Cse In News

Stop waiting for miracles

It’s that time of the year again when Delhi and its neighbouring regions brace for an annual apocalypse. Temperatures are dropping, and as the wind slows, pollutants already present in the atmosphere will settle closer to the ground. We won’t be able to breathe. All we can do is hope and pray for divine intervention — for the gods of wind and rain to show mercy. Because, let’s face it, despite all these years, we’ve done next to nothing to combat pollution effectively. The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) was supposed to be an emergency alert system to tackle pollution spikes with immediate measures. But what do we actually do? Wait until the situation becomes unbearable, and then take half-hearted actions, that are too little, too late. Now we’re hearing that the government will play god, using cloud seeding to create artificial rain and wash away the pollutants. But we know this: moisture traps pollutants, often worsening the problem. So, let’s cut to the chase. How do we reclaim the benefits of pollution control? First, a quick recap of what’s been done so far. This story starts in the 1990s, when the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) released its report, ‘Slow Murder’, proposing an action plan. The main culprits behind pollution (and this shouldn’t surprise anyone) were vehicles, poor fuel quality and lax emission standards. In the late 1990s, the Supreme Court intervened, mandating cleaner fuel, stricter emission standards (the foundation of Bharat Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, and now 6 norms), and a boost in public transport. In 1998, the apex court ordered 11,000 buses to hit Delhi’s roads. Over 16 years later, the city hasn’t even achieved half that number. But let’s park that discussion for now. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) emerged as a leapfrog solution — a stopgap while petrol and diesel quality took another decade to improve. CNG brought immediate relief and was a game-changer at the time. Anyone who lived in Delhi in the early 2000s can tell you how controversial this decision was. But it worked. Now, as we stand on the cusp of the electric vehicle revolution, the shift to CNG offers vital lessons. The tech challenge Back then, no country had adopted CNG for vehicles at the scale Delhi proposed. Affordability was another issue. Policies had to guide technological innovation — designing safety standards and bus prototypes, for instance. Financial incentives helped phase out old buses and auto-rick-shaws in favour of CNG models. The implementation challenge This wasn’t about rolling out a few CNG buses. The court ordered a complete transition within two to three years. Coordination and swift decision-making were crucial. Today, Delhi boasts an ambitious e-bus plan. But it’s crawling along, failing to match the explosive rise in private vehicle ownership. In 2023, the number of private vehicles registered in Delhi doubled compared to the previous year. Despite rising petrol and diesel prices eating into household budgets, the surge in private cars chokes not only the roads but also every investment in infrastructure, technology and cleaner fuel. Meanwhile, countless old vehicles still spew pollutants unchecked. The math is simple: even if new vehicles are cleaner, their sheer numbers negate any benefits. The second culprit: dirty fuels From kitchen stoves to factories and thermal power plants, the fuels we burn — primarily biomass or coal — are the second major source of pollution. The Supreme Court banned the dirtiest fuel, petcoke, while Delhi government prohibited coal usage, later extending the ban across the National Capital Region. Thermal power plants were supposed to clean up or shut down. Yet, progress here has been sluggish. The CNG shift taught us that bans only work when people have alternatives. When diesel buses were scrapped, CNG supplies had to be reliable and affordable. Similarly, fiscal policies ensured that clean fuel remained cheaper than its dirtier counterpart. Now, while coal is banned, the high cost of natural gas is driving industries to the brink of non-competitiveness. This is a recipe for failure. The way forward There’s so much more to say, and I promise to keep speaking up about this. But here’s the crux: clean air requires year-round effort. It demands collective action on a massive scale. Let’s stop waiting for miracles. It’s time to act — and act decisively.

