Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

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.”

Frustration Mounts Over COP29 Climate Finance Agreement

Developing nations demand stronger commitments as wealthy nations pledge insufficient funding At the COP29 climate summit held in Baku, Azerbaijan, the atmosphere was charged with expectation, yet the outcome left many nations, particularly from the global south, feeling disillusioned. The conference was seen as pivotal, dubbed the 'finance COP', aiming to secure substantial funding to assist developing nations as they navigate the transition away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, many delegations walked away empty-handed, with developed countries committing $300 billion annually by 2035—far less than the $1.3 trillion projected by climate experts to meet the needs of impoverished nations grappling with climate impacts. For many attending the summit, the negotiations felt like déjà vu. The need for meaningful climate finance was again underscored, echoing promises made back during the 2009 Copenhagen conference when wealthier nations pledged to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to support climate action. Those aspirations, critics argue, remain largely unmet. Reports suggest growing frustration as the same countries now propose what they call progress—$300 billion by 2035—adding only more confusion to already complex negotiations. Sunita Narain, director general of the Centre for Science and Environment, expressed disappointment, stating during an online debriefing, "At COP29, we lost an opportunity. Without a meaningful agreement on climate finance; both in quantity and quality, many parts of the world will not be able to reinvent growth to be low-carbon intensive. What’s worse, this arises when these countries are even more vulnerable to climate change impacts.” Her frustration highlights the distress felt by many developing nations, which have consistently called for substantial accountability and financial commitments from wealthier countries. The text concerning the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)—which succeeds the previous commitment—illustrates the crux of the problem. While the $300 billion target set seems optimistic compared to current financing, it effectively dilutes the legal bond on developed nations to fully fund this goal as outlined by Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. The lack of clarity over whether this sum constitutes grants or loans leaves many wary of the prospect of accumulating more debt than necessary. This vague foundation raises concerns over the accountability and traceability of funds, with developing nations left wondering how much aid will actually materialize. Backing these sentiments were members of the Group of 77 and China, which advocated for more than $600 billion annually just for public funding with zero conditions, alongside greater transparency and urgency within the financing frameworks. The proposed deal, critics contend, reflects the unwillingness of developed nations to significantly shift their current financial strategies, which lends itself to promising private sector financing rather than prioritizing equitable public funds. On the ground at COP29, tensions flared as developing nations expressed frustration not only with the offered financing but also with the lack of meaningful engagement on their proposed needs and next steps. Countries represented at the summit saw their voices diminished throughout discussions, culminating in walkouts and protests as delegates from vulnerable nations declared the financial plan as insufficient. Denouncements of the $300 billion offer grew, as many argued it fails to address the multi-trillion dollar measures necessary for adaptable and sustainable climate strategies.

Draft text for binding plastic pollution treaty released

Negotiators released a draft text on Friday for an international legally binding treaty to combat plastic pollution, though key issues remain unresolved as talks entered their final stages. The draft, released on the fifth day of negotiations at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee’s fifth session (INC5), outlines 32 articles addressing plastic production, regulation and waste management. Major points of contention centre on plastic production controls, lifecycle approaches and financing for developing nations. The treaty is seen as crucial for addressing fossil fuel usage globally, as plastics primarily derive from fossil materials. The draft’s objective states it aims to “end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment,” though disagreement persists over whether to include the full lifecycle of plastics from production to disposal. The document incorporates principles from the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including common but differentiated responsibilities among nations and their sovereign right to manage resources. Definitions remain contentious, with eight different proposed meanings for “plastics” and five for “plastic pollution.” The variations range from technical polymer descriptions to broader environmental impact definitions. Some sections show progress, observers note. The article on “just transition” appears without contested brackets, indicating general agreement. However, financing mechanisms remain under debate, with language allowing for “blended and innovative financing” from various sources. “The chair’s proposal represents significant progress toward the ‘start and strengthen’ approach,” said Siddharth G Singh, plastic pollution expert at the Centre for Science and Environment. “While omitting some crucial elements like global criteria for chemicals of concern, it integrates these concepts into criteria for addressing plastic products.” The draft reflects input from all member states, though no delegation is entirely satisfied with the proposal—a characteristic of successful negotiations, according to experts. Some sections show strong alignment, particularly regarding waste pickers and indigenous communities in the plastic value chain. However, upstream interventions like product design and national action plans still require resolution. The draft text moves to the Legal Drafting Group following plenary discussions. Negotiators face pressure to finalise the treaty as environmental concerns about plastic pollution continue to mount globally. “It’s a case of one step forward, two steps back,” said Swati Singh Sambyal, circular economy expert at GRID-Arendal. “While national action plans offer flexibility, mandatory measures are essential to maintain the integrity of this fast-track negotiation.”

