Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Bhopal’s only IT park fails to take off

Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh has made significant strides in the field of Information Technology (IT) by formulating six IT policies over the years. However, despite these efforts, the states capital’s sole IT park is still struggling to attract companies and generate employment opportunities for the local youth. The IT park, situated on New Jail Road, was established with the promise of providing 6,000-7,000 jobs. Despite its proximity to airport and highway, the park could not achieve the desired results even after eight years since its inception. Not even 1,000 people are currently employed in the park. Bhopal’s only IT park fails to take off The development of the IT park has been sluggish. Not more than 12 companies have initiated their operations in past eight years in the park that offers 100 plots spread across the 212-acre and a total built-up area of over one lakh square feet. Officials responsible for the IT park's management stated that notices were issued to defaulters as per the stipulated timeline in the IT Act. However, nothing was done on the ground. They also claimed to have initiated the process of reclaiming plots from those who have failed to start work. The IT policies were introduced in 1999, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2023. An individual who benefited from the policy initially worked as a consultant and later transitioned to the role of a marketing manager. Some companies that acquired plots in 2014-15 are still operating from rented premises in MP Nagar and other parts of Bhopal. A company owner said that the govt had initially promised to allocate software projects to private firms but failed to fulfill its commitments. To address the issues, the state govt must take proactive measures to attract more companies. Providing incentives, improving infrastructure, and creating a conducive business environment could be some of the steps in this direction. The government must take urgent action to revive the park, attract investments, and generate employment opportunities for the local youth. Only then can the state truly harness the potential of the IT industry and contribute to the overall economic growth of the region. We also published the following articles recently MCDs parking plan parked for 3 yearsMCD faces obstacles in PAMP implementation. 17 colony plans submitted, 4 approved. Delhi govt silent. CAQM's directions raise concerns. Stack parking at Nizamuddin Basti prioritized. Centre for Science and Environment input crucial for dynamic pricing enforcement.109673051 How to park 'cool' in scorching summers in India: Parking tips and suggestionsPrevent car overheating in India by parking in shade, using sunshades, enhancing airflow, and installing window tinting for heat reduction, privacy, and compliance with visibility regulations.109753387 Amsterdam parking space up for grabs for 495,000 eurosA parking space near P.C. Hooftstraat in the Netherlands was listed for almost half a million euros, facing an acute housing shortage of 390,000 homes, with the average house price at 430,000 euros.109799417

Rich vs developing feud at climate financing talks

Major differences are emerging again between rich and developing countries on who should contribute to the new quantified goal on climate finance, according to the Third World Network, an independent non-profit that is tracking the negotiations at Cartagena in Columbia. The primary agenda of the annual UN climate meeting to be held in Baku in Azerbaijan in November would be to negotiate a new goal for climate finance, which currently has a floor of a minimum of $100 billion every year after 2025, that is expected to help developing countries transition to a low-carbon future. In an Ad Hoc Work Programme (AHWP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Cartagena in Colombia from April 23 to 26, the US is reported to have said the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is “voluntary” for those that “choose to pay”, referring to Article 9.3 of the 2015 Paris climate pact that deals with climate finance. India, speaking for the like-minded developing countries (LMDCs), said the goal must be in accordance with the principles and provisions of the convention and the Paris Agreement, which is equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and Article 9 of the pact. Article 9 stipulates that wealthy nations shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries to both mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate crisis. This translates into the goal being delivered by wealthy nations to developing countries in line with the latter’s existing and evolving needs, mainly because the developed world is historically responsible for most of the emissions that has caused the climate crisis, India argued. Arabian and African countries supported the LMDC grouping in the meeting. These arguments were captured by the Third World Network, which tracked the meeting in Colombia, and also the webcast provided by UNFCCC. These differences are expected to blow up at the Baku summit. Developed countries are now of the view that the contributor base should be determined based on evolving capabilities of nations with the capacity to pay, the level of emissions, and the nations’ GDP. They also said there has to be a discussion on who would receive the money. When the US argued that contribution to the NCQG was entirely voluntary, the Arabic nations clarified that the $100 billion goal was also in the context of Article 9.3 and there was unequivocal consensus that it applied to developed countries. India on behalf of LMDC said it did not agree with any feature relating to “domestic resources of developing countries” in the discussion. The NCQG is about how developed countries will provide support to developing countries, it said. India also said that “it makes no sense for the NCQG to be outcome-based”. The only outcome that can be traced as part of the goal was whether the quantum committed by developed countries was commensurate to the needs of developing countries, it argued. References to the contributor base and differentiation across beneficiaries were unacceptable and these were diversionary tactics, India said. “The NCQG should provide a clear agreement on burden-sharing among developed countries to establish their ‘fair share’ of their collective obligation to provide climate finance, which allows predictability, transparency, and accountability,” it said. India said the group had already proposed an amount of over $1 trillion per year based on the current needs, which can be updated based on the availability of new needs. “While the US made a statement that generated a lot of buzz, the same article (Article 9) has been used by developing countries to suggest the exact opposite position,” said Sehr Raheja, programme officer, climate change at the Centre for Science and Environment, an advocacy group. “India for the LMDCs stressed that a renegotiation of what Article 9 means is not a part of the NCQG mandate.”