India needs to start thinking of air pollution as a glocal problem

Last week at COP29 in Baku, world leaders pledged to reduce emissions to tackle climate change, yet just miles away in India’s Indo-Gangetic plain, air quality plummeted. This underscores a dual crisis: an environmental emergency and a public health catastrophe, costing India over a million lives and 1.6%-1.8% of its GDP annually. Globally, 9 in 10 people breathe air that fails to meet WHO standards. For India, the critical challenge is advancing development while mitigating the impacts of air pollution. The solution lies in science-based actions, inspired by global successes and tailored to India’s unique needs. You can’t fix what you can’t measure Identifying pollution sources is essential for effective solutions. Research from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) pinpoints key culprits: vehicular emissions, industrial pollution, crop burning, and construction dust. Countries like the UAE and the US use emission inventories to track pollutants; Beijing’s Clean Air Action Plan cut PM2.5 levels by 35% in just five years. India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) aims for a 40% reduction in PM 2.5 and 10 levels by 2026. We need stronger data (pollutants and emissions at source), clear regulations, ambitious targets and accountability to drive real change. Air pollution is a ‘glocal’ problem—global in reach but local in solutions. So, what are the strategies we can adopt? 1. Greening Urban Mobility: India’s transportation sector accounts for 2.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Lessons from Norway, where 54% of new cars are electric, and Copenhagen, with 62% cycling daily, show the way. India’s EV sales surged 42% in FY24, but more must be done — expand the FAME scheme, incentivise EV adoption, and ramp up public transport and cycling infrastructure. 2. Cleaner Industry and Energy: Industrial pollution contributes 30-35% of India’s CO2 emissions, with coal power plants responsible for 60% of this. China’s ‘War on Pollution’ reduced urban emissions by 40% by shifting to renewables and enforcing stricter pollution controls. India must phase out coal, retrofit factories, and empower regulators to enforce standards. 3. Agriculture and Stubble Burning: Stubble burning releases harmful pollutants like CO2, CO, and particulate matter. In India, it contributes to 149 million tons of CO2 annually. In Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia, large agribusinesses have shifted to no-burn methods and residue management techniques like mulching and the use of biochar. This success was driven by a combination of stringent environmental regulations and farmer subsidies. India must incentivise farmers to adopt clean technologies (developed by ICAR and others), expanding crop residue management schemes. 4. Citizen Power: Clean air requires collective action. India’s SAFAR platform offers real-time air quality updates, empowering citizens. South Korea has taken this further with ‘citizen inspectors’ and drones to monitor pollution. India must innovate, creating participatory platforms where citizens become changemakers in the fight for cleaner air. 5. Sustainable Financing: Global funding for air pollution is limited, with less than 1% of international climate finance allocated to it between 2015 and 2021. However, the Indian govt allocated Rs 948 crore to pollution control in the 2023-24 Union Budget, a 64% increase from the previous year. We need to ensure these funds are used effectively, leveraging innovative financing models like green bonds to support public transport, urban greening, and renewable energy projects. The World Bank has committed $1.5B for the Indo-Gangetic plain states and the UP cabinet has just approved setting up of a Clean Air Management Authority which aims to reduce PM 2.5 to < 45 ug/cu.m in five years. 6. Clean Energy for Cooking, Heating: Over 76% of Indian households have access to LPG, but many still rely on traditional cooking methods. The Ujjwala scheme has connected over 8 crore households to cleaner cooking fuels, but we must continue expanding access, learning from programs like Mexico’s solar cooking and Kenya’s clean cookstoves. 7. Forests as Our Saviours: Between 2001 and 2022, India lost 2.1 million hectares of forest, releasing 1.56 gigatons of CO2. But forests can be powerful allies in the fight against pollution. China’s ‘Great Green Wall’ and Costa Rica’s reforestation programs offer valuable lessons. India’s efforts, such as its Green India Mission and CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation), could adopt these strategies, combining community-driven efforts with technology to track forest health and carbon sequestration. Air pollution costs the world 1.2 billion workdays and $8.1 trillion in health damages annually—6.1% of global GDP. It’s time to treat clean air not just as an environmental or health issue but as an economic asset. With countries in the Indo-Gangetic plain working towards an AQI target of 35 by 2035, India can lead the way. The time is now for parliamentarians, policymakers, civil society, academia, and the private sector to unite in this mission. Swaminathan is former chief scientist at WHO and co-chair, ‘Our Common Air’, a global commission working to catalyse clean air action

Cop29 summit: Decision awaited on funding package for poorer nations

Negotiators will soon decide whether to accept a proposed 300 billion dollar package for poorer nations to curb and adapt to climate change — a plan hammered out early on Sunday by the head of fractured United Nations climate talks. The deal to be presented to nations of “at least 300 billion dollars by 2035” is a compromise between the 1.3 trillion a year developing countries seek to adapt to climate change and wean off fossil fuels and the current 100 billion amount. Evans Njewa, the chairman of the Least Developed Countries negotiating bloc of nearly 50 countries, would not comment specifically on the latest figure but said “it’s a good value and we hope we can do better”. The latest figure appears to be something that Fiji can live with, its delegation chief Biman Prasad told The Associated Press. “Everybody is committed to having an agreement,” Mr Prasad said. “They are not necessarily happy about everything, but the bottom line is everybody wants a good agreement.” “While wealthy, polluting countries should have committed to a higher amount, this is a floor not a ceiling. The pressure to increase funding will only grow over time,” said Manish Bapta, president of the Natural Resources Defence Council. “This is not only the right thing to do morally — it is critical for humanity’s survival and prosperity.” But not everyone was happy. “The global North has abandoned the global South,” Avantika Goswami of New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment said. “This was the last remaining window for the North to step up, pay its fair share, and restore some semblance of trust in the multilateral process. They have failed,” Ms Goswami said. Mohamed Adow, of the think tank Power Shift Africa, said the summit “has been a disaster for the developing world”. “It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously,” he said. Panama’s Juan Carlos Monterrey called it “unacceptable” in a post on X, saying “the text is detrimental to our future and the qualified goal is still very low.” Earlier on Saturday, negotiators went from one big room where everyone tried to hash out a deal together into several separate huddles of upset nations.

