regime on plastic packaging. India was also moving towards sustainable plastic packaging and reducing the use of virgin material, Mr. Gangwar added. Independent observers expressed concerns over progress in future negotiations. “The Chair’s text released on 1st December may be considered as the basis of further negotiations. Saudi Arabia has played a major role in pushing back the adoption of an ambitious treaty. It should be noted that the next time we meet to negotiate, the United States would be negotiating under the Trump administration, strengthening the low ambition countries,” said Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, of the Centre for Science and Environment and a close-observer of the negotiations around the plastic treaty since 2022.

Farm Fire Pollution: Despite Record Low Stubble Burning, Farm Fires Still Haunt Delhi’s Air Quality

This season (Oct-Nov), satellite data indicates that the number of stubble-burning incidents in Punjab and Haryana was the lowest on record. In Punjab, farm fires were down by 70% compared to the previous year, while Haryana saw a 42% reduction in incidents. Despite these encouraging figures, the impact of stubble burning on Delhi's air quality remains a concern. How Can Low Stubble Burning Still Affect Delhi’s Air Quality? Even though fewer farm fires were recorded this season, the contribution of stubble burning to Delhi's PM2.5 levels remained significant. Experts explain that the influence of farm fires on Delhi’s air quality depends largely on meteorological conditions, especially the wind direction and air ventilation. Transport Winds: If strong north-westerly winds blow towards Delhi, they can carry pollutants from stubble burning in neighboring states, regardless of the number of farm fires. Air Ventilation: Proper air ventilation is essential to disperse pollutants. Without it, even a reduced number of stubble burning incidents can lead to poor air quality in Delhi. Impact of Stubble Burning on Delhi's Air Quality From October 23 to November 23, 2023, stubble burning contributed over 15% to Delhi's PM2.5 levels on 26 days. On 14 of these days, the contribution exceeded 20%. The highest single-day contribution of farm fires to Delhi’s air quality occurred on November 1, 2023 (35.2%), the day after Diwali. Other significant days were October 31 (27.6%) and November 22 (26.2%). Weather Conditions and Stubble Burning Contribution While stubble burning impacts were significant this year, scientists point out that meteorological factors played a crucial role. According to an analysis by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), the contribution of farm fires to Delhi's air quality was higher in 2023 than in 2021 and 2022, despite lower stubble-burning counts in neighboring states. 2023 Impact: From October 22 to November 30, 2023, stubble burning contributed more than 10% to Delhi's air quality on 58% of days, over 15% on 44% of days, and above 20% on 30% of days. 2022 and 2021: In contrast, farm fires contributed more than 10% to Delhi’s air quality for 32% of days in 2022 and 2021. The Need for Long-Term Solutions to Air Pollution Experts like Anumita Roychowdhury from the Centre for Science and Environment stress that the contribution of farm fires to Delhi’s air quality is variable, depending on winds. While stubble burning remains a major source of pollution, local pollution sources also play a significant role in Delhi’s air quality. Roychowdhury emphasizes that tackling air pollution in Delhi requires addressing all sources, not just stubble burning. Reducing emissions from other sources, such as industrial pollution and vehicle emissions, is crucial for improving the air quality in the entire region.

What will it take to clean up Delhi air?

