Environmental experts say simply counting farm fires will not be enough. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy at the Centre for Science and Environment, said the trajectory this season will depend on enforcement as well as how effectively crop residue is managed on the ground.
Delhi’s air pollution problem is often treated as a winter emergency, but the evidence cited in a recent report points to a more persistent urban governance challenge: most of the pollution is generated within the city and the wider region throughout the year. According to a Centre for Science and Environment analysis of data from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology’s Decision Support System, local sources account for 80 to 85 per cent of Delhi’s pollution. Vehicles are the largest local contributor, with a 46 per cent share, followed by industry at 22 per cent. That distribution changes the way Delhi’s air-quality crisis must be understood. External sources, including pollution transported from neighbouring regions, remain part of the problem, particularly during specific weather conditions. But the figures cited in the report indicate that the city cannot rely on seasonal restrictions or external explanations to deliver sustained improvement. The larger challenge is whether Delhi’s institutions can enforce controls on everyday urban activity: traffic, industrial operations, construction, road dust, household fuel use and waste burning. The seasonal framing has shaped both public attention and administrative response. Measures such as restrictions on truck entry, intensified inspections and emergency pollution-control actions are generally associated with the period when air quality deteriorates sharply in winter. The report argues that this approach leaves a gap during the rest of the year, allowing emissions to accumulate or remain poorly controlled until adverse weather makes the problem visible. The issue is not that winter measures are unnecessary. Delhi’s pollution becomes more hazardous when lower temperatures, weaker winds and atmospheric conditions trap pollutants close to the ground. The problem is that emergency action cannot substitute for routine enforcement. If the same sources operate throughout the year, an administrative system that becomes active only when the Air Quality Index deteriorates is responding to the symptoms of an established emissions problem rather than controlling its causes. The source profile makes the institutional challenge clear. Vehicles account for 46 per cent of local emissions in the analysis cited by the report. This places mobility policy at the centre of air-quality management. Vehicle emissions are connected not only to the number of vehicles on Delhi’s roads, but also to congestion, fuel quality and compliance with pollution-control requirements. The report notes that the Commission for Air Quality Management has directed that vehicles without a valid Pollution Under Control Certificate should not receive fuel from May 2026. It also says that electric three-wheelers have been mandated for new registrations in Delhi and the National Capital Region. These measures address compliance and fleet transition, but their effect depends on implementation. A rule requiring a valid certificate is meaningful only when testing is reliable, enforcement is consistent and violations carry consequences. Similarly, a shift towards electric three-wheelers can reduce emissions from a specific vehicle segment, but the report does not establish how quickly this will alter the overall vehicle contribution. What it does establish is that transport cannot be treated as a secondary issue in Delhi’s pollution-control framework. Industry is the second-largest local source in the cited assessment, with a 22 per cent share. The report refers to separate directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in 2026 for particulate emissions from industries. Delhi Pollution Control Committee monitoring also covers industrial sources, along with construction, generators, vehicles and open waste burning. This creates a broad regulatory responsibility, but it also raises the question of coordination between agencies and the consistency of field-level action. The distinction between having rules and enforcing them is central to the city’s pollution problem. The report lists directions for controlling dust at construction and demolition sites, managing debris and operating mechanical road-cleaning machines. It also describes real-time pollution-source identification and forecasting arrangements under the Delhi Pollution Control Committee. These mechanisms indicate that the administrative system has formal tools for monitoring several major sources. The continuing pollution burden suggests that the existence of tools has not removed the implementation gap. Construction and road dust together account for smaller shares in the figures cited: construction at 6 per cent and road dust at 3 per cent. Their percentages should not be read as evidence that these sources are unimportant. Construction activity is highly visible across Delhi, and dust from broken roads, uncovered material, demolition and poorly managed sites affects local neighbourhoods even when its citywide share is lower than that of vehicles or industry. The report specifically points to dust rising from a damaged road near Zakhira on Rohtak Road, illustrating how routine infrastructure conditions can become part of the pollution problem. The governance implication is that pollution control cannot be limited to large, easily identifiable episodes. It must extend to the everyday management of streets and construction sites. Dust control depends on site inspections, covering materials, managing debris, maintaining roads and ensuring that contractors comply with prescribed procedures. Road-cleaning standards are useful only if equipment is deployed where it is required and if the outcome is monitored. These are municipal and regulatory functions that operate at street level, often far from the seasonal public debate over Delhi’s air. The report also attributes 11 per cent of local pollution to domestic sources and 4 per cent to waste burning. These categories show that the problem is distributed across formal and informal urban systems. Household fuel use, waste collection failures and open burning cannot be addressed only through air-quality alerts. They require coordination between local administration, sanitation services, enforcement teams and communities. The supplied material does not provide a detailed assessment of the performance of these systems, but it identifies them as continuing components of the local emissions profile. A further complication is the variation between pollution-source studies. To address this, the Commission for Air Quality Management has prepared a high-resolution emissions inventory and source-apportionment framework based on 500-by-500-metre grids, according to the report. The stated objective is to reduce differences between studies and create a