A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

United Nations climate talks adopted a deal to inject at least $300 billion annually in humanity's fight against climate change, aimed at helping developing nations cope with the ravages of global warming in tense negotiations. But not everyone was happy. ''The Global North has abandoned the Global South," Avantika Goswami of New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment ...

Solutions beyond subsidies

As the air quality index (AQI) in Delhi-NCR spirals into hazardous levels each winter, the agricultural belt of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh continues to see thousands of stubble-burning cases each year, primarily after the kharif paddy harvest. On November 18, 2024, Punjab recorded 1,251 farm fires daily, raising the state’s cumulative to 9,655 cases this season. This marks a slight improvement from previous years, yet far from eliminating the problem. In contrast, Haryana reported a record low of 1,179 cases, attributed to better policy implementation and adoption of alternatives. However, air quality remains largely unaffected. A report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) highlights how multiple sources—vehicular emissions, industrial activities, and domestic cooking—significantly contribute to pollution in Delhi NCR, often outpacing stubble burning. Yet, the visual impact of farm fires, visible from satellite data, places them at the forefront of public and political scrutiny every year. On November 17, it contributed 37.5 per cent of Delhi’s PM2.5 levels, the highest contribution of the season

Shifting capital no solution

elhi is turning into a gas chamber with the air quality index hitting the hazardous 400-500 ‘severe plus’ category. Schools have been shifted to online mode, companies forced to announce work-from-home for their employees, and vehicles face restrictions. Vivek Chattopadhyay, Principal Programme Manager, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) talks to Surya S Pillai of The Statesman about the wider impact of air pollution, lack of political will to curb the menace and how health cost estimation is missing from the conversation surrounding the issue. Q. Pollution is a crisis at many levels, be it the physical health, financial loss, or the overburdened medical infrastructure. How are we, as a nation, failing to deal with this apocalypse?

Cars the main culprit

Come November and the capital city of Delhi turns into a gas chamber with AQI shooting to severe category. Most often the farmers are blamed for burning stubble and winds taking the fumes to Delhi. But that is not the true picture. Delhi vehicles are the main culprit, as has been indicated by many studies. So nothing is done and till it is swept away by the wind, smog hangs over the city. This year is no different. Delhi’s air pollution has escalated to catastrophic levels, with the Air Quality Index (AQI) frequently crossing into hazardous territory hovering in the vicinity of 500. This public health emergency has fueled political blame games between the State and Central Governments, with stubble burning by farmers in neighbouring states often cited as the primary cause. However, research and scientific studies tell a different story: the real culprit behind Delhi’s toxic air is not stubble burning but the city’s overwhelming vehicular emissions. Vehicular traffic is consistently identified as the leading source of pollution in Delhi. A 2019 study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water found that vehicles contributed between one-third and two-thirds of Delhi’s harmful particulate matter. This alarming contribution is tied to the city’s explosive growth in vehicle ownership. Between 1990 and 2018, the number of registered vehicles in the National Capital Region increased fivefold. Delhi alone accounts for over 11.8 million vehicles, 90 per cent of which are cars and two-wheelers. The volume of vehicular traffic has turned the capital into a pollution hotspot, with transport emissions driving air quality deterioration throughout the year. In contrast, stubble burning, often portrayed as the main villain in Delhi’s pollution narrative, plays a far smaller role. A 2017 study revealed that stubble burning contributed less than 3 per cent to Delhi’s annual particulate matter. Even during its peak season from mid-October to early November, the share of pollution from crop residue burning is limited to 8 per cent, according to a 2023 report by the Centre for Science and Environment. Most of Delhi’s pollution originates locally, with vehicular traffic contributing the largest share. This pattern becomes even more evident when air quality fails to improve after the stubble-burning season ends. Despite these findings, public discourse and policy responses disproportionately focus on stubble burning. This misplaced focus has real consequences. While interventions like subsidies for crop residue management have reduced farm fires, the overall air quality in Delhi remains dire because transport emissions and other local sources remain largely unaddressed. Addressing Delhi’s air pollution crisis requires an urgent shift in priorities. Expanding and improving public transportation is crucial to reducing dependence on private vehicles. Cleaner fuels and technologies, such as electric vehicles, must be promoted alongside stringent enforcement of emission standards. Recognising this reality and acting accordingly is imperative. Until then, the capital’s air will remain a health hazard.