IT IS ASKED, year after year, why Delhi’s air remains unbreathable despite several interventions to reduce pollution. The toxic blanket of smog that enwraps the city every winter is the lasting reminder of the tough pollution battle that is becoming increasingly difficult to win. This is the time of the year when anger and angst explode, political drama of blame game unfolds, prescriptions are offered liberally to solve the problem, and social media is abuzz with agonies of breathing the harmful toxins. Yet, the moment the thick winter smog lightens and becomes invisible, the memory of the suffocating experience disappears, and the agenda for systemic action round the year to eliminate the risk is forgotten. While it is a good sign that a lot more people are aware and voicing their concerns about the toxic air than earlier, the public opinion has to now drive the real solutions on the ground. What will it take to clean up the air? This puzzle needs demystification. What has Delhi done so far to clean up and what more is needed to meet the benchmark? Delhi has bent the long-term pollution curve, but is at risk of losing this gain. An analysis of air pollution in Delhi by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) shows that the long-term PM2.5 levels have shown a downward trend, close to average 25 per cent reduction over time, since 2013. The more recent trends show that the annual PM2.5 levels have reduced by 7 per cent in 2023 from the 2019 levels. Despite the improvement, Delhi still requires another 60 per cent reduction to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5. Such elevated levels despite the reduction can easily turn into a severe smog episode when cool and calm conditions of winter trap the air. What has contributed to the downward trend? It cannot be so simplistic to hold that nothing has happened to control air pollution in Delhi. In fact, the multi-sector action that has unfolded over the past decades―especially driven by the directives of the Supreme Court―has unleashed a set of measures that no other city has wholly implemented. The spate of action include moving entire public transport and local commercial transport from diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG), phasing out of old vehicles, restrictions on truck entry, introduction of Bharat Stage 6 emissions standards, growing electrification of new vehicle fleet, banning of petcoke and furnace oil, replacement of coal with natural gas in the legal industrial areas, closure of all coal-based power plants, action on construction activities and recycling of construction waste, and dust management. These changes have enabled energy transition in the city. Coal consumption has reduced drastically, and the use of high-speed diesel and the share of diesel vehicles have reduced significantly. While the action already taken is not small, the tougher challenge is to decide the next scale of change to get yet another 60 per cent cut in PM2.5 concentration. The impact of local pollution sources remain elevated: Delhi cannot hide behind the smokescreen of farm fires any longer. This seasonal episodic pollution cannot continue to mask and detract attention from the significant contribution of local pollution sources and sources from the surrounding regions. This winter, despite a slowdown in farm fires, the air quality in the capital is bad, and the reason is the high impact of local air pollution sources. The contribution of farm fires has mostly remained 1 to 3 per cent, reaching up to 8-16 per cent occasionally and up to 30 per cent only on a few days. What are the gaps in action? An analysis of the real time dynamic estimation of the relative contribution of different pollution sources to Delhi’s air quality put out by the IITM’s Decision Support System (DSS) provides an insight into the contribution of each local source. These pollution sources include transport, industry, construction, waste burning, energy, residential sources, road dust and some other groups. Vehicles are the top pollution contributors with more than half, followed by residential burning, which is 13 per cent, industry at 11 per cent, construction at 7 per cent, energy at 6 per cent, waste burning at 5 per cent, and road dust and others at 4 per cent each. The gap in action in these sectors require immediate attention and upscaled action. Why are vehicles a special problem? Despite taking several technology measures to reduce vehicular emissions, explosive motorisation, choking congestion, inadequate public transport services and slow pace of electrification are undercutting the emission gains. Vehicles are also the fastest growing source of pollution in Delhi. As per the Economic Survey of 2023-24, Delhi has a total stock of 79 lakh vehicles. It added 6.5 lakh vehicles in 2023-24, as per the VAHAN database. Most of these are two-wheelers and cars. Delhi also sees daily entry and exit of around 1.1 million vehicles. Since 2018, several comprehensive clean air action plans have been notified under the aegis of the Supreme Court and by the Air Commission. Every year, at the onset of winter, the Delhi government also puts out a winter action plan, and subsequently emergency measures are evoked by the Air Commission during severe smog episodes. These efforts, however, are not adding up to meet the benchmark. Sectoral solutions are well known, but strategies for scale and speed of implementation are not worked out annually to make a difference. The dependence on cars has become irreversible. The modal share of private vehicles has increased from 38 per cent to 49 per cent while public transport usage has gone down alarmingly by 20 per cent over the past decade and metro ridership has not met its projected target. The city still falls short of meeting the 1998 Supreme Court directive for 10,000 buses with just 7,683. The service level of buses remains very poor. Less than one per cent of the bus stations in the city have waiting time less than 10 minutes. Weak multi-modal integration and inadequate last mile connectivity, and lack of focus on walking and cycling are slowing down change. The city has also failed to implement the Supreme Court directed Parking Management Area Plan as per the 2019 parking Rules as a vehicle restraint measure. A lot more also needs to be done to control pollution from industry, waste sector, and the residential use of solid fuels. The city government needs to provide the details of households and migrants that are dependent on solid fuels for cooking and provide a time-bound strategy to improve their access to clean fuels. To control waste burning and fires in the waste dump sites, the city government needs to provide the status of its preparedness for 100 per cent waste collection, segregation and diversion of at least 80 per cent of fresh waste from reaching dumpsites and remediation of legacy waste. The list of bulk waste generators need to be put out in the public domain for tracking their waste, recycling and disposal. In the construction sector, in addition to enforcing strong dust control measures, 100 per cent of waste recycling needs to be ensured while building the markets for rapid uptake of recycled products. It is important to put out the details on the gap in action and resources for meeting the needs of implementation. It is inexplicable why a small fund of Rs42.69 crore allocated to Delhi under the National Clean Air Programme remains underutilised by 68.24 per cent. The author is executive director, research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment.