Inclusivity in transition

The world is fast-tracking the transition to a green economy. It is moving towards renewables, like solar and wind, to replace coal and gas in energy systems; towards electric vehicles to replace oil for transportation; and towards hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in industry and energy. These are the three big changes expected to drive reduction in emissions in a world that is fast heating up, and with hugely consequential weather disasters. There is no doubt that the world needs to move with speed and at scale. But what will be the business model that we take to the new green world? I ask this as there are inherent problems with the old model of resource utilisation and its social and environmental fallouts. Take the issue of mineral extraction—be it coal, iron ore or aluminium. The mining of these raw materials, needed for energy and industry, have led to massive environmental fallouts. In India, as we have painfully found out, this mineral wealth is often under forests, wildlife habitats and, of course, tribal homes. This is why we say this resource curse is about rich lands and poor people. The fact also is that to get to the minerals we need for our economy, we have had to cut forests and displace local communities that had lived in this habitat. The tragedy of this extractive and revenue-generating economic model has been that the people who live on these lands have hardly benefited from the resources. This is the core of what is wrong in our world, not just emissions from these industries that then led us to catastrophic climate change. I ask this because in the new green economy, the world will still need minerals; though, different ones—lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, graphite—but still those that are found under forests and, invariably, on the lands of the most marginalised. This is true of not just India but the world. New York-based market consultancy MSCI reports that 97 per cent of nickel, 89 per cent of copper, 79 per cent of lithium and 68 per cent of cobalt reserves in the US are within 55 km of Native American reservations. It is the same in other regions—from Central America to Africa to Asia. The green transition will mean an exponential growth in the need for these minerals. Will there be a difference in the way we conduct business with the Earth and its people? Battles are already being waged. In the US, for instance, mining majors Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton’s Resolution Copper mine in Arizona has come under fire from indigenous communities because the digging will have to happen on lands held sacred. The story is the same wherever the new gold rush is, across the world, with no new rules of engagement. In India, we have had a long tryst with making mineral extraction environmentally and socially just—sadly without solutions that work. Years ago, the Supreme Court had ruled in the Samata judgement that no mining can happen on tribal lands without the participation of the tribal people. It meant that, at the least, the tribal people would need to be equal shareholders in the business. But this was negated. Then came the effort to share the revenue from mining with these communities. In fact, the first draft of what then became the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) was to make the communities partners in the business. But this, too, got diluted. The grand idea of sharing benefits or making people partners in mineral development got reduced to an additional cess on minerals. This tax is deposited into DMF and gratuitously used by the government to fund what it would like to see as development, without much participation of the people who live on the land where the minerals are found. The situation is the same with environment and forest clearances. The objective at one time was to ensure that communities have rights to consent to these projects; that clearance would give weight to their objections to projects in greenfield forestlands. But this protection is being whittled away in the name of growth. It could have helped build a socially inclusive and just green future. The other issue that always led to contests in the old economy was the location of the project—from thermal power to iron smelters—because communities feared that pollution would jeopardise their life and livelihood. The same question is now being raised about the location of windmills and solar projects—that they are in areas inhabited by people or wildlife. The question, again, is this: in our promised green economy, will governments make rules that resolve the conflict in ways that improve local communities and their environment, or will the rush for transition mean more of the same old ways, or even worse? The fact is that the poor never really benefitted from the wealth generated in the old economy. The lands where coal was mined and energy produced still remain without electricity. Will the new economy make sure it is inclusive? Only then can it be sustainable. And if not, then the new economy is not new, or green. DTE

Cost concerns limit impact of PM Ujjwala Yojana among poor in cities

Chanda Pravin Katkari, who lives in Panvel on the outskirts of Mumbai, applied for a free LPG connection under the PM Ujjwala Yojana one-and-half years ago, but has yet to get a response. She still uses the traditional chulha, most of the time. Chanda and her sister-in-law share the cost and occasionally use their mother-in-law’s Ujjwala LPG cylinder though. “The cylinder lasts only one-and-half months if the three of us, living in separate households, use it regularly. Since we can’t afford this, we use it sparingly so that it lasts us about three months,” she says. Chanda’s experience outlines the two major issues plaguing the PM Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) – one, that many are still left out of scheme coverage, and second, that a large section of Ujjwala beneficiaries are unable to afford refills. The Narendra Modi-led government launched the PMUY in 2016, with the aim of enabling women from poor households to transition from traditional cooking fuels (firewood, coal, dung cakes, etc) to LPG. The emissions from traditional cooking fuels can cause health effects like respiratory diseases, heart diseases and cancer. 100% coverage, but whom does it cover? According to a press release by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, LPG coverage in the country was 104% as of January 2022, a huge leap from the 62% coverage in 2016. The ministry credits the Ujjwala scheme for this. As per the PMUY website, 10.3 crore households currently have an Ujjwala connection. Under the scheme, the first cylinder would be given free of cost, and there will be a subsidy for subsequent refills. While the press release may give the impression that all households in the country now have LPG connections, a senior official at the ministry says the exact percentage of coverage is difficult to estimate in the absence of recent Census figures. The 104% coverage mentioned by the ministry is based on population estimates extrapolated from the 2011 Census. “We don’t have the current state wise population figures. Without recent Census figures, it’s difficult to make inferences about LPG coverage. The number of households may have increased and there may have been more migration to certain states,” says the official. A small section of consumers also have multiple connections, pushing the percentage above 100, he adds. “Many people hold on to their old connections even if they move to a new place.” The National Family Health Survey-5, conducted in 2019-21, showed that 41% of the Indian population still used biomass as cooking fuel. A recent report from the think tank CSE (Centre for Science and Environment) estimated this would lead to cumulative emission of 340 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is about 13% of India’s greenhouse gas emissions.