COP29 ends in a $1.3 trillion disappointment. But there may still be hope

The 29th edition of the UN climate change conference in Azerbaijan emerged from a deadlock with an annual climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion for developing countries, much to the disappointment of the Global South. On Friday, the closing day of COP29, a revised five-page text on the climate finance package, or the world’s new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance, was issued specifying two separate goals. The first states that “all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035". The second goal mentions that developed countries must take the lead in mobilising $250 billion per year by 2035 for climate action by developing countries from public and private, bilateral and multilateral, and alternative sources. For climate experts, the issue is this: the goals do not specify that the annual $1.3 trillion in climate finance should flow from developed economies to developing countries. “It’s a good thing that $1.3 trillion is acknowledged, but how that will be met right now is totally unclear," said Avantika Goswami, programme manager, climate change, at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “It must specify (that) out of $1.3 trillion, $600 billion must come from the government budget of developed countries. That’s what G77 has asked for." The G77 is a coalition of developing countries, including India, that now has more than 100 members. Also read | India at CoP-29: Push for climate finance and strengthen domestic sources “None of that (G77’s demands) is addressed here, not the scale, not the specific demands around the quality and structure of the goal. This is very far from what developing countries have demanded and it’s completely inadequate," Goswami told Mint. “This is basically sticking us with $250 billion between now and 2035, and we don’t even know if the $250 billion is going to be mobilised in the years before. It’s saying by 2035, so it might be a lesser amount in the coming years until 2035," she added. Developed nations say they mobilised and transferred $115 billion to developing countries in 2021-22, though the developing world claims the target has yet not been met. As per the Paris agreement, however, a new target above $100 billion must be agreed upon by 2025. The NCQG refers to finance that will be provided by developed countries to developing countries to help them meet their goals to transition away from the continued use of fossil fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations have been repeatedly saying that this will cost “trillions of dollars". A report from the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance last week said if countries do not act now, the climate finance target will need to be raised to at least $1.3 trillion a year by 2035. ‘A sham’ India, on behalf of like-minded developing countries, on 14 November said developed countries need to commit to providing and mobilizing at least $1.3 trillion every year in NCQG until 2030. It added that climate finance cannot be changed into an investment goal when it is a unidirectional provision and mobilization goal from developed to developing countries. “The $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 for the developing world includes finance from all public and private sources. Investment in RE (renewable energy) technologies in the developing countries was $544 billion in 2022 itself. This figure should automatically reach beyond $1.5 trillion by 2035, accounting for the growth in the sector and inflation," said Vaibhav Chaturvedi, senior fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW). “The $1.3 trillion number is at best a sham." At COP29, developing nations mooted for $5-6.8 trillion worth of climate finance until 2030. “The Presidency text on the NCQG reflects a clear disconnect between ambition and action," said Suryaprabha Sadasivan, senior vice president at Chase India, a public policy and advocacy advisory firm. Also read | Climate finance: Deploy the Loss and Damage Fund with care “The proposed $250 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries falls significantly short of the estimated $455-584 billion annually needed for mitigation and $215–387 billion for adaptation, as outlined in developing nations' costed needs," Sadasivan said. “Continuing the reliance on loan-based financing, with limited emphasis on grants or low-cost mechanisms critical for countries like India, risks deepening unsustainable debt levels." COP29’s revised text also fails to adequately address loss and damage financing, which is needed to reduce high transaction costs, she added. Though the timeline of COP29 (11-22 November), finance COP, ended on Friday, a decision is yet to be adopted by member countries. “We still have 24 hours; It has not come to an end. It comes to an end when the decision is adopted. So, there is still time for developed countries to give a revised number," said Goswami of CSE. “Otherwise, developing countries should not accept the $250 billion. It’s too low, it’s inconsequential. Options still open On Thursday, after a 10-page NCQG draft text was released, India highlighted that grant-based concessional climate finance is the most critical enabler to formulate and implement new nationally determined contributions (NDCs). “The document needs to be specific on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access, transparency, and review. The goal for mobilisation needs to be $1.3 trillion, with $600 billion of this coming through grants and grants equivalent resources," India said in a statement. All 198 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are expected to submit their third round of NDCs by February, which will apply till 2030. If there is no consensus or clarity on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access and transparency on NCQG, there are then two possibilities, said Manish Shrivastva, senior fellow, earth science and climate change, at New Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Also read | AI is giving us a nuclear renaissance: Can it help solve the climate crisis too? “Either countries will submit a moderated NDC, or they will say that our ambition in NDC is XYZ. But this is absolutely conditional upon developed countries providing adequate additional grant equivalent finance to the scheme of XYZ from this year onwards, or something of that sort." India’s first and second NDCs are conditional, subject to developed countries providing necessary financial resources. Some other countries have submitted two NDC targets—one from national resources and the other a conditional resource based on international support. These options will still be open, said Shrivastava.