more consistent scientific basis for identifying sources. This is important for governance because pollution-control resources cannot be targeted effectively if agencies are working from incompatible estimates of what is driving emissions in particular areas. A grid-level framework could also make the city’s response more geographically precise. Citywide percentages identify broad priorities, but they do not show whether a neighbourhood’s exposure is driven mainly by traffic, construction, industry, waste burning or a combination of sources. The report does not provide the grid-level findings, so it is not possible from the supplied evidence to assess how the new framework changes enforcement priorities. Its significance lies in the attempt to connect scientific measurement with administrative action. The timing of Delhi’s air-quality deterioration reinforces the argument for a year-round system. The report states that the city’s AQI was below 100 in August but crossed 170 by September, before a major fall in temperature. These figures are presented as an indication that pollution is not confined to the coldest months. They also challenge the assumption that winter weather alone creates Delhi’s air-quality crisis. Weather can intensify pollution, but emissions are present before the winter peak arrives. That distinction matters for planning. If action begins only after air quality has already deteriorated, agencies are likely to rely on short-term restrictions rather than sustained source control. By September, traffic congestion, construction activity and industrial emissions are already part of the city’s daily operating pattern. A year-round plan would therefore need to treat air quality as a continuous municipal and regional management responsibility, rather than as a temporary emergency that begins with the onset of winter. The policy landscape described in the report is already extensive. The Commission for Air Quality Management issues directions covering industries, vehicles, construction and demolition, road dust and fuel access. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee monitors multiple source categories and has systems for real-time source identification and forecasting. The challenge identified by the report is not an absence of policy instruments but their seasonal application and uneven enforcement. This places responsibility across several layers of government. Air-quality regulators set standards and issue directions. The pollution-control committee monitors regulated sources. Municipal bodies are connected to roads, construction oversight, waste management and dust control. Transport authorities and enforcement agencies influence vehicle compliance and traffic conditions. Regional coordination is required for issues such as truck movement and crop-residue burning. The source material does not evaluate the performance of each institution separately, but it shows why no single agency can resolve the problem alone. The regional dimension remains relevant even when local sources dominate. The report says neighbouring states must coordinate on timely disposal of crop residue to prevent open burning. However, its central finding is that local emissions account for 80 to 85 per cent of Delhi’s pollution. The policy consequence is a dual responsibility: regional cooperation is necessary for transported pollution and residue burning, while Delhi must continuously control the sources generated within its own urban boundary. For residents, the distinction between local and external pollution does not change the immediate experience of poor air. It does, however, change the accountability question. When a large share of emissions originates from vehicles, industry, construction, domestic activity, waste burning and road conditions, improvement depends on the daily performance of public systems. The air-quality crisis is therefore also a test of transport management, construction regulation, waste services, industrial compliance and municipal maintenance. The evidence supplied in the report confirms three broad points. First, Delhi’s pollution is substantially local according to the cited source-apportionment analysis. Second, vehicles are the largest identified local contributor, followed by industry. Third, the regulatory architecture covers many of the relevant sources but is criticised in the report for focusing mainly on winter conditions. What remains less clear from the supplied material is how consistently the existing directions are enforced throughout the year and how the new 500-by-500-metre emissions framework will alter operational decisions. Those are the developments that deserve monitoring. The effectiveness of the PUC certificate fuel rule, enforcement of construction and industrial controls, the adoption of electric three-wheelers, the use of mechanical road-cleaning standards and the functioning of the new emissions inventory will determine whether Delhi’s response moves beyond seasonal crisis management. Until those systems operate continuously, the city’s air pollution will remain not only an environmental emergency but also a test of urban governance.
The Antarctic ozone hole in 2025 is the smallest in decades, according to a report by the World Meteorological Organisation published in Geneva this month, suggesting a reduction in harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays reaching Earth. The organisation attributed the development to a “testimony to the continuing success of international action to protect the Earth’s ozone layer which shields us against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays”. The Antarctic ozone hole in 2025 is the smallest in decades, according to a report by the World Meteorological Organisation published in Geneva this month, suggesting a reduction in harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays reaching Earth. The organisation attributed the development to a “testimony to the continuing success of international action to protect the Earth’s ozone layer which shields us against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays”. ADVERTISEMENT An air pollution expert said that while the reduction of stratospheric ozone levels was a crucial global development, the problem in India was different as the impact of ground-level ozone pollution had steadily increased in the country. “The WMO report is important and underlines the importance of countries working together on reducing ozone-depleting substances that can be a model for combating other critical climate issues, but India’s problem is the increase of ground-level ozone that gets generated locally through vehicular exhaust, industrial emission and others means,” said Anumita Roy Choudhury, an air pollution expert from the think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