FSSAI Increases Permissible Pesticide Levels in Spices by 10 Times

New Delhi: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has now allowed an increased quantity of pesticides as compared to what was allowed earlier, Economics Times has reported. Known as the maximum residue limit (MRL), the increase is up to 10 times, according to the ET report published May 4. The MRL has increased from 0.01 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 0.1 mg/kg. “This relaxation means Indian spices will face more rejections when exported to some large markets,” ET quoted Dileep Kumar, CEO of Pesticide Action Network, as saying. He also said this move may facilitate the import of spices with higher amounts of pesticides. The FSSAI has said it has increased the limit on the basis of several representations made to it, though the report doesn’t specify who made them. Down To Earth reported on this on April 24. It quoted the Centre for Science and Environment’s programme director for sustainable food development Amit Khurana as saying, “If you [FSSAI] are making such a huge upward revision, then you have to substantiate it by releasing the data based on which the decision was made.” He also said the increase could severely impact the health of those consuming these spices. Last month Hong Kong, Singapore and Maldives had banned the sale of MDH and Everest brands of species for being high in pesticide content. Their food regulators had found a high content of pesticide ethylene oxide, which is also cancer-causing. These countries had advised their citizens not to use these products. The MDH had rejected the reports of foreign regulators and claimed their species were completely safe.

Sustainable Solutions To Mitigate The Environmental And Social Impact Of Construction Waste

Merely 12 cities in India boast operational construction and demolition waste recycling facilities. Here’s how construction companies can step up to mitigate this pressing issue Construction is inevitable; we need to build spaces for every aspect of our lives, be it residential or professional. Undeniably, construction leads to a significant amount of waste production, contributing to environmental degradation, making it crucial for us to adopt these sustainable practices. According to the Construction and Demolition report by the Center for Science and Environment, a research organisation based in New Delhi, many urban areas in India struggle with insufficient institutional capabilities to handle such construction waste. Among the 131 non-attainment cities that have disclosed their city action plans, only a mere 26 per cent possess data on construction and demolition waste generation. Additionally, just 12 of these cities have functioning C&D waste recycling facilities. Environmental impact of construction waste: Resource depletion: Construction activities consume vast amounts of natural resources, including timber, minerals, and water. The extraction and processing of these resources contribute to habitat destruction, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity

Scrumptious and summery chickpea salad

This healthy and sustainable recipe featuring boiled chickpeas and chickpea leaves is from the book ‘Future of taste’ by The New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment. It shows the links between the food we eat and biodiversity. ngredients Chickpea seeds (boiled with a little salt): 1/2 cup Chana jor garam (a spicy flattened and roasted chickpea seeds preparation): 1/4 cup Chickpea leaves (tender shoots only): 1 cup Cottage cheese (cubed): 1/2 cup Olive oil: 1 tbsp Black pepper: 1/2 tsp Honey: 1 tbsp Lemon: 1 Salt to taste Take the boiled chickpea seeds, leaves and cheese cubes in a bowl. In a small bowl, mix lemon juice, honey, black pepper and salt and drizzle over the seeds, leaves and cheese. Mix well. Crush the chana jor garam and sprinkle over the salad for an extra crunch.

Ushering in the Anthropocene

The third Himal Media Mela concludes with a call for global efforts to local climate issues “If you are 45 or younger then you have never experienced a normal climate,” said Richard Mahapatra, managing editor of environmental magazine Down to Earth. His presentation ‘Politics of Environment and the Media’ was the ending session of the third annual Himal Media Mela 2024. The theme of Press Freedom Day this year is ‘Press for the Planet’, and all workshops and sessions, including Mahapatra’s, provided a plethora of story ideas for the journalists gathered at Yalamaya Kendra. “Climate change isn’t just a story anymore, it is the context where every story takes place,” says Mahapatra. “Everybody and everything is a climate story today. Migration happens on the backdrop of climate crises. And economic stories are invariably also climate stories.” Reflecting on exploits since the industrial age, Mahapatra highlighted how the human way of life has been a catalyst for the climate crisis that has affected Earth. "We have altered the planet so much that it is entering a new age that is named after us: The Anthropocene,” said Mahapatra. Mahapatra cemented the idea that there is a politics to the environment, a problem of the rich vs the poor. Mahapatra added that it is the poor who are left on the degraded land with tremendously polluted air, water, and land. Richard Mahapatra NT Mahapatra’s presentation focused specifically on the linkages of stories, regardless of how disconnected we feel. “We are already by existence globalised. In such a situation, no local story stays within its locality. We are linked. A climate change story or a simple disaster story from one locality can be linked to another climate issue taking place a million miles away,” said Mahapatra. Conflicts and war, all over the world, have displaced people, and climate-related disasters are displacing more. “The jungles, which naturally take about 120 years to become extinct, are now dying in thirty years,” said Mahapatra. “Our extinction rate is dangerously high.” To combat this crisis, added Mahapatra, journalists must gear up and do their part. He says: “Soon enough, Nepal, which has six seasons, will barely have three.”