Finance and mitigation divide stalls progress at COP29 in Baku

As the climate conference COP29 in Baku draws to a close, developed and developing nations remain divided over climate finance and mitigation. The latest negotiating drafts of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for Climate Finance, the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), Article 6 addressing the carbon market, and other policy frameworks were released on the morning of November 21, the penultimate day of the conference. The plenary discussions that followed were dotted with disagreements. Developing countries criticised the NCQG draft – the framework to set a new target for climate finance – for not clearly defining the amount of climate finance from developed to developing countries. Meanwhile, developed countries expressed frustration over the MWP, aimed at scaling up mitigation ambition and implementation, for not being ambitious enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. “The clock is ticking,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres, urging delegates to rise above their differences. “Failure is not an option,” he said, emphasising that there needs to be “an agreement on an ambitious new climate finance goal in Baku.” Where is the money? The latest 10-page NCQG draft, released on November 21 morning, misses any mention of a concrete climate finance goal. Developed countries have not committed to a figure and the draft excludes the proposal from developing nations, too, which called for $1.3 trillion in annual climate finance, with $600 billion as grants or grant-equivalents. Developed nations push for ambitious mitigation targets Both developed and developing countries have criticised the latest draft of the MWP, with developed countries arguing that it is not ambitious enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal while developing countries call it a diversion from the Paris Agreement that asks for voluntary action, referring to the elements from the Global Stocktake (GST) that have been included in the latest draft of the MWP, released a day before the closing of COP29. During the agenda-setting phase, several nations, particularly developing countries, expressed concerns over selectively using elements from the GST in the MWP, asserting that it was intended to be voluntary and non-prescriptive, allowing countries to set targets based on their local circumstances. The GST, agreed upon in at the COP Dubai in 2023, calls for ramping up global climate efforts, such as tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030, phasing down unabated coal power, reducing methane emissions by 2030, and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, there has been no consensus among parties on these measures. For instance, India and China have distanced themselves from the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Under GST, while countries are not legally required to meet these goals, the stocktake holds them accountable by evaluating their progress and encouraging greater ambition in future climate actions through updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The latest MWP draft, released on November 21, is an improvement on the earlier draft that asked for compulsory measures but still mentions GST, though with several dilutions. This has drawn sharp criticism from developed nations, including Switzerland and the United States that say the proposed measures lack sufficient ambition to keep global warming within the 1.5°C threshold. Developing nations, however, maintain their position of voluntary mitigation while focussing on finance. Iran’s delegates reiterated that the MWP’s mandate is clear—it should remain non-punitive and non-prescriptive. India’s Environment Secretary, Leena Nandan, also emphasised this point, calling for the removal of GST references from the MWP draft. “We cannot accept any attempts to deflect the focus again from finance to repeated emphasis on mitigation,” Nandan said. “When the time has come to ensure that mitigation actions are supported with adequate finance in line with CBDR-RC (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities) and equity, the narrative is being diverted. This COP started with a focus on enablement through NCQG. But as we move towards the end, we see a shifting of the focus to mitigation.”Frustrations were rife at the plenary. South Africa emphasised that achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target is impossible without adequate funding. Panama’s delegate said, “After three years of discussion, we still have no money at the table from developed countries.” The NCQG is being discussed since 2021. The other concerns with the draft are the two pathways presented by ministers for consideration and approval. The first option suggests expanding the contributor base to include willing developing countries, though their voluntary contributions won’t be accounted for in the NCQG. The draft also proposes developed nations share the cost burden based on historical emissions and GDP per capita, with a part of this finance delivered as grants. Experts note that this option aligns more closely with developing countries’ demands. The second option proposes scaling up global climate finance from all sources, including domestic resources and proposes innovative financial mechanisms such as debt-for-climate swaps, green bonds, and hybrid capital. However, critics, such as Avantika Goswami, programme manager of climate change at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), argue that this approach reframes the NCQG as an investment goal rather than a commitment to climate justice. India’s Environment Secretary, Leena Nandan, strongly opposed the NQCG draft in her plenary intervention, where she stated, “Expanding the contributor base, introducing conditionalities like macroeconomic and fiscal measures, carbon pricing, and reliance on private sector investments contradict the mandate for the NCQG. Climate finance is not an investment goal.”