Climate Action Network International today warned that the COP31 “35-by-35” electrification target will fail to deliver climate progress unless it is powered by sustainable renewable energy – not nuclear power, oil, gas or coal – and implemented as a just, equitable and people-centred transition. The warning follows the publication today of the International Energy Agency’s new special report, Electrification. Developed at the request of Türkiye and Australia through the strategic partnership between the COP31 Presidency and the agency, the report envisages a scenario in which nuclear power could make a “strong comeback” in its pathway aligned with net zero emissions by 2050. Under that pathway, annual nuclear capacity additions could rise from around 3 GW today to more than 40 GW by 2035. 35 by 35: What kind of power – and for whom? During New York Climate Week, Türkiye launched the 35-by-35 pledge as part of the COP31 Action Agenda. CAN International said that reaching the numbers on paper would not constitute climate progress: governments have to consider how electricity is generated, what it is used for, who gains access to it, and who owns and controls the systems that deliver it. The pledge says that the goal should be supported by “diverse and sustainable energy sources”, without defining those sources. The IEA’s High Electrification Scenario likewise does not determine how the additional electricity demand would be met but presents several scenarios. Alongside the expansion of nuclear power envisaged in its net zero pathway, the report also presents a scenario where gas-fired generation could increase by around 2,000 TWh by 2035 under the supply mix based on stated policies. Janet Milongo, Energy Transition Lead at CAN International, said: “The 35-by-35 target will only represent climate progress if it is powered by sustainable renewable energy – and that’s not nuclear or fossil fuels. Success cannot be measured simply by how much of the world’s final energy consumption becomes electric. We must ask what generates that electricity, who has access to it, who owns the infrastructure, and whether it is helping communities transition away from fossil fuels. Developing countries must have the resources and capacity to own, govern and shape their electricity systems in the public interest.” The global electrification agenda must also strengthen energy sovereignty. International cooperation and investment should build domestic capabilities and resilient, public-interest energy systems – not create new dependencies in which grids, technologies and energy resources are controlled by foreign governments or multinational corporations. The report acknowledges that electrification alone is not enough to meet climate goals and that how additional electricity demand is met has major implications for emissions. CAN International called for rising demand to be met through the rapid, just and equitable expansion of sustainable renewable energy, supported by energy efficiency and sufficiency, storage and fit-for-purpose grids. Public resources and political attention should be directed towards these rapidly deployable solutions, rather than costly, risky and slow-to-deploy nuclear projects or continued dependence on gas, oil and coal which run counter to climate science. ENDS/ Additional civil society quotes: Jacqueline Kimeu, Senior Climate Change and Energy Advisor, Christian Aid: “Investing scarce public resources in nuclear power is the wrong choice for a just energy transition, especially in developing countries, where electrification is not simply about replacing one technology with another. It means powering homes and hospitals, creating industries and jobs, and building resilient economies; needs that decentralised renewable energy can meet. Every dollar spent on nuclear power reduces investment in renewable solutions that can reach underserved communities quickly, create local jobs and provide clean energy without transferring hidden costs and risks to future generations. Achieving 35 by 35 therefore requires recognising countries’ different starting points and giving developing countries the finance, technology and policy space to shape their own renewable energy futures.” Rajneesh Bhuee, Just Transition Co-lead, Recourse: “Electrification can be a powerful driver of the energy transition, but 35 by 35 only has climate credibility if it is powered by sustainable renewables. Paris alignment means avoiding new fossil fuel lock-in and directing public finance towards the grids, storage, efficiency and sustainable renewable energy systems needed to electrify at scale. Nuclear can not be treated as interchangeable with sustainable renewable solutions: doing so risks diverting scarce finance and attention from the rapid deployment of sustainable renewables. For the Global South, electrification must expand affordable, reliable access without creating new dependencies.” Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE India: “Electrification is a low-hanging fruit to support economy-wide decarbonisation as countries work towards achieving their climate goals. The effort must be to ensure that it is backed by grid-scale renewable energy coupled with storage, so that we achieve twin goals: electrifying infrastructure and drawing down fossil fuel use. For this to work, customized sectoral needs and gaps for developing countries must be identified, and developed countries must commit the corresponding financial and technological support for this global target to work.” Stela Herschmann, Lead of International Policy, Observatório do Clima (Brasil): “Electrification is key to tackling the root cause of the climate and energy crisis – but only if those electrons come from renewables, not fossil fuels. It’s a means, not an end. Any target needs to be anchored in real guardrails: it must close the energy access gap, be backed by public finance, and respect community rights, not repeat the harms of extraction.”
What: TERI-IHC Lecture Series | Beyond Tailpipe: Electric Mobility at the Intersection of Air Quality and Energy Security (Discussants: KG Suresh, Vibha Dhawan, Anumita Roychowdhury, Anirudh Arun, Naveen Gupta, Sanjay Seth (moderator) Where: Gulmohar, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road When: September 21 Timing: 6.30pm Entry: Free Nearest Metro Station: JLN Stadium (Violet Line)