Plastic treaty talks conclude in Ottawa with little progress

Activist and environmentalist groups have termed the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations that concluded in Ottawa, Canada, on Tuesday as “disappointing”. Nearly 192 member countries deliberated for nearly a week to iron out a legally binding agreement to “end plastic pollution”. This was the fourth round of talks since countries resolved in 2022 to eliminate plastics and formed an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), which consisted of government representatives tasked with drawing up a timeline for countries to not only eliminate plastic use but also halt production. However the close connection between plastics and the oil economies of prominent countries, the vast manufacturing businesses that revolve around making and supplying different grades of plastics, the near ubiquity of the polymer’s use in a variety of applications and the paucity of affordable, equivalent alternatives constitute the biggest roadblocks to its elimination. Because plastics do not easily degrade organically, they pollute marine and terrestrial ecosystems and have been long characterised as among the toughest environmental contaminants. “The INC has once again failed to ask the most fundamental question to the success of the future treaty: how do we tackle the unsustainable production of plastics?” said Jacob Kean-Hammerson, Environmental Investigation Agency, United Kingdom, who was present at the talks. The fourth round of talks was expected to deliver a timeline whereby primary plastic production was to halt. This didn’t happen, though countries agreed to move forward with and come up with more detailed assessments of emissions, production, product design, waste management, problematic and avoidable plastics, financing, and a just transition. “We came to Ottawa to advance the text and with the hope that members would agree on the inter-sessional work required to make even greater progress ahead of INC-5. We leave Ottawa having achieved both goals and a clear path to landing an ambitious deal in Busan ahead of us,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). “The work, however, is far from over. The plastic pollution crisis continues to engulf the world and we have just a few months left before the end of year deadline agreed upon in 2022,” she noted. Inter-sessional work is expert meetings that take place between the official INC sessions and expected to catalyse agreement on key issues. The next meeting, expected to be the final one , is scheduled for November 2024 in Busan, South Korea. “India opposed restrictions on producing so called primary plastic polymers or virgin plastics, arguing that production reductions exceed the scope of UNEA [United Nations Environment Assembly] resolutions. While acknowledging the chemicals used in plastic manufacturing, India highlighted that some are already subject to prohibition or regulation under different conventions. The Indian delegates urged that decisions regarding chemicals be grounded in a transparent and inclusive process informed by scientific evidence,” said an analysis by Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, of the Centre for Science and Environment, who was present at the talks. In 2022, India brought into effect the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules (2021) that banned 19 categories of “single-use” plastics. These are defined as disposable goods that are made with plastic but are generally use-and-throw after a single use and include, plastic cups, spoons, earbuds, decorative thermocol, wrapping or packaging film that is used to cover sweet-boxes and cigarette packs and plastic cutlery. It however doesn’t include plastic bottles — even those less than 200 ml — and multi-layered packaging boxes (like in milk cartons). Moreover, even the ban on single-use plastic items is not uniformly enforced nationally, with several outlets continuing to retail these goods.

Global plastic treaty sees no agreement, but a push for breakthrough against pollution has been made

More than 2,500 delegates representing 170 countries and over 480 observer organisations, spanning NGOs, United Nations entities, and intergovernmental bodies, gathered in Ottawa, Canada from April 23 to 29 to advance discussions on a proposed treaty aimed at tackling plastic pollution head-on. This gathering marked the latest installment in a series of negotiations following similar meetings in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 2022, and Paris and Kenya in 2023. Once again, member states convened to address the urgent need to address the global plastic crisis. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), established under resolution 5/14 during the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in March 2022, is tasked with crafting a comprehensive treaty that addresses every aspect of the plastic lifecycle, from production and design to disposal. “At the forefront of advocating for the establishment of UNEA was India,” notes Atin Biswas, Programme Director at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). However, negotiations have encountered significant challenges, particularly as India, with its diverse petrochemical industry ecosystem, grapples with pressures from oil-rich nations to reach a consensus. “The treaty is a huge opportunity to curb the menace of plastic pollution from production to disposal stage,” emphasises Priti Mahesh, Chief Programme Coordinator at Toxics Link, underscoring the significance of these gatherings in shaping global efforts to address one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), a staggering 2,000 garbage trucks’ worth of plastic find their way into the world’s rivers, oceans, and lakes every day. This onslaught amounts to a grim reality where approximately 19-23 tonnes of plastic waste infiltrate aquatic ecosystems daily, contaminating vital water bodies. “The world is suffocating under the weight of plastic,” remarks Dr Ruby Makhija, founder of the NGO, Why Waste Wednesdays Foundation. Reflecting on the environmental toll of plastic, Dr. Makhija mentions a startling statistic: “Every week, an individual unwittingly ingests around 5 gm of microplastic, equivalent to a credit card.” Biswas, shedding light on the ubiquity of plastic, describes it as an inadvertent creation that now pervades numerous industries, including aviation, defence, railways, automobiles, and medical equipment. The provisional agenda for the Ottawa INC meeting aimed to address procedural rules and chart the course for future sessions. “In the four rounds of negotiations so far, progress has been impeded by delays from many countries,” notes Priti. Despite the formulation of a zero draft treaty following the Paris talks, numerous countries have raised objections and proposed alternative options for various provisions. “Many countries remain at odds with the draft treaty’s provisions, leading to the proliferation of alternatives for single provisions,” Biswas explains, underscoring the challenges in reaching a consensus on this critical issue. The zero draft of the proposed treaty takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the plastic crisis, recognising it not merely as a waste issue but as a complex challenge requiring action across its entire life cycle. Key provisions include identification and action on toxic chemicals used in plastic, improved waste management practices, and measures to enhance product design. However, resistance from several countries, including India, has hindered progress towards a consensus. India has voiced opposition to any limitations on primary plastic polymers or virgin plastics, advocating instead for regulation rather than outright elimination of emissions across the plastic life cycle. UNEP’s report highlights the staggering scale of plastic production, with approximately 400 million tonnes generated annually and an estimated 7 billion tonnes produced between 1950 and 2017 ultimately becoming waste. Atin emphasises that the treaty aims to address plastic throughout its entire life cycle, with upstream measures focusing on production curbs, midstream efforts aimed at simplifying plastic design to enhance recyclability, and downstream solutions targeting the management of discarded plastic. While plastic’s utility is undeniable, its impact is equally widespread. Microplastics, measuring up to 5mm in diameter, have permeated various aspects of daily life. Dr Makhija warns, “Microplastics have been detected in drinking water, table salt, mother’s milk, and even the placenta of unborn babies.” She emphasises the shift from responsible use to rampant abuse of plastic materials. Meanwhile, Biswas underscores the large-scale plastic production, largely propelled by the petrochemical industry itself.” However, amid these challenges, there is cause for optimism. Following the negotiations in Ottawa, an advanced draft text of the proposed treaty has been developed, accompanied by mutual agreement on intersessional work leading up to the fifth INC session in South Korea’s Busan. Intersessional work involves expert meetings held between official INC sessions. Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, expressed satisfaction with the outcomes of the Ottawa meetings, stating, “We came to Ottawa with the aim of advancing the text and securing agreement on the necessary intersessional work to make further progress before INC-5. We leave Ottawa having achieved both objectives, with a clear path towards achieving an ambitious agreement in Busan.” Regarding the potential impact of such an international treaty in Delhi, Mahesh highlights that its efficacy hinges on the final form of the treaty. “If the treaty includes measures to control plastic production, it will lead to a positive impact,” she asserts. “It would incentivise the adoption of alternatives to plastic, thereby opening up opportunities for job transitions from the plastic industry to alternative sectors.” In Delhi, the daily waste output amounts to a staggering 11,500 tons, with approximately 10% of this attributed to plastic. Alarmingly, half of this plastic, roughly 550 tons, comprises single-use items.