Breathing in Delhi: How pollution is changing the way we live

The price we pay for the air we breathe According to a WHO report, Delhi has always been ranked among the most polluted cities globally, with PM2.5 levels way more than safe limits. Long-term exposure to such high pollution levels can cause respiratory illness or heart disease or worsen asthma. People residing in this city, especially children and the elderly, face an increased risk of lung cancer, stroke, and cardiovascular diseases. During recent years, every hospital has observed a major increase in the number of patients suffering from breathing problems, with many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - a lung condition that makes it hard to breathe. It happens when the lungs or airways get damaged, causing inflammation and blocking airflow. This can make it difficult to get enough air in and out of the lungs, leading to shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing. Air purifiers, which used to be considered an expensive luxury, now adorn the homes of most people, and face masks have again become a part and parcel of one's daily accessories if one has to go out in the open. However, for the city’s economically disadvantaged residents, such measures remain out of reach, leaving them more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pollution. This has become an annual thing for the residents of the nation’s capital, it is now a constant fight for health and well-being. It is a change of life, staying in Delhi has become a very different experience. Driving to work through this city was the pleasure of the commuters but now it is a nightmare without proper visibility and safety during smog-heavy days. Air quality Index frequently reaches hazardous levels during such periods prompting the government to take measures Similarly, remote work models are advancing with people avoiding the hazardous commute. Most businesses have adjusted by encouraging work from home to safeguard employee health. Fitness and outdoor activities are also at a loss as parks and outdoor spaces often become uninviting during peak pollution seasons. How pollution is changing our social life Beyond individual health and daily routines, social life in the city feels the strain of pollution, too. A major portion of its cultural events lies outdoors, now tackled with logistical problems due to the health risks of smog. Festivals, marathons, and public gatherings are either postponed or shifted indoors, and social life becomes more confined to indoor spaces with air filtration systems, limiting spontaneous outdoor interactions. Winter is a magical time, especially for children in their growing years, when outdoor play is both enjoyable and essential for their growth. Activities like badminton, a winter favorite among kids, offer a lot of fun and development. But it is very unfortunate that many children miss out on these joys due to the poor air quality that comes every year around this time. Air quality and economy The economic cost is not something that can be ignored. In 2019, the CCeennttrree for Science and Environment estimated that air pollution costs India about 5% of its GDP every year, an important portion of which is attributed to the capital. All the increased costs for healthcare and damages to productivity and public services are part of the mounting burden.

$250 Billion Per Year By 2035? COP29 Draft Deal Leaves Developing Countries Shocked, Disappointed

After two weeks of intense negotiations, the COP29 presidency revealed the climate finance figures in its latest draft deal, leaving the developing countries shocked and disappointed. The new five-page text released on the last day of the UN summit called on developed countries to lead with a contribution of just $250 billion annually by 2035 in climate finance to developing countries, as part of the broader goal of $1 trillion per year by 2035 for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) which will come from all public and private sources. This falls way short of what the developing countries had asked for. “The proposed $250 billion is simply the previous $100 billion goal adjusted for 6 per cent inflation by 2035. It is not ‘new, additional and transformational’, and a far cry from what the G77 has demanded. Deeply disappointing," said Avantika Goswami, programme manager, Centre for Science & Environment (CSE). The biggest developing nations bloc of 130 nations—G77+ China—had demanded at least $600 billion in public grants for the $1.3 trillion goal annually from the developed countries to replace the previous grossly insufficient target of $100 billion per year set in 2009. Climate policy experts also voiced concerns over the weak language of the text, which “calls on all actors to work together" to scale up finance to $1.3 trillion rather than holding developed countries accountable. “Not only does this keep the core finance obligation subservient to the notional multi-layered goal but weakens it by replacing the role of governments with ‘actors’ and further diluting the sources of core finance by including private funds. The level itself is disappointing and is lower than even what G20 had estimated," said RR Rashmi, distinguished fellow, TERI, criticising the proposed goal as “highly compromised". Furthermore, the $250 billion from developed countries can come from multiple sources—public, private, bilateral, and multilateral, including alternative ones. “This paltry sum includes loans and lacks the crucial commitment to grant-based finance, which is essential for developing nations to both address climate impacts and transition away from fossil fuels," said Harjeet Singh from the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. ‘A bad deal’: Global South “The $1.3 trillion number is at best a sham. This is a bad deal for the developing world," said Dr Vaibhav Chaturvedi, senior fellow, CEEW, highlighting that the investment in renewable energy technologies in developing countries was $544 billion in 2022 itself. “This figure should automatically reach beyond $1.5 trillion by 2035, accounting for the growth in the sector and inflation." Experts from the Global South also underscored that the text merely “acknowledges" the significant gaps in responding to loss and damage but fails to make any provision for it. The amount of climate finance is inadequate to meet the increasing costs of climate adaptation, mitigation, as well as loss and damage in the world’s most vulnerable countries. The draft deal also caters to the demand of the developed countries and invites “voluntary contributions" from developing countries through South-South cooperation or supplementing the goal set. Sehr Raheja, programme officer, CSE, pointed out that the text also offers no thematic sub-goals of mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage as part of the structure of the goal. “This is a heavily watered-down text, far from what is needed to call this COP a success," she added. The negotiations extended well into the night on Friday, the last day of the conference, as countries struggled to reach a consensus on the new climate finance target to replace the $100 billion annual goal set in 2009.