AQI at 331 in Capital, ‘very poor’ for 6th day: Vehicular pollution plagues Delhi despite dip in farm fires

Notwithstanding the official end of the stubble-burning season in Punjab and Haryana, Delhi continued to reel under ‘very poor’ air quality for the sixth consecutive day Friday with the transport sector being the leading contributor. Delhi recorded an average Air Quality Index (AQI) of 331 Friday, slightly worse than the 325 reported a day before. The data from the Decision Support System (DSS) developed by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, shows a decline in stubble-burning contribution to Delhi’s particulate matter pollution. While stubble burning accounted for 5.8 per cent of the pollution on November 26, no data was provided for it on Wednesday or Thursday. In Punjab and Haryana, the farm fire season comes to an end on November 30. The state governments track the farm fire counts until November 30 after which they stop recording the numbers as only sporadic events take place. Yet, the AQI in the Capital continued to remain in the ‘very poor’ category (see box) with the transport sector contributing the highest of 21.36 per cent. In its pre-winter analysis of DSS data from October 12-27, the Centre for Science and Environment found local sources, led by vehicular pollution, to be the major cause of the rise in pollution in the Capital, despite a dip in farm fire counts during the same phase. On Friday, 576 crop residue-burning events were detected by satellites, as per data from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. The cases were the highest in Madhya Pradesh at 311, followed by 215 in Uttar Pradesh. Punjab and Haryana reported 32 and nine cases, respectively. The wind direction also influences stubble-burning’s contribution to Delhi’s PM2.5 levels. According to weather experts, the contribution remains high on days when the wind direction is predominantly Northwesterly. The lowest visibility reported in Delhi increased gradually from 300 metres on November 23 to 900 metres on November 27, stated the India Meteorological Department. It has forecast mainly clear skies with smog or shallow fog likely in the morning or evening or night. Owing to low wind speed, the pollutants will remain trapped close to the surface, and the air quality is forecast to be in the ‘very poor’ category in the coming days.