UN climate summits turning dubious deepen crisis

The COP29 climate conference, hosted in Baku, concluded with palpable disappointment as developed nations committed to mobilising only $300 billion annually for climate action in developing countries. While this marks an increase from the previous $100 billion pledge, it falls far short of the estimated $1 trillion needed annually to effectively combat climate change. The funding, moreover, will not be available until 2035, leaving immediate needs unmet at a time when climate impacts are accelerating worldwide. This disappointing outcome exemplifies a larger pattern that has emerged over the past several years with the annual climate summits consistently failing to deliver on their ambitious goals. The gap between these summits’ promises and the urgent actions required to meet the targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement has become glaring. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) emissions gap report released just before the COP29 meet, global emissions reached a record-high 57.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2023, an increase of 1.3% from 2022. To have a realistic chance of achieving the 1.5 degree Celsius target, global emissions must be reduced by 42% by 2030 and 57% by 2035 from 2019 levels. This now looks impossible to achieve. The report said even under the best scenario, full implementation of both unconditional and conditional Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) would only reduce expected emissions in 2030 by 10%, leading to predictions of up to 2.6 degrees of warming. This limited progress brings to the fore challenges facing the international community and raises questions about the effectiveness of existing frameworks. The core issues with climate negotiations stem from an imbalance in responsibility and commitment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established in 1994, was built on the “polluter pays” principle, acknowledging the disproportionate historical emissions of developed nations. These countries, including the United States and many European nations, were tasked not only with reducing their emissions but also with providing financial and technological support to developing countries. This framework aimed to address historical inequities, holding developed nations accountable for the bulk of emissions over the past 150 years. Yet, such principles of fairness are seldom the driving force behind international relations. The introduction of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 marked a significant step in operationalising the UNFCCC by imposing binding emission reduction targets on developed nations. However, the Protocol’s impact was diluted when the United States, despite playing a pivotal role in drafting it, refused to ratify the agreement. The Protocol’s failure to secure universal commitment signaled the beginning of a gradual weakening of the climate governance framework. ADVERTISEMENT The Copenhagen summit in 2009 was an early attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new framework that could address the limitations of binding commitments. However, the Copenhagen summit failed to reach a consensus. The 2015 Paris Agreement marked a significant shift by requiring all nations, regardless of development status, to submit self-determined emission reduction targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This shift diluted the accountability of developed nations and eliminated the binding targets that had previously been in place. Under the Paris Agreement, while some progress has been made, the gap between action and necessity remains stark. This dilution of responsibilities has extended to climate finance, an area that has seen considerable tension in recent years. Historically, developed nations were solely responsible for mobilising funds and transferring technology to assist developing countries. Yet, in recent negotiations, pressure has mounted to broaden the contributor base to include emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia. Although the Paris Agreement sought to integrate this idea, it did not achieve consensus. In Baku, developed nations pushed for a broader financial responsibility, but developing nations, led by China, resisted, arguing that emerging economies should not be held to the same standards as wealthier nations with a greater historical carbon footprint. Despite these challenges, the UNFCCC remains the only forum where even the smallest and most vulnerable nations, like Panama and the Marshall Islands, can voice their concerns and seek support. For these nations, climate finance, even if insufficient, is crucial for adaptation and survival. However, the recurring inadequacies of these meetings cast doubt on the long-term viability of the UNFCCC as a mechanism to drive effective action. Panama’s head of delegation Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez was extremely vocal during COP29 talks saying, “Why should countries like Panama bear the burden of loans to cover $250 million in losses from torrential rains this past month or $1 billion in lost revenue from the Panama Canal due to droughts? Why should any developing country finance adaptation measures with loans while others profit from our suffering? We are told the $1.3 trillion proposal from developing nations is ‘extreme’. But what’s truly extreme is spending $2.5 trillion on wars or $7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies while failing to commit even a fraction of that to save lives,” Gomez said responding to the failure of developed countries to provide adequate climate finance in the form of grants. Earlier this year, about 300 Gunas - indigenous families on Gardi Sugdub, a tiny island off Panama’s Caribbean coast had to leave their homes. The Gunas of Gardi Sugdub are the first of 63 communities along Panama’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts that government officials and scientists expect to be forced to relocate by rising sea levels in the coming years. Tina Stege, Marshall Islands Climate Envoy, said: “We came in good faith, with the safety of our communities and the well-being of the world at heart. Yet, we have seen the very worst of political opportunism here at this COP29, playing games with the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. Despite the barriers, we have fought hard and secured something for our communities. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need.” Aarti Khosla, director of New-Delhi based think tank Climate Trends, said: “Baku has given a deal but kept no one happy, everyone has stayed in to retain the spirit of multilateralism.” Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said: “At COP29, we lost an opportunity -- without a meaningful agreement on climate finance; both in terms of quantity and quality, large parts of the world that would have had the chance to reinvent growth to make it low-carbon intensive, will not be able to do so. What’s worse, this comes at a time when these countries are even more vulnerable due to climate change impacts.” During the closing plenary of COP29, Chandni Raina, adviser to the Department of Economic Affairs and part of India’s negotiating team, was the voice of the Global South who termed the $300 billion finance commitment “abysmally poor” and paltry compared to the estimated $1.3 trillion required annually until 2030 for effective climate action. Meanwhile, a group of prominent global leaders, including former secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon wrote an open letter calling for urgent reforms to the COP under the UNFCCC. They argue that the current structure of COP meetings is insufficient to meet the 1.5 degree target needed for planetary stability. The proposed reforms include stringent eligibility criteria for COP presidencies to ensure alignment with climate goals, and transforming COP meetings into smaller, more frequent, action-oriented sessions that prioritise progress and solutions. They also called for greater transparency to curb the disproportionate influence of corporate interests, ensuring fair representation from vulnerable communities and scientific institutions. Experts fear that with insufficient finance flow, countries may submit weak NDCs which are due in February next year.