Kolkata’s ground-level ozone readings improved sharply during the summer of 2026, but the city’s air-quality picture remains more complicated than a zero-violation count suggests. Data cited from a Centre for Science and Environment analysis show that ozone exceeded the national eight-hour standard on 46 days in 2021, fell to 22 days in 2025 and was not recorded above the standard on any day during the 2026 summer. Yet ozone remained elevated in several green areas, crossed the standard during parts of the winter and was substantially more persistent in neighbouring Howrah. That contrast matters because ozone is not a single environmental problem with a single location or source. The protective ozone layer high in the atmosphere and ground-level ozone near the surface are chemically identical, but their effects and policy implications are different. The upper layer shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant that forms when nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and other pollutants react in sunlight. The distinction is particularly important for cities because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly in the same way as exhaust smoke or industrial fumes. It is produced through atmospheric chemistry. Vehicles and industrial activity can supply precursor pollutants, but the final concentration depends on sunlight, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, wind and the movement of polluted air across municipal boundaries. A reading at one monitoring station therefore reflects both local emissions and wider atmospheric conditions. The CSE figures indicate a clear summer improvement in Kolkata. The number of days on which the eight-hour national ozone standard of 100 micrograms per cubic metre was exceeded declined from 46 in 2021 to 22 in 2025. During the summer of 2026, no such exceedance was reported in the city. That is a meaningful change in the monitoring record, but it does not establish that the underlying sources of ozone precursors have been eliminated or that the improvement will persist across seasons. The seasonal pattern in the same report points to that limitation. Between November 2025 and January 2026, ozone exceeded the prescribed standard on 12 days. This suggests that a summer reading cannot by itself describe Kolkata’s annual exposure pattern. Ozone formation is shaped by a combination of emissions and atmospheric conditions, and the relationship between these variables can change across seasons. The location of the exceedances also complicates the assumption that parks and tree-covered areas automatically provide protection from every form of air pollution. Between March and May 2025, Rabindra Sarovar recorded ozone above the standard on 17 days. Jadavpur recorded five such days, Rabindra Bharati University three and Victoria Memorial two. By contrast, no comparable exceedances were recorded at Ballygunge, Bidhannagar and Fort William during the period covered by the report. These differences do not mean that green spaces cause ozone pollution. They show instead that ozone behaviour cannot be understood only through a simple distinction between polluted roads and clean parks. Ozone and its precursor pollutants can move through the urban atmosphere, and concentrations can be affected by local geography, sunlight, air circulation and the chemical reaction of pollutants over time. The supplied report does not establish why individual monitoring locations recorded different results, but the variation makes location-specific interpretation essential. The comparison with Howrah is even more significant for understanding the wider metropolitan system. During the summer of 2025, ozone exceeded the standard on 58 of 92 monitored days in Howrah, compared with 22 days in Kolkata. Dasnagar alone recorded 57 days of exceedance. CSE also noted that the expansion of monitoring stations in Howrah may have influenced the observed trend. This qualification is important: an apparent increase can partly reflect better coverage rather than only a deterioration in air quality. At the same time, the figures demonstrate why air pollution cannot be managed solely within Kolkata’s administrative boundary. Kolkata and Howrah form a connected urban region in which traffic, industrial activity, residential settlements and atmospheric movement do not stop at a municipal line. If precursor pollutants travel across that boundary, separate local responses may not fully explain or control the resulting ozone concentrations. The health concern arises from the pollutant’s effect close to the ground. According to the report, experts have warned that ground-level ozone can affect the respiratory tract and lungs, with higher risks for children, older people and those who already have respiratory illnesses. The available material does not provide hospitalisation figures or a Kolkata-specific health assessment, so the data cannot be used to quantify the city’s health burden. It does, however, establish why exceedance days matter beyond an air-quality dashboard. The policy challenge is therefore different from controlling a pollutant that can be traced directly to one visible source. Reducing ground-level ozone requires attention to nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and other precursor pollutants, alongside monitoring of the weather and atmospheric conditions that help produce ozone. The supplied report does not identify a new government programme, enforcement action or emissions-reduction measure linked to the 2026 improvement. It also does not establish whether the reduction resulted mainly from lower emissions, favourable weather, rainfall, cloud cover, temperature changes or a combination of factors. That uncertainty does not cancel the improvement, but it defines how it should be interpreted. A fall from 46 exceedance days in 2021 to none during the 2026 summer is a positive signal in Kolkata’s monitoring record. It is not yet evidence of a permanent reversal. To determine whether the trend represents structural improvement, authorities and researchers would need to examine longer time periods, seasonal variation, precursor emissions and the consistency of readings across monitoring locations. The report itself calls for closer study of weather, rainfall, cloud cover, temperature and atmospheric chemistry. The monitoring network is central to that interpretation. Howrah’s experience shows how the number and location of stations can affect the picture available to the public. More stations can reveal pollution that earlier monitoring missed, but comparisons across years must account for changes in coverage. Without that context, a city may appear to have become more polluted simply because it has started measuring more intensively, or appear cleaner because problematic locations are not adequately represented. Kolkata’s ozone paradox is therefore not that one part of the atmosphere is recovering while another is worsening. It is that two different ozone questions are being discussed at once, while the urban air-quality system is producing a mixed and geographically uneven record. The protective upper-atmosphere layer is a global environmental issue; ground-level ozone is a metropolitan governance and public-health issue shaped by emissions, weather, monitoring and regional movement of pollutants. The evidence currently confirms three points: Kolkata recorded no ozone-standard exceedance during the 2026 summer; exceedances had already declined substantially from 2021 to 2025; and ozone remained a concern during the winter period, in selected green areas and across the Hooghly in parts of Howrah. What remains uncertain is whether the summer improvement reflects a durable change in emissions or a favourable combination of atmospheric conditions. That distinction will become clearer only through continued, seasonally consistent monitoring and analysis of the wider Kolkata–Howrah airshed.