सुनीता नारायण का कॉलम:ट्रम्प की वापसी पर्यावरण के लिए बुरी खबर साबित होगी

डोनाल्ड ट्रम्प की वापसी का जलवायु परिवर्तन के लिए क्या मतलब है? वे ऐसे व्यक्ति हैं, जिनके हाथ में अमेरिका की कमान होगी और यह देश ग्रीनहाउस गैसों का दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा ऐतिहासिक उत्सर्जक और दूसरा सबसे बड़ा वार्षिक योगदानकर्ता है। ट्रम्प घोषित रूप से जलवायु परिवर्तन पर शक करते हैं और जीवाश्म ईंधन के मुखर समर्थक हैं। उन्होंने कहा है कि कामकाज सम्भालने के बाद वे यह सुनिश्चित करेंगे कि ऊर्जा की कीमतों में कटौती की जाए। वे ग्रीन ऊर्जा योजनाओं को रद्द कर देंगे। और वे चाहते हैं कि तेल और प्राकृतिक गैस की खोज के लिए ज्यादा से ज्यादा जमीन मुहैया कराई जाए और जीवाश्म ईंधन से संचालित हो रहे उद्योगों पर सरकारी नियंत्रण कम किया जाए। हमें यह ध्यान रखना चाहिए कि वर्तमान राष्ट्रपति जो बाइडेन के कार्यकाल में भी अमेरिका जीवाश्म ईंधन जलाने वालों का सिरमौर रहा है। वह आज किसी भी देश की तुलना में अधिक तेल का उत्पादन कर रहा है। वह दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा तेल और गैस उत्पादक है- जो रूस से भी 40 प्रतिशत अधिक उत्पादन करता है। यही कारण है कि जब ट्रम्प कहते हैं कि वे जीवाश्म-ईंधन की ओर तेजी से लौटेंगे, तो हमें समझना चाहिए कि यह दुनिया के पर्यावरण के लिए कितना बुरा होगा! ट्रम्प ने बाइडेन की अक्षय ऊर्जा और इलेक्ट्रिक वाहनों की योजनाओं के खिलाफ तीखी टिप्पणी की है, उन्हें ‘उद्योगों को खत्म करने वाला’, ‘नौकरियां खाने वाला’, ‘चीन का हिमायती’ करार दिया है। वे अतीत के दिनों में लौटना चाहते हैं और इस विचार को खारिज कर देना चाहते हैं कि आज दुनिया आपदा के मुहाने पर खड़ी है और ग्रीन-ट्रांजिशन की आवश्यकता है। ऐसे में सवाल है कि अमेरिका में जलवायु परिवर्तन को लेकर हो रही कार्रवाइयों में आगे क्या होगा? जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने के लिए दुनिया को एक साथ लाने वाले अंतरराष्ट्रीय समझौतों का क्या होगा? हमें यह पूछने की जरूरत इसलिए है क्योंकि इस बार ट्रम्प की जीत कोई संयोग नहीं है। 2016 में, जब उन्हें राष्ट्रपति के रूप में चुना गया था तो अमेरिका और दुनिया उन्हें लेकर अनिश्चित थी, लेकिन इस बार वे इस विश्वास के साथ सत्ता में आए हैं कि अमेरिका के लोगों ने उन्हें उनके विचारों के कारण चुना है, जिनमें जलवायु परिवर्तन को नकारना भी शामिल है। इसलिए हमें उनके कार्यों से आश्चर्यचकित नहीं होना चाहिए; इसके बजाय हमें पूछना चाहिए कि दुनिया इस संकट से निपटने के लिए किस प्रकार आगे बढ़ सकती है। तथ्य यह है कि बाइडेन- अपने देश के बड़े पैमाने पर तेल और गैस उत्पादन के बावजूद- जलवायु कार्रवाई के प्रति प्रतिबद्धता को लेकर अपने सभी पूर्ववर्तियों से अलग खड़े थे। उन्होंने 2030 तक ग्रीनहाउस गैसों को 2005 के स्तर से 50-52 प्रतिशत तक कम करने और 2035 तक 100 प्रतिशत कार्बन प्रदूषण मुक्त बिजली तक पहुंचने का साहसिक लक्ष्य रखा था। मुद्रास्फीति न्यूनीकरण अधिनियम (आईआरए) को स्वच्छ प्रौद्योगिकियों और हरित ऊर्जा में निवेश के लिए प्रेरित करने के लिए शानदार ढंग से तैयार किया गया था। इस क्षेत्र में अमेरिकी नेतृत्व का मतलब था कि दूसरे देश अपनी जिम्मेदारियों से पल्ला नहीं झाड़ सकते थे। उन्हें भी ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन को कम करने के लक्ष्य तय करने के लिए मजबूर किया गया और कुछ ठोस कार्रवाई भी हुई। यकीनन यह पर्याप्त नहीं था, लेकिन कम से कम इससे नैरेटिव तो बदला था। क्या ट्रम्प अमेरिका को जलवायु परिवर्तन पर वैश्विक समझौतों- जैसे 2015 पेरिस समझौता और जलवायु परिवर्तन पर संयुक्त राष्ट्र फ्रेमवर्क कन्वेंशन- से बाहर निकाल लेंगे? अगर हां तो यह कार्बन उत्सर्जन कम करने की वैश्विक मंशा को कमजोर करेगा। जबकि जलवायु परिवर्तन के दुष्प्रभाव बढ़ रहे हैं और दुनिया को असुरक्षित बना रहे हैं। इसका सामना करने के लिए हमें वैश्विक नेतृत्व की आवश्यकता है, और उन मजबूत आवाजों की भी, जो न केवल आसन्न विनाश के बारे में चेताती हों, बल्कि चीजों को अलग तरीके से करने की संभावनाओं के बारे में भी बताती हों। दुनिया लो-कार्बन अर्थव्यवस्था बनने की यात्रा पर आगे बढ़ चुकी है और इसे इतनी आसानी से उलटा नहीं जा सकता। रीन्यूएबल एनर्जी सहित ग्रीन टेक्नोलॉजी में भारी निवेश किया गया है और इस नई अर्थव्यवस्था के प्रति रुचि बढ़ रही है। लेकिन हमें जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने की लागत को भी समझना होगा और ग्रीन ट्रांजिशन की दिशा में नए तरीके अपनाने होंगे, जो किफायती और समावेशी हों। ट्रम्प की वापसी से इन सब पर जो खतरा उपस्थित हुआ है, उसे हम अनदेखा नहीं कर सकते। ट्रम्प घोषित रूप से जलवायु परिवर्तन पर शक करते हैं और जीवाश्म ईंधन के मुखर समर्थक हैं। कामकाज सम्भालने के बाद वे सुनिश्चित करेंगे कि ऊर्जा की कीमतों में कटौती की जाए। वे ग्रीन ऊर्जा परियोजनाओं को भी रद्द कर सकते हैं। (ये लेखिका के अपने विचार हैं)