Rich nations in the global north owe 'climate debt' to poorer nations

More than a century of burning coal, oil and gas has fueled intense heatwaves, prolonged droughts, heavier rains and devastating floods. To prevent even more severe impacts, the U.N. global climate summit, Cop29, must deliver tangible results to keep global temperature rises below 36 degrees Fahrenheit, the limit defined in the 2015 Paris agreement. Achieving this goal means human societies can only emit a finite amount of additional carbon dioxide, known as the world’s “carbon budget.” Developed nations have exceeded their carbon budgets while developing countries remain within theirs. Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for centuries, turning past unchecked fossil fuel use into a costly planetary bill. Between 1870 and 2019, the U.S., E.U., Russia, U.K., Japan, Canada and Australia — home to just 15% of the global population — accounted for more than 60% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment. This underscores the climate debt that rich nations in the global north owe to poorer nations. This reality — rather than oil and gas lobbying — should focus minds at Cop29 in Azerbaijan, where leaders must forge a new global climate finance plan by next week. Economists estimate that developing nations need $1 trillion annually by 2030, a figure that reflects the scale of the climate crisis. Yet there is little sign the rich world will contribute its fair share. A stronger, more unified approach is needed. Many of Africa’s environmental NGOs argue that the continent has been sidelined in global industrial shifts, particularly in green industrialization, due to its lack of a robust manufacturing base and its role as a raw materials supplier. While advanced economies dominate green innovation, Africa faces significant hurdles, including limited technology transfer, expensive financing and weak governance.

Not a fluke!

What does the second coming of Donald Trump mean for climate change action? Here is a man, who will take over as the president of the US, the world’s single largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and the second highest annual contributor. He is an avowed climate sceptic—an out and out advocate for fossil fuels and in a time of climate crisis. He has said he will, once sworn into office, ensure that energy prices are slashed; he will rescind green energy plans; and wants industry to go back to the time of “drill baby drill”—essentially opening more federal lands to exploration for oil and natural gas and slashing regulatory controls on his country’s fossil fuel industry. But when I say this, we must note that even under the incumbent president Joe Biden, the US has been the fossil fuel emperor—producing more oil than any country has done before. It is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas—outproducing even Russia by over 40 per cent. So, when Trump says he will go back to fossils, we must understand just how bad this will be!

King Charles official foreign tour of Indian subcontinent 'encouraging' sign after cancer treatment

A trip to the Indian subcontinent could be on the cards for the King, providing a much-needed lift after his battle with cancer. The tour might also mark a return to his postponed visits to India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan following the Queen's passing in September 2022. Downing Street is reportedly drafting plans for Charles and Camilla to spearhead a charm offensive as the UK seeks stronger economic ties post-Brexit. A source revealed: "It's hugely encouraging to be able to make such plans for the King and Queen given the year the monarch has had, but it's very much full steam ahead. A tour of the Indian subcontinent is in the offing, which will be of huge political and cultural significance for Britain on the world stage. The King and Queen are the perfect ambassadors at such a time." Foreign Office officials have been greenlit to discuss potential Royal visits, with tours of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh now being considered. Indian PM Narendra Modi, after the cancellation of the prior visit, is keen to welcome the King and Queen Camilla. However, the burgeoning friendship between Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin raises concerns, following their meeting at the BRICS summit and recent commendations of Russia's "strategic partnership" with India by Putin. Mr Modi has maintained that the conflict in Ukraine should be "ended peacefully". During his tenure as Prince of Wales, Charles, accompanied by Camilla, visited Pakistan in 2006 for a week-long trip, reports the Mirror. He expressed to well-wishers: "It has taken me very nearly 58 years to reach you and it's not from want of trying, I can tell you." The Royal couple returned to Pakistan in 2019 to strengthen bilateral relations. In November of the same year, Charles embarked on his 10th official visit to India, with a focus on climate change, sustainability, and social finance. His itinerary included a stop at the Meteorological Department in New Delhi, a ride in an electric rickshaw, and a meeting with environmentalist Sunita Narain. Last month, the King and Queen Consort enjoyed a spa break in India following their tour of Australia and Samoa.