Global plastics treaty: Ottawa meeting inches forward, but civil society demands more ambition

UN negotiations in Ottawa made modest progress towards an international treaty on plastic pollution. However, the omission of discussions on plastic production from the intersessional work disappointed civil society and ambitious states. India, along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, faced criticism for opposing restrictions on plastic production. Despite some countries advocating for ambitious proposals, the compromise agreed upon favored the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries. Civil society believes the draft text is insufficient for the final negotiations in Busan, South Korea, in November-December 2023. The fourth round of United Nations negotiations for an international treaty to end plastic pollution in Ottawa, Canada, ended on Tuesday with modest progress, leaving ambitious states and much of the civil society disappointed. With the decision ignoring a discussion on the central role of plastics production in fueling the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises, they said the Ottawa negotiation caved into the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry. Countries decided to move forward with intersessional work -- expert meetings between the official sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) -- on the financial mechanism, plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability and recyclability. "We came to Ottawa to advance the text and with the hope that members would agree on the intersessional work required to make even greater progress ahead of INC-5. We leave Ottawa having achieved both goals and a clear path to landing an ambitious deal in Busan ahead of us," said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). "The work, however, is far from over. The plastic pollution crisis continues to engulf the world and we have just a few months left before the end-of-year deadline, agreed upon in 2022. I urge members to show continued commitment and flexibility to achieve maximum ambition," she said. Much of the civil society believes the draft text is unfit for the fifth and final negotiations in Busan, South Korea, from November 25 to December 1. The talks wrapped up with a hugely disappointing decision to exclude discussions on the production of primary plastic polymers – a key root source of plastic pollution, the international NGO Environmental Investigation Agency said. Member States agreed to include observers' participation during this work. They also decided to create a legal drafting group that will conduct a legal review of the text and provide recommendations to the plenary. However, the EIA said, the decision to exclude upstream measures from the intersessional work means it will be more daunting to include extraction or production reduction measures under the ambit of the draft plastics treaty. ''This compromise diminishes the ambition of this process as it ignores the central role of plastics production in fueling the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises. This is not only an utter disappointment, but also a missed opportunity to tackle the root causes comprehensively,'' it said. The fourth session of the INC to advance a plastics treaty saw countries adopt a ''weak program of formal intersessional work''. Despite a handful of countries taking a stand to keep ambitious proposals alive, most countries accepted a ''compromise that played into the hands of petrostates and industry influences'', a statement from the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said. A CIEL analysis released during INC-4 found that nearly 200 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the negotiations, including at least sixteen on country delegations. ''From the beginning of negotiations, we have known that we need to cut plastic production to adopt a treaty that lives up to the promise envisioned at UNEA two years ago. In Ottawa, we saw many countries rightly assert that it is important for the treaty to address the production of primary plastic polymers," says David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "But when the time came to go beyond issuing empty declarations and fight for work to support the development of an effective intersessional program, we saw the same developed member States who claim to be leading the world towards a world free from plastic pollution, abandon all pretence as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them," he said. The EIA said that seven-day negotiations revealed which countries are the champions for an ambitious plastics treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics from extraction to disposal and which are the spoilers bending to the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industries. Perú and Rwanda stood out as champions for presenting a proposal for intersessional work on primary plastic polymers with aims to reduce 40 per cent of the global use of primary plastics polymers by 2040 from 2025 levels, which several delegations strongly supported, including Malawi, the Philippines and Fiji. In addition to the Rwanda and Perú proposal, several countries launched the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers to rally parties in support of keeping the provision for addressing primary plastic polymers alive in the treaty text and building momentum for the fifth and final round of negotiations in Busan, Republic of Korea later this year. The 'spoilers', it said, are a ''small group of polymer-and-plastics-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, India, Kuwait and Qatar, which tried to reopen and sow doubts over the scope of the draft treaty to redefine what the full lifecycle of plastic means'' in an apparent bid to restrict the coverage of the proposed treaty to waste management matters only. According to the Centre for Science and Environment experts who tracked the negotiations in Ottawa, India opposed any limitations on primary plastic polymers or virgin plastics, arguing that production reductions exceed the scope of UNEA resolution 5/14.