Civil society, climate experts raise several concerns with Baku NCQG deal

Civil society groups have criticised the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) decision taken at COP29 in Baku, saying the language and quantum of finance could undermine both energy transition in developing countries and climate ambition ahead of February 2025’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs) deadline. “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,” Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said at an online debriefing on Thursday. The NCQG succeeds developed countries’ 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion annually to support climate action in developing countries by 2020. Under the Baku climate finance deal, developed parties and other sources will provide $300 billion annually to developing countries by 2035. The deal also calls for contributions toward an overall climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, including voluntary contributions from developing countries. “The Global North has abandoned the Global South with this meagre offer. It has no right to demand mitigation ambition from our part of the world with so little finance on the table. To begin with, the deal dilutes the legal obligation of developed countries to provide the entirety of the finance under the new goal, as per Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. The ambiguities of the goal make it clear that there will be little accountability and traceability of funds,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager, Climate Change, CSE. The $300 billion falls short of developing country demands. The G77 and China bloc, India and Like Minded Developing Countries had sought $600 billion annually in public finance from developed countries, as part of a larger $1.3 trillion annual sum by 2030. The UN Standing Committee on Finance’s second report found that NDCs from 142 parties contained 5,760 needs, with 2,753 costed needs from 98 parties totaling $5.036-6.876 trillion. CSE researchers said the 10-year timeline for such limited finance could leave developing countries with inadequate resources during this critical decade. The $300 billion isn’t specified as grants-based or concessional, potentially worsening the debt crisis. The decision text also fails to distinguish between “provision” and “mobilisation.” “There appears to be some logical fallacy in the language of the decision text. 1. It calls on all actors to scale up finance to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year which is the estimated climate investment requirement in developing countries. 2. The same decision text also states that the goal is to mobilise $300 billion per year from public and private sources by 2035 with developed country Parties from taking the lead. How are these two different? The 300 billion should have been mainly public money from developed countries and the timeline should have been per annum till 2030 at least,” said Dhruba Purkayastha, director for growth and institutional advancement, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW). India led opposition to what it called a “stage-managed” deal at COP29, which ended amid unprecedented acrimony. After the Azerbaijan Presidency quickly approved a contested proposal, India was first to reject it for ignoring Global South priorities – a position later endorsed by several developing countries and blocs including the Like-Minded Developing Countries and Nigeria. “At COP29, India and other vulnerable nations boldly called out the glaring failure of developed countries to deliver meaningful climate finance under the new climate finance goal. The decision, forced through by the COP29 Presidency in Baku last week, is not only grossly inadequate but also deliberately designed to shift the financial burden onto those least responsible for the climate crisis yet most devastated by its impacts. These negotiations disregarded the urgent needs of developing countries and blatantly side-lined their rightful demands for survival and justice,” said Harjeet Singh, climate activist and global engagement director, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative. “Countries like India and other frontline nations must escalate political pressure and explore every legal avenue to overturn this unjust agreement. The terms of climate finance must match the scale of the crisis—a bare minimum of $1.3 trillion annually by 2030, as demanded by developing nations. As the deadline for updating Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) approaches, developing nations must stand united, insisting that climate finance and ambition go hand in hand. Developed countries have no moral authority to demand greater efforts from us while continuing to shirk their historic and financial responsibilities,” Singh added.