On 26 August, an avalanche of ice, rock, water and debris, triggered by a glacial break-off, gushed downstream at a speed of almost 50 metres per second, tearing through Nepal’s Rasuwa and Nuwakot districts and impacting communities almost 100 km away. It claimed almost 1,400 lives, with more than 5,000 still missing, as authorities continue search operations. The disaster was not simply the result of a single extreme weather event. A synthesis by World Weather Attribution scientists and international glaciologists found that a combination of geological and climatic factors contributed to the catastrophic rock and ice collapse, with decades of human-caused warming likely preconditioning the mountain for failure. Nepal’s Prime Minister Balendra Shah is due to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 24, where Nepal plans to highlight the losses it has suffered from climate-related disasters and its disproportionate vulnerability, despite contributing little to global greenhouse gas emissions. Nepal says it will seek immediate and appropriate compensation through mechanisms including the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), as well as accessible and concessional climate finance and technology from developed countries for climate-resilient infrastructure, climate-smart agriculture and capacity building. More than 100 countries have already sought funding totalling nearly $3 billion from FRLD. The Fund, established in 2022 at COP27 to provide financial support to vulnerable countries to cope with climate change, has received pledges of around $800 million. Only a fraction of that money is currently available for programmes. The disaster is already shaping expectations for the next round of climate negotiations. Ajay Mathur, Professor at the School of Public Policy at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and a former Indian climate negotiator, said the floods had “rattled negotiators across all developing countries” and would almost certainly lead to calls for more resources for the Loss and Damage Fund at COP31 in Antalya, Turkey. “So this will come onto the agenda, whether we like it or not,” he said. Nepal’s Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment estimates total damage from the disaster at $1.8 billion, with losses of about $883 million and reconstruction needs of $4.78 billion. A more comprehensive Post-Disaster Needs Assessment is still underway. As search and rescue operations continue, Nepal is also seeking specialised equipment and supplies from international partners while preparing to take the disaster and its longer-term climate needs to the UNGA. Also Read: Can the nascent Loss and Damage Fund deliver for Nepal? The gap between those needs and available international finance has sharpened a longstanding question in climate negotiations: who pays for the resilience vulnerable countries need? Developing countries have spent years pushing developed countries to deliver more public climate finance, including for adaptation and loss and damage. But as international finance remains inadequate and slow, there is also a debate over what regional powers and emerging economies can do to prepare for risks that cannot wait for multilateral processes. Nepal will also host a UNGA side event, “Sagarmatha to the Sea: A Call to Action for a Climate-Resilient Future”, focused on the impacts of climate change on the Himalayas and the consequences for countries downstream. BRICS talked disaster preparedness, Nepal needs more The recent BRICS summit in New Delhi acknowledged the growing complexity of disaster risks, including those linked to climate change. Its declaration stressed the importance of disaster-risk reduction, climate adaptation, information sharing and investment in early-warning systems and disaster-resilient infrastructure. It also called for greater cooperation to strengthen national emergency systems. But the declaration did not specifically respond to Nepal’s disaster. Also Read: BRICS Has a Resilience Blueprint. Financing it is the Challenge With international moments like UNGA and COP31 coming up, experts say BRICS could still provide a platform for regional cooperation on disaster preparedness, data sharing and financing. “What we need to do is operationalise the pledges that have been made, and emphasise that adaptation finance should get equal weightage, not just mitigation finance,” said Ulka Kelkar, Executive Director of Climate, Economics & Finance at World Resources Institute India. “But that $300 billion per year target [as agreed upon at COP29] is far from being met.” Nepal has clarified that it is not seeking compensation from any specific country. Its position is that developed countries have responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, while regional cooperation with neighbouring countries is needed on disaster preparedness, data sharing and resilience. Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change and Green Economy at the Centre for Science and Environment, said the “onus” for providing funds to the FRLD is on developed countries. “The money pledged [by developed countries] is 11 times more than the claimed money. It is not being honoured. Any support that should come from developing countries should be voluntary. India and China are already providing aid to Nepal.” She added that for low and middle income countries, every disaster requires rebuilding and recovery, which further strains limited domestic budgets already spread thin across multiple competing objectives. To allocate more to climate adaptation, there is also limited ability to raise taxes on the population. In a fractured geopolitical landscape and slow multilateral system, some experts see a case for regional mechanisms that can provide faster support. Mathur has proposed resilience and insurance pools for specific regions in the Global South through established regional country pacts. “Operating as a rapid-payout parametric insurance pool, funds would be released automatically upon satellite detection of threshold climate triggers,” he said.
India hosted the 18th BRICS Leaders’ Summit in New Delhi on September 12–13, 2026, under the theme “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability.” The summit took place against a backdrop of climate disasters, conflicts, supply‑chain disruptions and financing gaps affecting emerging markets and developing economies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened the summit by stressing that crises in an interconnected world could no longer be confined to individual regions, and that BRICS had placed greater emphasis on strengthening resilience. The summit concluded with the adoption of the New Delhi Declaration, which brought together commitments on climate change, trade, sustainable‑development finance, carbon markets and global value chains. On climate change, BRICS reaffirmed support for multilateralism and the Paris Agreement, while highlighting the disproportionate climate burden on emerging markets and the financing gaps they face, particularly in adaptation. On trade, the declaration raised concerns over unilateral and protectionist measures, including carbon border adjustment mechanisms, warning that such steps could restrict trade, disrupt supply chains and deepen disparities. Climate Finance And Adaptation The declaration focused on scaling up climate and sustainable‑development finance. Discussions examined the role of central banks and regulators in addressing barriers to green finance and making projects more bankable. The bloc encouraged cooperation among finance ministries and central banks, and called for significant scaling up of international support for adaptation in developing countries. It stressed that adaptation finance should be grant‑based and concessional to avoid worsening vulnerabilities. Environment ministers also reiterated the need for developed countries to fulfil commitments under the New Collective Quantified Goal and tripling adaptation finance to developing countries by 2035. BRICS opposed unilateral, punitive and discriminatory measures not aligned with international law. Concerns were raised over carbon border adjustment mechanisms and other restrictive measures, including tariffs introduced under environmental objectives. The bloc emphasised strengthening the multilateral trading system and making the World Trade Organization more responsive to disruptions and the needs of emerging markets. According to Trishant Dev of the Centre for Science and Environment, opposition to unilateral climate‑linked trade measures must be seen alongside calls for equitable cooperation between developing countries in higher‑value manufacturing. Carbon Markets And Adaptation Goals The declaration supported cooperation in carbon markets, focusing on capacity building and knowledge exchange through the BRICS Carbon Markets Partnership. It welcomed dialogue on aligning carbon markets with adaptation goals, recognising ecosystems as carbon stocks and sinks that contribute to resilience. BRICS emphasised the need for broader participation of developing countries in higher‑value segments of global manufacturing. The bloc supported initiatives in trade facilitation, infrastructure, industrial capacities and technology transfer. The Workplan on BRICS Shared Understanding on Global Value Chains and the GVC Action Plan 2026–2030 were endorsed, with attention to challenges faced by emerging markets in moving up the value chain. Energy security was linked to resilient value chains, with recognition of fossil fuels’ continued role for emerging economies alongside calls for just and inclusive energy transitions. Avantika Goswami of the Centre for Science and Environment noted that while a fossil fuel phase‑out is unlikely, BRICS nations are increasingly adopting clean technologies such as solar energy and electric vehicles.