Climate Reporters Share Tips for Investigating the Fossil Fuel Industry

There is a “central contradiction” that sums up the problem of our energy consumption — and journalists’ efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry to account, observed Anne Koch, GIJN program director, at this year’s International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy. Never has the world been more in need of a scientifically-based process for transitioning away from fossil fuels, said Koch, “and at the same time, never has the fossil fuel industry tried so hard to slow down or stop that effort… They don’t want to throw away their business plans, and we rely on those fossil fuels.” Koch led the panel discussion for “The Investigative Agenda for Climate Change Journalism: Tracking the Fossil Fuel Industry,” which was organized by GIJN and brought together prominent climate reporters who shared tips for investigating the fossil fuel industry — and explained why this work is more vital than ever. Panelist Amy Westervelt, host of the Drilled podcast — which investigates the obstacles to meaningful action on climate change — delved into the recently updated Carbon Majors Database report, which found that a mere 57 companies are responsible for 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions since the Paris Agreement was signed in late 2015. “It’s a pretty small number of companies contributing the largest share of emissions,” she said. Westervelt stressed the importance of investigating state-owned fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi’s Adnoc, and Norway’s Equinor, which have significantly increased production compared to private or investor-owned companies. “It’s very hard to investigate state-owned oil companies, but we need to figure out a way to do it because increasingly, they’re becoming the lion’s share of this problem,” explained Westervelt. Fossil fuel majors also invest heavily in influencing policy and shaping favorable outcomes. She also noted that carbon capture — the practice of capturing and transferring carbon emissions from large power sources to be applied elsewhere and is often touted as a climate solution — actually leads to more resource extraction because about 80% of captured carbon is then used to get more oil out of the ground. “How that became a climate solution is a mystery,” she added. One strategy for investigating fossil fuel companies is to uncover government ties to the industry, and Westervelt shared a method for getting started: Obtaining government representatives’ calendars and tracking their meetings with fossil fuel companies and lobbyists — and how many meetings they have with lobbyists from that industry compared to others. She also recommended that journalists explore the “enabling industries” — companies engaged in public relations, insurance, lobbying, and consulting work for fossil fuel giants. This includes financial institutions that support major polluters. “There’s an entire ecosystem of enablers around the oil and gas industry,” she said. These industries play a significant role in shaping policy outcomes and should also be held accountable. Disillusioned employees in these industries willing to blow the whistle have been a crucial source for Westervelt’s reporting. “It’s a lot easier to get whistleblowers at a PR agency,” than from high-level executives inside fossil fuel companies, she explained, “because most of the people working for these entities did not think that they were starting careers to carry water for a fossil fuel company that wanted to lie about climate change.” The Problem with Carbon Credits and Net Zero Andrés Bermúdez Liévano, an editor and reporter at the Costa Rica-based El Centro Latinoamericano de Investigación Periodística (CLIP) agreed that whistleblowers are a crucial source for covering the industry, and urged journalists to think creatively to seek them out. (In another IJF24 session, on pantropical investigations, Liévano revealed that experts who helped create environmental laws became his primary whistleblowers. When they realized the laws they helped create weren’t being enforced as intended, their disappointment made them important sources of information.) Liévano also said it’s important to investigate carbon offset projects because they can actually contribute to the growth of the fossil fuel industry, and pointed out that the ability to “sell net zero oil” through these schemes enables fossil fuel production to increase and for those companies to continue business as usual. To illustrate his point, Liévano mentioned pop star Taylor Swift, who thanks to her use of private jets reportedly racks up the highest carbon emissions worldwide among celebrities using private planes. “She flew from Tokyo to Las Vegas to watch her boyfriend win the Super Bowl, but she claims to be net zero,” said Liévano. “The way she can [make this claim] is through buying carbon credits and offsetting her carbon footprint. And fossil fuel companies do that on a much larger scale.” When it comes to investigating carbon credit projects, “the devil is usually in the details,” Liévano observed. He pointed out that many of these carbon offsett projects are not working as they should, citing a recent CLIP investigation into a carbon credit project in the páramos, high-altitude moorlands in Colombia near the Ecuadorian border. “It is a very important ecosystem in Andean countries, and it’s an Indigenous community where 99% of the community had no idea that they were part of a carbon credit scheme… This project had already sold 350,000 credits to Chevron,” explained Liévano. Nobody from the community had been consulted, and nobody knows where the money credits went. “We even found a gigantic conflict of interest. The businesswoman… running the project hired her former company to audit the project.” The panelists agreed that such wrongdoing is widespread in carbon credit projects. Liévano stressed that there is a steep learning curve for anyone starting to investigate carbon credits, but added: “We can shorten this curve by radical collaboration. We can learn from each other. There are many specialized NGOs and journalist communities willing to share their knowledge and experiences.” Fact-Checking Climate Change Promises Ajit Niranjan, the Guardian’s European environment correspondent, shared sobering statistics about global progress towards climate change goals. “The total spending on clean energy projects from the global oil and gas industry is only about 2.5% of their revenue. I think that does also include carbon capture projects,” he explained. “The International Energy Agency calculated that by 2030 that should be about 50% if we want to stay on track for 1.5°C,” he said, referring to the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global surface warming below that threshold temperature. There are many companies responsible for these greenhouse gas emissions that are not facing enough pressure, Niranjan emphasized. “One thing to consider is how we define the fossil fuel industry. It’s not just about the companies drilling for oil or mining coal… They argue that if they don’t do it, someone else will,” he said. “And, while this doesn’t excuse their lobbying or influence on government policy, there is a point to be made about the demand from other sectors like airlines, car manufacturers, and others. If these industries don’t transition to cleaner practices, we won’t solve the problem.” Journalists should naturally focus on major oil and gas companies, but shouldn’t forget about sectors such as cement, steel, and others that “fly under the radar” despite contributing significantly to emissions, Niranjan added. ‘Creative Carbon Accounting’ Sunita Narain, director general of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, joined the panel via video call. She emphasized that while investigating the greenwashing efforts of fossil fuel companies is important, “the larger part [for investigative journalists to play] is holding governments to account for inaction… all over the world.” Some hard climate justice questions also need to be answered, she said, such as: Who needs fossil fuels? Does Africa have the right to use its fossil fuels? Does Europe have the right to extract them? She also highlighted the critical role of financing in climate justice, advocating for scrutiny into whether financial assistance comes as grants or adds to countries’ debt burdens during transitions away from fossil fuels, and stressed the need for effective financial systems to support green transitions and adaptation efforts in impoverished nations grappling with climate change impacts. Narain also shared some of the challenges she has faced investigating carbon credit projects in India, and the creative methods companies used to stonewall her team. “One of the top carbon credit companies wrote to us that they could not talk to us because they were in a “period of silence,” — a meditative practice associated with yoga. “A French company had the temerity to write to us that we could not visit their project sites in South India because it was dangerous and there were bad roads, bad connectivity, and insurgencies.” The projects and companies she investigated went to great lengths to avoid scrutiny, she observed, but she added that despite facing numerous obstacles, investigative journalists are “like a dog with a bone,” and keep drilling down to put the story together.