Shortages Hobble India Push for Cleaner Car Fuel Amid Delhi Smog

India is cutting back its supply of cheap gas for vehicles as it struggles to cope with domestic production shortages, a move that could add to toxic air woes in major cities including New Delhi. Supply constraints have left retailers like Indraprastha Gas Ltd. and Mahanagar Gas Ltd. increasingly reliant on more expensive imports — or costly production from new Indian fields, which have proven more technically challenging. Both have begun to raise prices for compressed natural gas, or CNG, which powers cars, buses, taxis and rickshaws across India. New Delhi, one of the world’s most polluted cities, was pushed into CNG well over two decades ago after a Supreme Court ruling that demanded the conversion of all public buses to cope with worsening air quality. It later banned all non-CNG cabs in the capital region. While the fuel is not entirely “green,” it does emit fewer smog-related pollutants and has a slightly lower carbon footprint than conventional alternatives. Now, as the city lives through some of the most toxic smog days on record, proponents fear that consumers previously attracted by low running costs may begin to look more closely at the disadvantages, including long queues at filling stations and fewer models to choose from. “This may deter the adoption of CNG vehicles and could even lead to a shift back to diesel and petrol, undermining efforts to promote cleaner transportation options,” said Amit Bhatt, managing director for India at the International Council on Clean Transportation. CNG vehicles have proven popular with India’s price-sensitive consumers, surging more than 13-fold between 2019 and now. Sales of vehicles powered by diesel and gasoline have fallen by 20% and 13%, respectively, during that period, according to data compiled by the transport ministry. “We need differential pricing policy to incentivize cleaner fuels and disincentivize polluting fuels,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director at the Centre for Science and Environment. With its limited low-cost gas funneled to industrial use, India’s deliveries to retailers have been cut by as much as 40%, according to exchange filings by the companies. That fuel, from older fields, is currently priced at $6.5 per million British thermal units — against about $10 for new local fields and $13 to $14 per mmbtu for imports. Mahanagar Gas has said it will explore options as it tries to ensure stability for its price-sensitive customers, but scarcity has already pushed prices for some areas up by more than 2% this week. Further increases will be necessary to maintain margins, analysts say. India wants to increase the role of gas in the energy mix, and the government has announced plans to significantly increase the number of CNG stations across the country over the current decade from roughly 7,000 today, mostly in the north and west. That target may now be at risk. “The move also doesn’t gel with the government’s aim to almost triple the compressed natural gas station network in the country by 2030,” said Sabri Hazarika, analyst with Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. The underlying problem is the paucity of India’s homegrown output, which has not kept pace with a growing economy. Daily gas production has risen only about 3% in the decade through March, while consumption has jumped 30%, according to the oil ministry. That has been felt by consumers, with CNG prices in Delhi rising 73% since 2021. Gasoline is up just 13% and diesel has increased by close to a fifth, shrinking the price gap between gas and conventional fuels. “Lower prices have been working in our favor, despite long waiting times at fuel stations,” said Sukhdeep Singh, a taxi driver who was getting fuel for his car at a CNG outlet in New Delhi. “But if our costs jump without any commensurate increase in passenger fares, it will make life really very difficult for us.”