विश्व ओजोन दिवस के बीच कोलकाता में ओजोन को लेकर एक दिलचस्प पर्यावरणीय तस्वीर सामने आई है। वायुमंडल की ऊपरी परत में मौजूद सुरक्षात्मक ओजोन परत धीरे-धीरे सुधार की ओर बढ़ रही है, लेकिन जमीन के करीब मौजूद ओजोन यानी ग्राउंड-लेवल ओजोन अब भी शहर की हवा के लिए चिंता का विषय बना हुआ है। विशेषज्ञों के मुताबिक दोनों तरह के ओजोन को अलग-अलग समझना जरूरी है। नएस्थान तलाशें 2026 की गर्मियों में नहीं मिला मानक से अधिक ओजोन सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (CSE) के विश्लेषण के अनुसार कोलकाता में गर्मियों के दौरान ओजोन की स्थिति में हाल के वर्षों में सुधार दर्ज हुआ है। वर्ष 2021 में राष्ट्रीय आठ घंटे के मानक 100 माइक्रोग्राम प्रति घन मीटर से अधिक ओजोन वाले 46 दिन दर्ज किए गए थे। 2025 में यह संख्या घटकर 22 दिन रह गई और 2026 की गर्मियों में ऐसे एक भी दिन की रिपोर्ट नहीं हुई। हालांकि नवंबर 2025 से जनवरी 2026 के बीच 12 दिन ओजोन का स्तर निर्धारित मानक से ऊपर रहा। हरियाली वाले इलाकों में भी बढ़ा ओजोन का असर रिपोर्ट में सामने आया कि कोलकाता के कुछ हरित इलाकों में भी ग्राउंड-लेवल ओजोन का स्तर अधिक पाया गया। मार्च से मई 2025 के दौरान रवींद्र सरोवर में 17 दिन, जादवपुर में पांच दिन, रवींद्र भारती विश्वविद्यालय में तीन दिन और विक्टोरिया मेमोरियल में दो दिन ओजोन मानक से अधिक रहा। इसके विपरीत बालीगंज, विधाननगर और फोर्ट विलियम में ऐसे मामले दर्ज नहीं हुए। वाहनों और प्रदूषकों की रासायनिक प्रतिक्रिया से बनता है ओजोन ग्राउंड-लेवल ओजोन सीधे वाहनों या फैक्ट्रियों से उत्सर्जित नहीं होता। नाइट्रोजन ऑक्साइड (NOx), वाष्पशील कार्बनिक यौगिक (VOCs) और अन्य प्रदूषक धूप में रासायनिक प्रतिक्रिया करते हैं, जिससे ओजोन बनता है। विशेषज्ञों के अनुसार इसका असर सांस की नली और फेफड़ों पर पड़ सकता है तथा बच्चों, बुजुर्गों और पहले से सांस संबंधी बीमारी वाले लोगों के लिए जोखिम बढ़ सकता है। कोलकाता से सटे हावड़ा में 2025 की गर्मियों के दौरान 92 में से 58 दिन ओजोन मानक से अधिक रहा, जबकि कोलकाता में यह संख्या 22 दिन थी। दासनगर में अकेले 57 दिन ऐसे दर्ज किए गए। CSE ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया है कि हावड़ा में निगरानी केंद्रों के विस्तार ने आंकड़ों के रुझान को प्रभावित किया हो सकता है। इसलिए 2026 की गर्मियों में कोलकाता में शून्य ओजोन-उल्लंघन राहत देने वाला संकेत जरूर है, लेकिन वैज्ञानिकों को इसमें मौसम, बारिश, बादल, तापमान और वायुमंडलीय रसायन की भूमिका का भी अध्ययन करना होगा।
According to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) titled “Mobility crisis is behind the pollution in Delhi” and a paper titled “Towards A Comprehensive Framework for Public Transport System Planning in India” authored by Nandan Dawda for the Observer Research Foundation, Bengaluru and Delhi come closest to meeting the benchmark at 45 buses, while Chennai has only 30, and Mumbai 28. Moreover, congestion makes it difficult to use even the available fleets as they make fewer trips. Also, bus corporations and city governments generally fail on disability access.
A recent Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) analysis found ground-level ozone has become a multi-season threat across 25 Indian cities. While Delhi-NCR emerged as the biggest regional hotspot, Chandigarh recorded the highest average summer levels, followed by Ahmedabad and Jaipur. Elevated ground-level ozone has also been recorded across parts of Greater Ahmedabad, including central areas, with experts warning that exceedances of safe air-quality limits are lasting longer and reaching residential neighbourhoods.