G7 CLIMATE, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS’ COMMUNIQUE: MEDIA REACTION

In response to the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ joint communique, published on 30th April 2024, new tangible, measurable commitments are few and far between, while the 35-page document does cover some substantial thematic ground. The commitment to phase out unabated coal in the first half of the 2030s is not only inadequate but also exhibits an abject lack of urgency. Keeping the 1.5C warming limit within reach requires coal to be phased out completely in G7 countries (and other Annex 2 and OECD countries) no later than 2030. The hollow cover of abatement used by the G7 undermines the impact of commitments to end financial support for coal-based power. Even more disheartening is the section on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which instead of detailing clear plans and pathways to reducing oil and gas dependence, rests on abstract intent and dangerous, unproven technologies such as CCUS, nuclear power and fusion technology. It is now widely recognised that the scale of climate ambition is linked to the availability and access to finance, especially low-cost, low-risk finance. Although ministers have stressed on the importance of public, grant-based and concessional finance as a “crucial dimension” in supporting developing countries, the communique contains little information on how G7 countries plan to act on this acknowledgement. Instead, the communique is much clearer in its intent to significantly increase the use of blended finance and to mobilize private finance for clean energy development in developing countries, presumably at higher costs and risks of chronic indebtedness than grant based and concessional public finance. On adaptation, the G7 ministers have reaffirmed the commitment to doubling adaptation finance. Although ministers have agreed to prepare a report on the target, the communique remains silent on the inadequacy of this target and provides no roadmap for reaching this goal. On the positive side however, commitments also include the launch of a ‘G7 Adaptation Accelerator Hub’ to foster partnerships toward adaptation action in developing countries. Where the G7 ministers have succeeded in covering a wide scope of subjects, they have also provided little in terms of progressive action towards equitable and fair climate action. The communique, as much as it acknowledges the urgency of scaling up ambition and climate action, seeks to shift responsibility out of the purview of the G7 and the larger developed world. Quotes from civil society representatives Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network, said: “The G7 has shown yet again a remarkable lack of ambition with regards to the provision of funding for developing countries to address the climate crisis. This group of rich nations easily finds the money to support wars and the fossil fuel industry, but can never seem to find the funding to address the debt they owe for the climate crisis. The G7 needs to pay up and stop funding the wrong things.” Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India, said: “The G7 countries – alone – are responsible for close to half – 42% – of carbon dioxide emitted since 1900, and 39% of fossil fuel consumption since 1965. As historical polluters, it is unacceptable that they are dragging their heels on phasing out the use of coal with a clear and urgent timeline. These countries also continue to heavily depend on oil and natural gas, despite possessing the resources to rapidly decarbonize their energy systems. This eats into the carbon space that developing countries ought to have access to as they improve prosperity and meet their developmental goals, and puts us on a path of planetary devastation. Moreover, the focus on ‘unabated’ coal power dilutes the G7’s commitment further since it creates a loophole for unreliable technologies like carbon capture and storage that have thus far proved unsuccessful at capturing emissions at scale.” Nithi Nesadurai, Director and Regional Coordinator, Climate Action Network Southeast Asia, said: “The commitment by G7 countries to only phase out unabated coal in the first half of 2030s is woefully inadequate. It indicates a lack of leadership and lack of urgency in addressing climate change. The decision against phasing out coal sooner places those in developing countries working on transitioning away from coal in a just manner at a disadvantage. We will now be faced with this question: “If the world’s richest countries are not serious about phasing out coal sooner, why should we adopt more ambitious coal phase out dates.” Tracy Carty, Global Climate Politics Expert, Greenpeace International, said: “The commitment to phase out coal is simply too little, too late. If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5° within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030. And the climate emergency demands they just don’t stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and the planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – is urgently needed. “Faced with climate catastrophe, the G7’s persistent endorsement of fossil gas is alarming. Fossil gas is not needed, not cheap and is certainly not a ‘bridge fuel’ to a safe climate. The biggest fossil fuel threat today by wealthy nations is coming from the rapidly expanding LNG industry. An urgent shift is needed towards less, not more, gas – and massively expanded renewables.” Andreas Sieber, 350.org Associate Director of Global Campaigns, said: “The G7’s agreement to phase out domestic coal power in the first half of the 2030s is a hint of progress but leaves room for the more urgent phase out the climate crisis demands. To meet the Paris Agreement target G7 countries must phase out coal well before 2030 and continue to push for the G7 to commit to phase out all fossil fuels including oil, gas, and reject the adoption of dangerous technologies like nuclear. It is imperative that the world’s largest economies support the global renewable energy transition by providing finance at scale, particularly for the Global South, and urgently pull out of funding fossil fuels both at home and abroad.” Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Global Climate and Energy Lead, WWF, said: “This G7 pledge is an important signal that major economies are starting to get serious about the most polluting forms of energy. But if we are to progress toward the security and prosperity that a 100% renewable power generation system can bring, then these countries will need to phase out all coal by 2030. They must also make similar commitments to phase out oil and gas well before 2050. G7 countries have the opportunity to lead the world in setting the pace for climate action. They have the power to advance the energy sector transformation at the scale and pace needed to keep warming to 1.5°C. They must do better.” Caroline Brouillette, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada, said: “G7 Ministers — from the countries most responsible for the climate crisis — have started to consider what the Global Stocktake means for them domestically, but they have done so haphazardly. As the world’s largest historical polluters and producers of fossil fuels, they must reckon with the fact that limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a coal phase-out before 2030, and set timelines for a just transition away from oil and gas as well. Instead, their confusion on the role of public investments in gas undermines COP28’s signal on the energy transition. While the environment ministers recognize that trillions must be mobilized to meet the Paris Agreement goals, leaders and finance ministers must now put real money on the table towards a new finance goal to make a just transition a reality. The G7 Ministers’ communiqué is still some distance from what is required to keep the 1.5°C within reach. Canada will take over the G7 Presidency next year, exactly halfway through the critical decade. It must play a leadership role and steer G7 countries to ramp up efforts on transitioning away from fossil fuels in their NDCs, ending fossil fuel subsidies, meeting biodiversity finance commitments and increasing support for adaptation and loss and damage at home and abroad.” Evan Gach, Node Coordinator, Climate Action Network Japan: “Setting a fundamental timeline for the phase-out of coal-fired power in-line with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C goal is a big step forward for the G7, and a strong signal to the world that we must significantly accelerate our exit from coal in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. However, the science has consistently pointed out that meeting the Paris goals requires the G7 countries to phase-out coal-fired power by 2030 at the latest. It is up to the G7 to play a leadership role and take serious and concrete steps to phase-out their domestic coal-fired power plants in a timeline consistent with the Paris Agreement goals, as well as supporting a global coal exit abroad. This starts with a commitment to acknowledge 1.5°C-consistent pathways and retire all domestic coal plants by 2030. It also means developing concrete roadmaps and implementing policy measures to ensure a just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, ending plans to extend the life of coal power with unproven and ineffective technologies like hydrogen/ammonia co-firing, and providing adequate finance, technical assistance, and other forms of support for countries to accelerate their own transition away from fossil fuels.” Candy Ofime, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Researcher, said: “This is not the goal for coal we need and it will not deliver climate justice. Commitments put forward by G7 members – which have burnt coal for power for more than a century – to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats. The end of coal power generation cannot come soon enough for those experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis. Coal is one of the dirtiest energy sources and its burning has immense health impacts, particularly in lower income countries and among marginalized, often racialized, frontline communities globally. Protection of human rights requires an urgent, full, fair and funded phase out of all fossil fuels. A just and equitable phase out means ending financing for coal production and coal energy everywhere. The rights of workers in the coal industry must be protected during this transition. “There appears to be no curb in this deal on the use of coal for steel production, which accounts for about 30% of coal consumption, and the commitment to phase out just so-called ‘unabated’ coal is misleading. Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks. Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used. This deal must not encourage an uptake of so-called natural gas, which is mostly methane, as an energy alternative. Its exploitation is increasingly associated with releases of this hugely potent greenhouse gas, which is a major contributor to global warming. “As the world’s highest income countries, and among those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, G7 states have the greatest responsibility to help lower income states to move away from all fossil fuels.”