India cuts back cheap gas for vehicles even as bad air chokes Delhi

India is cutting back its supply of cheap gas for vehicles as it struggles to cope with domestic production shortages, a move that could add to toxic air woes in major cities including New Delhi. Supply constraints have left retailers like Indraprastha Gas Ltd and Mahanagar Gas Ltd increasingly reliant on more expensive imports — or costly production from new Indian fields, which have proven more technically challenging. Both have begun to raise prices for compressed natural gas, or CNG, which powers cars, buses, taxis and rickshaws across India. New Delhi, one of the world’s most polluted cities, was pushed into CNG well over two decades ago after a Supreme Court ruling that demanded the conversion of all public buses to cope with worsening air quality. It later banned all non-CNG cabs in the capital region. While the fuel is not entirely “green,” it does emit fewer smog-related pollutants and has a slightly lower carbon footprint than conventional alternatives. Now, as the city lives through some of the most toxic smog days on record, proponents fear that consumers previously attracted by low running costs may begin to look more closely at the disadvantages, including long queues at filling stations and fewer models to choose from. “This may deter the adoption of CNG vehicles and could even lead to a shift back to diesel and petrol, undermining efforts to promote cleaner transportation options,” said Amit Bhatt, managing director for India at the International Council on Clean Transportation. CNG vehicles have proven popular with India’s price-sensitive consumers, surging more than 13-fold between 2019 and now. Sales of vehicles powered by diesel and gasoline have fallen by 20 per cent and 13 per cent, respectively, during that period, according to data compiled by the transport ministry. “We need differential pricing policy to incentivize cleaner fuels and disincentivize polluting fuels,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director at the Centre for Science and Environment. With its limited low-cost gas funneled to industrial use, India’s deliveries to retailers have been cut by as much as 40 per cent, according to exchange filings by the companies. That fuel, from older fields, is currently priced at $6.5 per million British thermal units — against about $10 for new local fields and $13 to $14 per mmbtu for imports. Mahanagar Gas has said it will explore options as it tries to ensure stability for its price-sensitive customers, but scarcity has already pushed prices for some areas up by more than 2 per cent this week. Further increases will be necessary to maintain margins, analysts say. India wants to increase the role of gas in the energy mix, and the government has announced plans to significantly increase the number of CNG stations across the country over the current decade from roughly 7,000 today, mostly in the north and west. That target may now be at risk. “The move also doesn’t gel with the government’s aim to almost triple the compressed natural gas station network in the country by 2030,” said Sabri Hazarika, analyst with Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd

Extreme weather claimed 3,200 lives in India in 2024: CSE

A report by the Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) reveals that over 3,200 lives were lost and more than 230,000 houses destroyed in India during the first nine months of 2024 due to extreme weather events. The findings highlight the growing frequency and severity of floods, storms, heatwaves, and other climate-related disasters. India experienced extreme weather events on 93 pc of the days during the first nine months of 2024, underscoring the intensifying impact of climate change. The period was marked by a range of natural calamities, including heatwaves, cold waves, cyclones, lightning, heavy rains, floods and landslides, affecting almost every region of the country. These events caused widespread devastation, including the loss of thousands of lives, destruction of homes, and displacement of communities.