‘Sick’ King Charles prepares for ‘pivotal’ tour to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh amid cancer battle

King Charles III is reportedly considering a diplomatic and cultural tour of the Indian subcontinent, a move that sources suggest could significantly aid his health as he continues recovering from cancer. This prospective trip, expected to encompass visits to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, comes after earlier plans were postponed following Queen Elizabeth II’s passing in September 2022. Royal insiders reveal that the tour could mark a pivotal moment for the monarch, who has faced a challenging year. In addition to its health-related benefits, the visit is expected to bolster Britain’s global standing and foster key commercial ties in a post-Brexit world. Reviving Royal Diplomacy According to palace sources, preparations for the visit are already gaining momentum. British officials have initiated discussions with leaders in the region, with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly expressing enthusiasm about hosting King Charles and Queen Camilla. Modi’s invitation comes on the heels of a canceled visit last year, adding renewed significance to the potential tour. However, concerns have arisen over India’s evolving geopolitical alignment, particularly Modi’s increasingly close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders recently convened at the BRICS summit, prompting questions about the political implications of King Charles’ visit. Despite these concerns, the trip is expected to symbolize a renewed commitment to diplomacy and cultural exchange. A History of Connection King Charles has long maintained a deep connection to the Indian subcontinent. As Prince of Wales, he visited Pakistan in 2006, expressing heartfelt admiration for the region. His trips often centered on issues like climate change and sustainability. During a 2019 visit to India, Charles toured the Meteorological Department in New Delhi, rode an electric rickshaw, and discussed environmental concerns with activist Sunita Narain. For Queen Camilla, the subcontinent holds similar significance. In her travels with Charles, she has often taken on the role of cultural ambassador, strengthening ties between the British monarchy and the region. A renewed visit would mark a continuation of this legacy, reinforcing relations amid shifting global dynamics. Global Implications The potential tour comes at a time when Britain is seeking to reestablish its global influence. Post-Brexit trade ambitions have heightened the importance of forging alliances in South Asia, a region of growing economic and strategic importance. The royal couple’s visit is expected to enhance bilateral relations, particularly in areas such as sustainability, trade, and cultural exchange. Last month, King Charles and Queen Camilla concluded a relaxing countryside spa retreat following their tour of Australia and Samoa. Sources indicate the King is eager to resume his international duties publicly, with a trip to Italy also reportedly in the works. The Italy visit, planned for spring 2025, coincides with the Catholic Church’s sacred Jubilee year, raising speculation about a potential meeting between the monarch and the Pope. Public Reactions The news of the King’s prospective visit has sparked diverse reactions online. Twitter user @GlobalMonarchist tweeted, “King Charles’ India trip could redefine UK-South Asia relations!” Meanwhile, @RoyalWatchBuzz wrote, “A health-focused royal tour? Seems like a win-win for diplomacy and recovery.”

King Charles plans trip to India in 'hugely encouraging' boost to monarch's cancer recovery

A trip to the Indian subcontinent would mark a significant boost in the King’s health as he continues his recovery from cancer. It may also signal a resumption of his plans to visit India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which had to be abandoned after the Queen’s death in September 2022. Number 10 is keen on drafting in Charles and Camilla to launch a charm offensive as Britain seeks to establish significant economic links in a post-Brexit world. A source said: “It’s hugely encouraging to be able to make such plans for the King and Queen given the year the monarch has had, but it’s very much full steam ahead. A tour of the Indian subcontinent is in the offing, which will be of huge political and cultural significance for Britain on the world stage. The King and Queen are the perfect ambassadors at such a time.” Foreign Office officials have been given the green light to open discussions with potential host nations for royal visits, and proposals for tours of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are being drafted. Indian PM Narendra Modi is understood to have expressed his desire to host the King and Queen Camilla after they had to cancel their trip last time. However, there are concerns about a visit to the country due to Mr Modi’s growing closeness with Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin. The pair met at the BRICS summit of world leaders last month and on Tuesday, Putin hailed Russia ’s “strategic partnership” with India. However, Mr Modi has insisted Moscow’s illegal war in Ukraine should be “ended peacefully”. As Prince of Wales, Charles visited Pakistan with Camilla in 2006 for a week. He told wellwishers: “It has taken me very nearly 58 years to reach you and it’s not from want of trying, I can tell you.” The couple also visited in 2019 to further improve the ties between the two countries. In November that year, Charles took his 10th official trip to India, focusing on climate change, sustainability and social finance. He visited the Meteorological Department in New Delhi, rode in an electric rickshaw and met environmentalist Sunita Narain. And last month, the King and Queen stopped off in the country for a spa break after their tour of Australia and Samoa. Sources said Charles would “relish” the opportunity to return officially as monarch.