दिल्ली की हवा खराब होने पर अमूमन चर्चा धूल के महीन कणों पीएम2.5 और पीएम10 के इर्द-गिर्द होती है, लेकिन साफ दिखाई न देने वाली एक प्रदूषक गैस भी सेहत पर भारी पड़ रही है। यह सतह के आसपास मौजूद, ग्राउंड लेवल ओजोन है। यह वही गैस है, जो धरती के परिवेश को सूर्य की खतरनाक अल्ट्रावायलेट किरणों सुरक्षित रखती है। केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड (सीपीसीबी) और सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट (सीएसई) की रिपोर्ट बताती हैं कि दिल्ली-एनसीआर में पूरे साल ओजोन खतरा बढ़ा रही है। सीएसई ने एक रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, एक मार्च से 10 मई 2026 के बीच किए गए अध्ययन के 71 दिनों में दिल्ली-एनसीआर में आठ घंटे का राष्ट्रीय मानक 100 माइक्रो ग्राम प्रति घन मीटर को हर दिन पार कर गया। दिल्ली में औसतन 8.79 मॉनिटरिंग स्टेशन रोजाना मानक से ऊपर रहे, जबकि एनसीआर के शहरों में यह आंकड़ा औसतन 3.2 स्टेशन था। दिल्ली में पूसा आईएमडी, जबकि एनसीआर में ग्रेटर नोएडा का नॉलेज पार्क-5, नोएडा सेक्टर-125 और गाजियाबाद का वसुंधरा प्रमुख हॉटस्पॉट रहे। ग्रेटर नोएडा नॉलेज पार्क-5 में 44 दिन ओजोन मानक से ऊपर रही।
While the ECC, aimed at mitigating air pollution arising from vehicles remains underspent, The Wire had earlier reported that an analysis last year by the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment showed despite the decrease in farm fires, air pollution levels in Delhi in October and November were still high primarily due to vehicular pollution.
सूचना के अधिकार (आरटीआई) के तहत मिले जवाब से पता चला है कि दिल्ली सरकार को पर्यावरण मुआवजा शुल्क (Environment Compensation Charge-ECC) के तौर पर 1,935.44 करोड़ रुपये मिले हैं, लेकिन इसका लगभग 60% हिस्सा अभी तक खर्च नहीं हुआ है. हिंदुस्तान टाइम्स की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, आरटीआई जवाब के मुताबिक, 1,935.44 करोड़ रुपये में से सिर्फ़ 781.51 करोड़ रुपये ही खर्च किए गए, जबकि 1,153.93 करोड़ रुपये बिना खर्च किए ही रह गए. पर्यावरण मुआवजा शुल्क सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 2015 में लगाया था और इसे दिल्ली नगर निगम (एमसीडी) द्वारा वसूला जाता है. वायु प्रदूषण को कम करने के उद्देश्य से दिल्ली में प्रवेश करने वाले वाणिज्यिक वाहनों पर यह शुल्क लगाया जाता है. बाद में इस शुल्क से प्राप्त राशि दिल्ली सरकार के खाते में जमा की जाती है. आरटीआई के जवाब के अनुसार, अब तक खर्च किए गए ज़्यादातर पैसे बड़े परिवहन बुनियादी ढांचा परियोजना, पर खर्च हुए हैं. इसमें सबसे बड़ी रकम 500 करोड़ रुपये थी, जिसे मई 2023 में दिल्ली-मेरठ रीजनल रैपिड ट्रांजिट सिस्टम (आरआरटीएस) कॉरिडोर को लागू करने के लिए राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र परिवहन निगम (एनसीआरटीसी) को मंज़ूरी दी गई थी. मार्च 2019 में इसी परियोजना के लिए एनसीआरटीसी को 265 करोड़ रुपये और जारी किए गए थे. आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता अमित गुप्ता, जिन्होंने यह अर्ज़ी दाखिल की थी, ने अख़बार को बताया, ‘कोर्ट के आदेशों और विशेषज्ञों की ओर से गंभीर कदम उठाने के सुझावों के बावजूद प्रदूषण कम करने में सीधे असर डालने वाले बड़े परियोजनाओं के लिए फंड का सही तरीके से इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जा रहा है.’ इससे पहले सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दिल्ली सरकार को निर्देश दिया था कि वह ‘एयर क्वालिटी मैनेजमेंट कमीशन’ (सीएक्यूएम) की अंतरिम सिफारिशों के साथ-साथ बचे हुए पैसे का इस्तेमाल लंबे समय के उपायों के लिए करने की योजना पेश करे. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने बताए गए उपायों के लिए फंड का पूरी तरह से इस्तेमाल करने की ज़रूरत पर ज़ोर दिया था. हालांकि, गाड़ियों से होने वाले वायु प्रदूषण को कम करने के मकसद से शुरू किए गए ईसीसी के लिए आवंटित फंड का पूरा इस्तेमाल नहीं हो पाया है. द वायर ने पहले रिपोर्ट किया था कि दिल्ली स्थित ‘सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट’ के पिछले साल के एक विश्लेषण से पता चला था कि खेतों में पराली जलाने की घटनाओं में कमी के बावजूद अक्टूबर और नवंबर में दिल्ली में वायु प्रदूषण का स्तर ज़्यादा बना रहा, जिसकी मुख्य वजह गाड़ियों से होने वाला प्रदूषण था. विश्लेषण के अनुसार, रियल-टाइम वायु प्रदूषण डेटा से पता चला कि पीक ट्रैफिक घंटों के दौरान फाइन पार्टिकुलेट मैटर (या पीएम2.5, जो हवा का एक मुख्य प्रदूषक है) का स्तर, नाइट्रोजन डाइऑक्साइड और कार्बन मोनोऑक्साइड (दोनों ही वाहनों से निकलने वाले प्रदूषक हैं) के स्तर में होने वाले रोज़ाना के उतार-चढ़ाव जैसा ही था. बीते अगस्त महीने में दिल्ली विधानसभा में पेश की गई नियंत्रक एवं महालेखा परीक्षक (कैग) की परफॉर्मेंस ऑडिट रिपोर्ट में खुलासा हुआ था कि दिल्ली में पर्यावरण मुआवजा शुल्क के संग्रह से संबंधित 280 दिनों के रिकॉर्ड गायब थे, जबकि इस मद में जमा किए गए 843.12 करोड़ रुपये अब तक खर्च नहीं किए गए हैं.