In Busan, India says it will not back ‘use’ of plastic alternatives

While India may have banned single-use plastic in 2022 and called for employing ‘sustainable’ alternatives, it has struck a contradictory note at the ongoing United Nations-led Global Plastic Treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea. As part of formal submissions on Thursday, India said that while it “encourages the research, innovation, and development of sustainable alternatives and non-plastic substitutes,” it would rather not support the “use” of these products, technologies, and services. India has also pushed back against a suggestion by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to “reduce the use of primary plastic polymers and associated chemicals of concern in plastic products.” Chemicals of concern are those used in making goods but which are associated with harm. ‘India will not be pushed’ While the reasoning behind India’s stance was not spelt out, these submissions are not cast in stone. Sources privy to negotiations told The Hindu that the word “use” smacked of irritation at being told what to do. While India’s national stand was against plastic waste and pollution and promoting alternate, sustainable materials, India would not allow itself to be “pushed into using” certain products or materials, they said. However, wording could change and depending on how the negotiations progressed, more conciliatory terms could be considered, these sources said. Single-use plastics are only a subset of the wide variety of plastics made from polymer and different grades of plastic lend themselves to varying degrees of recycling. In its multiple submissions on Thursday, India stressed that any final agreement on addressing plastic pollution should not contravene other multi-lateral agreements; should respect “national priorities, capabilities and priorities and right to development”; and “developing countries must get financial and technical assistance including technology transfer in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.” The latter is a principle derived from climate negotiations, where developed countries, which are counted as responsible for emitting the bulk of atmospheric carbon, are asked to pay up for minimising future global emissions. Plastic alternatives There is little clarity on whether sustainable alternatives to plastic exist. While India has, on paper, allowed the use of ‘biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’ plastic, lack of clarity on whether such plastic is actually degradable and whether compostable versions are being composted has hindered their widespread adoption. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently worn — and spoken about the benefits of wearing — jackets made from recycled PET bottles. However, the adoption of plastic alternatives such as jute, cotton, cloth or newer synthetic alternatives is hindered by their cost, availability and the cumbersome nature of their use as packaging or containers, compared to the various grades of plastic. The problem of plastic waste is enormous in India. An investigation by the Centre for Science and Environment estimates that since 2022, nearly 24 million tonnes of plastic packaging have been introduced into India with a mechanical recycling capacity of only 9.8 million tonnes. Of the 15 million tonnes of plastic that are used in consumer products and become waste within a year, only about 20% is collected. While this is not a uniquely Indian problem, the inability to manage plastic waste after it is used as a product has led to calls, such as in the INC negotiations, to check the production of plastic itself. No consensus The INC-5 Chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, before the start of negotiations on Monday, presented a text, called a ‘non paper,’ that laid out a reference document containing 32 ‘Articles’ dealing with multiple dimensions of plastic waste, pollution, and curbing sources of production. While countries are largely on board with amplifying action on addressing plastic waste and waste management, there are disagreements among countries, particularly those where petro-chemicals and refining, or production of plastic are major industries, vital to livelihoods. This list includes China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the United States. They see the cessation of plastic production as potentially disruptive, so there has been pushback, though this is nuanced and varies country by country. The net result is that despite four days of negotiations, nearly every sentence in the 18-page document put forth by Mr. Valdivieso is contested, with countries demanding their own modifications to every one of the ‘Articles,’ that is threatening to blow up an already bloated text. A streamlined consensus document, where everyone has agreed to every line, is necessary for the gestation of a legally-binding Global Plastics Treaty. Once this comes into being and countries sign on, it will pave the way for regular meetings by countries – like in the better known climate conferences – called the Conference of Parties that will then, year by year, push narratives and action toward eliminating plastic.