Dominos Pizza in India Can Cause These Deadly Diseases Yet They Are Safe in Western Countries

The 2016 CSE report found that 84 percent of bread products, including Domino's pizza bases in Delhi, contained potassium bromate and potassium iodate-two chemicals known to cause cancer and thyroid problems. These ingredients are banned in many countries in the West but not in India, highlighting regulatory lapses. Potassium bromate is a carcinogen and potassium iodate interferes with thyroid functions. Even after all such regulatory changes by FSSAI, the big challenge in India is the lack of proper enforcement and public awareness. This means better oversight, education to consumers about healthier alternatives to food, or all this put together.

Talking Shop: Pollution Collusion

Blaming my brand-new car and the country’s bewildered farmers for increasing pollution and SPM (suspended particulate matter) levels may give you a vicarious thrill, it might make you feel absolved and vindicated… It will make you insanely wrong too, because it means you have failed to recognize the systemic nature of the problem—that there are bigger hunters at work here. And unless they are tamed and kicked into line, there will be no absolution. Studies conducted by leading organizations, Indian and international, insist there are many hidden culprits defiling the air you and I breathe; among them industrial emissions, shipping zones, power plants… And you too, merrily cooking at home. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s website is as ticklish on this issue as it is telling: “There’s so much pollution in the air that if it weren’t for our lungs, there’d be no place to put it all. Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the Earth…” It is surprising to see a state-backed online channel getting quirky about a serious problem, but it is refreshing too—it underscores the fact that even the otherwise-occupied are now seized of the life-threatening plight we find ourselves in. As former United States President Barack Obama says in his quote above, the world needs to act now, more so if it wants a tomorrow for the generations to follow. On the pollution and SPM scale of things, things have reached crisis level worldwide. For a moment, let’s speak India. And in this context, we simply have to speak Delhi, our National Capital which is registering alarming pollution levels, earning it the kick-in-the-nuts award for having the worst air quality in the world. nsouciant Blame Game The blame for rising pollution has been placed solely on smoke-belching automobiles and archaic agricultural practices, particularly stubble-burning by North India’s farmers. It is almost as if when it comes to pollutants, especially SPM, everyone wants to be seen as a vociferous anti-agent. After all, the muck that dots our air causes health problems like asthma, heart disease, and lung cancer. What’s needed is to dig deeper, rather than just blame winding traffic jams and burning crops. What of factories, industrial emissions, shipping, power plants, and residential cooking? These are unacknowledged, perhaps even unknown, but they are significant perpetrators. Pollution generated by ships is in the form of particulate matter, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to murderous air. Large container ships and oil tankers use low-grade fuel, emitting high levels of soot and sulphur. Port cities, already battling significant air pollution, are particularly vulnerable to the additional load from maritime activities. A study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found that emissions from ships are responsible for a large amount of air pollution along the coast. According to CSE Director-General Sunita Narain: “Port cities are becoming pollution hotspots due to the unregulated emissions from ships. The Government needs to enforce stricter regulations on maritime fuel standards.”