Why isn’t water the central issue this election?

India is in the throes of the biggest electoral exercise in the world in a scorching summer, political parties are bending over backwards to woo voters, and yet the issue that is paramount for the wellbeing of every Indian has found little mention in... The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2024 counts extreme weather events and critical changes to our earth systems as the greatest concern facing the world in the coming decade. An assessment of extreme weather events undertaken by the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment for the first nine months of 2023 showed that India experienced extreme weather events almost every single day up to the end of September. These extreme weather events resulted in the death of 2,923 people and destroyed two million hectares of crops, 80,000 homes, and resulted in the killing of 92,000 animals.

Delhi logs cleanest April air in 6 years: CAQM data

The air quality index (AQI) in Delhi was less than 200 on 23 days in April, logging the highest number of such days in the last six years, barring 2020, which was impacted by the Covid-induced lockdown, said the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in the National Capital Region (NCR) on Tuesday. AQI below 200 is classified into three categories considered acceptable in terms of air quality. It is “moderate” when the AQI is between 101 and 200; “satisfactory” when between 50 and 100 and “good” below 50, as per the Central Pollution Control Board. Similarly, an AQI over 200 is divided into three categories that are considered in the unacceptable range in terms of pollution. It is “poor” when between 201 and 300, “very poor” when between 301 and 400 and “severe” when over 400. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at the Centre for Science and Environment said though a marginal improvement has been seen this time, these levels were still beyond the permissible standards. “The air quality challenges are different in summer than in winter. In a more open and well-ventilated atmosphere during summers, the impact of dust pollution — especially wind-blown dust increases. This is also the time when the number and frequency of days exceeding ozone standards increases. To combat these, we will require deeper control measures, particularly on combustion sources like vehicles,” she said.

India advocates consensus-backed moves to end plastic pollution, not a voting-based approach

India emphasised the need for a pragmatic approach to a legally binding international instrument on plastic pollution, a consensus-backed move as against a voting-based approach, and a decision guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities during the closing plenary of the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Ottawa late on Monday. INC-4 concluded with an advanced draft text of the instrument and agreement on intersessional work ahead of the fifth session (INC-5) scheduled in November. Over the course of INC-4, delegates discussed emissions and release, production, product design, waste management, problematic and avoidable plastics, financing, and a just transition, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said on Tuesday. A Centre for Science and Environment report flagged that companies have started increasing oil and gas production for polymers in anticipation of a serious response to climate change that could curb the production of fossil fuels, Hindustan Times reported on April 17.