The two should not be confused. The depletion of the protective ozone layer is a global atmospheric phenomenon rather than a local “ozone hole” over Kolkata. Globally, the ozone layer is on a recovery path and, if current policies remain in place, ozone outside the polar regions is expected to return to around 1980 levels by about 2040, said Anumita Roychowdhury, Centre for Science Environment (CSE) executive director and lead researcher. Kolkata’s ground-level ozone presents a more complicated picture. An analysis by the CSE shows that summer ozone exceedances in the city have fallen sharply in recent years. Kolkata recorded exceedances of the national eight-hour standard of 100 µg/m³ on 46 summer days in 2021. The number dropped to 22 days in 2025 and, remarkably, to zero during summer 2026.
India has recycled 17 million tonnes of plastic packaging waste since 2022, when the “Extended Producer Responsibility” (“EPR”) regime came into force, shows the latest Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) data. The estimated value of this plastic-recycling trade comes to a whopping ₹2,500 crore — enough to fund four Chandrayaan-3 missions. Considering that India annually produces 3.8 million tonnes of plastic waste, going by CPCB estimates, we have been successful in getting rid of at least four-five years of plastic waste generated. If this is the case, and it clearly is, based on official documents of June 2026, then why do we still see mountains of plastic waste in our cities, villages and riverways? Clearly, something is not quite right.EPR is an instrument used universally to manage waste. It puts the onus of collecting and recycling plastic on its manufacturers — producers, importers or brand owners (PIBOs). From 2023-24, in India, PIBOs are mandated to collect 100 per cent of the plastic waste they generate. As of last year, PIBOs had the target to recycle 40-60 per cent of this collected packaging material. For 2026-27, the target is up to 50-70 per cent, depending on the category of plastic. For instance, PIBOs of category 2 plastic, which includes everything from single to multilayered packaging, used for wrapping items ranging from chips to shampoo sachets, are mandated to collect 100 per cent of their plastic packaging and recycle 50 per cent of it, as of this year. For recycling, PIBOs contract with plastic waste processors (PWPs), units required to be registered with the CPCB. There are over 1,000 registered PWPs, according to the official data. These units are paid in accordance with CPCB-mandated rates — ₹870 per tonne for category 1 (pet bottles and the like); ₹1,500 per tonne for flexible plastic (packaged food and other household items); and ₹2,500 per tonne for compostable material. Each tonne of plastic recycled is equal to one EPR certificate. Taking an average rate of ₹1,500 per tonne, the value of 17 million tonnes of plastic waste recycled by India since 2022 comes to ₹2,500 crore. If PIBOs do not meet their targets for recycling, they are charged a hefty environmental compensation. This cost of non-compliance is 2.5 times the cost of compliance. The CPCB estimates that the cost of plastic waste recycling is ₹4,000 per tonne, which it then distributes equally between municipalities and producer companies, averaging ₹2,000 per tonne. If PIBOs fail, they are slapped with an environmental compensation of ₹5,000 per tonne for category 2 plastic, for instance. This sounds great. In fact, it sounds so great that the government is said to be considering taking this system to the stock market to allow trading of EPR certificates. But then, I ask again, if this system is working so well, why do we see so much plastic everywhere? My colleagues audited plastic in the drains of Agra city and found that branded plastic packaging made up 70 per cent of the waste. Then how can companies claim 100 per cent collection? You will find the same if you look at any garbage dump in your vicinity. Let’s look at what can go wrong. First, does the PIBO target underestimate the waste generated? In 2024, my colleagues analysed the official EPR portal and found that 41,544 PIBOs had registered and were assigned recycling targets based on self-reported data. How this quantity was validated is not clear. Second, how does the CPCB verify the volume of waste processed and recycled? The CPCB says it does this through audits and ground-checks. On June 26, the CPCB directed different states to take action against non-compliant PWPs. The audit (not available publicly) seems to suggest that many PWPs were generating certificates more than their registered capacity and other violations. The problem is compounded because it is difficult to trust or verify in this business. The CPCB says PWPs must upload GST (goods and services tax) invoice as proof of sale of the finished recycled product. The product, in most cases, is plastic pellets, which are then used mostly by industries in the informal sector. Worse, the high rate of GST, at 18 per cent, makes “open” business unviable. The third issue is even more fundamental. If it costs PIBOs 2.5 times more to pay for non-compliance, they should want to pay for recycling at PWPs. But this cost also creates a perverse incentive to “arrange” for certificates and not for recycling. It is also because in many cases, recycling is not feasible at the agreed rate. Our research finds that the real cost of recycling the same category 2 plastic would be ₹4,000 to ₹6,000 per tonne — much higher than the set rate of ₹1,500 per tonne. That said, we need more ways to improve the learning for scrutiny and compliance. But the opposite is happening. As on June 28, 2026, the EPR portal is available only to a closed group of users. It can be argued that this has been done because EPR is a lucrative business and private information must be kept confidential. But this lack of transparency will only make things worse. This is not governance for tomorrow, not even of yesterday. The writer is at the Centre for Science and Environment; sunita@cseindia.org, X: @sunitanar