Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Why didn’t China and India sign Cop28 tripling renewables pledge?

Three months ago in Delhi, leaders of G20 major economies backed a tripling of global renewable energy capacity by 2030. Then last Saturday in Dubai, a much bigger group of nations signed a similar pledge. Over 120 countries gave the document their signature but G20 nations like China, India and Indonesia were not among them. That’s despite China dominating the renewables supply chain and the International Energy Agency forecasting that both China and India are already going to double their renewables by 2027, putting them on course to triple capacity by 2030 without any extra effort. So why the reluctance? Well, the Cop28 pledge came in a package with anti-coal language and a more challenging target to double energy efficiency, with no quantified finance target to match. Experts told Climate Home major emerging economies were concerned about costs and reluctant to make commitments outside the formal UN climate process. Coal and costs Unlike the G20 agreement, the Cop28 pledge calls on signatories to “end the continued investment in unabated new coal-fired power plants, which is incompatible with efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C”. Between them, the four G20 nations that didn’t sign the Cop28 pledge are building over four-fifths of the world’s new unabated coal-fired power plants, according to Global Energy Monitor. “That could be why large emerging economies are concerned about the renewable energy declaration because it is tied to coal-based power generation,” said Centre for Science and Environment researcher Avantika Goswami.

Indian farmers rack up carbon credits with climate-conscious ways

Indian farmer Jitendra Singh proudly holds up a rice stem on his farm of lush green paddy. “Look at the height and health of this plant - the number of florets on it is amazing,” he said. Located in the northern state of Haryana, one of India’s main rice and wheat-growing regions, Singh’s 80-acre (32.4-hectare) farm is part of a gradual shift in how Indians cultivate their staple crops, from a model that is fertiliser and water-intensive to more natural, climate-friendly ways. What convinced middle-aged traditional farmer Singh to change how he grows rice was the prospect of benefiting from another fledgling movement: generating carbon credits through sustainable agriculture to sell for additional income. “The new method of rice cultivation is not only helping my land regain its fertility - it is also helping fight global warming,” Singh said. He expects to be among the first tranche of Indian farmers to receive payments from the carbon market. A score of private firms have emerged in the past few years in India, tying up with farmers like Singh to generate carbon credits, even as the role of voluntary carbon offsetting in reducing global climate-heating emissions comes under scrutiny. Across the country, these startups are enrolling farmers who cultivate resource-intensive crops like rice, cotton and sugarcane and are nudging them to use practices that emit less planet-warming gases - and in return generating credits for the avoided carbon and methane emissions from their farms. I have never personally seen such a shroud of secrecy as I found in this market. The entire purpose of these markets seems to serve the interests of project developers, buyers and intermediaries and not the mitigation of emissions. Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment. Emissions from agriculture and land use accounted for 17 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, according to UN data. Higher yields, lower emissions Singh first heard about the carbon credit programme in 2019 from a representative of Grow Indigo, one of the new backers of agriculture-based carbon offset projects in India. Grow Indigo is a joint venture of India-based seed firm Mahyco Grow and US-based agriculture technology company Indigo Ag which produces and sells farm-linked carbon credits. With technical support from Grow Indigo, Singh tested a new way of cultivating rice on 20 acres of his farm. Instead of transplanting seedlings from a nursery into flooded fields, he used a drill machine to directly sow seed into the soil. The new method - called direct seeded rice (DSR) - cuts the overall cost of cultivation by using 12-35 per cent less irrigation water and reducing labour, sowing time and use of chemical herbicides and fertilisers. “My rice yields have increased without having to flood my fields again and again - which also stops methane generation,” said Singh. Produced by bacteria in flooded fields, among other sources, methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that has more potent capacity to heat up the Earth’s climate than carbon dioxide (CO2). The cultivation of rice - a staple food for more than 3 billion people worldwide - is responsible for 12 per cent of global methane emissions and 1.5 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. Singh also changed his traditional method of cultivating wheat, a winter crop that follows the monsoon crop of rice. After harvesting rice, Singh no longer sets the stubble on fire - a major seasonal source of air pollution. Instead, he mulches and spreads the stubble across the field, into which he plants wheat seeds directly without tilling - a practice that disturbs the soil and releases carbon. The new “zero-till” method helps trap soil carbon, while mulching increases the fertility of the soil. Fair share for farmers Typically, avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to one tonne of CO2 generates one carbon credit. For instance, when Singh avoids methane emissions from his rice cultivation or sequesters carbon in the soil by not tilling it, he can generate one carbon credit per acre. Grow Indigo measures this carbon storage over a period using a combination of sampling methods and satellite monitoring, and then has it checked by a third-party auditor. Once verified and entered on a recognised registry, the credits are available for purchase by buyers who want to offset their own carbon emissions, such as corporations or individuals. For example, a multinational company could buy the credits to compensate for the emissions of its employees’ air travel. Generally, the price of one credit - depending on its quality - ranges between US$2 and US$50 on the voluntary carbon market, said Umang Agarwal, head of carbon and sustainable produce at Grow Indigo. Agarwal said he hoped Indigo Agriculture’s strict methodology would allow the Indian credits to fetch a high price, with farmers set to receive 75 per cent of the revenue compared to the 35-45 per cent share offered by some companies in India. “If the money for carbon credits comes, good - otherwise I am happy with the yield gains through new methods,” said Gurucharan Singh Bhuttar, another farmer cultivating wheat and rice on 60 acres in Karnal district. Bhuttar, who signed up with Grow Indigo about four years ago, said his wheat yield has increased after switching to the zero-till method, bringing in additional income of about 500,000 rupees (US$6,000) per year as well as lower cultivation costs. Carbon credits from agriculture are still a nascent market globally, according to Ecosystem Marketplace, an international repository of information on payments for ecosystem services. Its figures show that in 2021, 500 million carbon credits were traded globally, valued at US$2 billion. Of those, agriculture credits accounted for only 1 million, or about 0.2 per cent. Indian developers have yet to sell any farm offsets on the international carbon market, but Grow Indigo predicts they could grow into a US$5 billion-US$7 billion market in India in a decade. Doubts over climate benefits Globally, the voluntary carbon market has come under fire over the integrity of its contribution to the fight against warming. Failings identified by researchers include emissions reduction claims that are temporary or were already happening, displacement of the emissions to other sites, exaggerated climate benefits and projects that would take place even without finance from the carbon market. In the case of India, a recent analysis from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based think-tank, noted that the sale price of credits is “at times inflated and at times it is so low that the project becomes unviable”. In some cases, the CSE found that a project had issued too many credits or had not resulted in the changes claimed on the ground. People who provided land and labour were not fairly compensated and project-related information was not transparent, it said in a report. “I have never personally seen such a shroud of secrecy as I found in this market,” CSE’s director general Sunita Narain told the report’s launch. “The entire purpose of these markets seems to serve the interests of project developers, buyers and intermediaries and not the mitigation of emissions,” she added, calling for a floor price of US$30 per credit. Governments should consider these lessons when they meet at the COP28 UN climate conference in December to discuss the rules for global carbon markets, Narain added. Back in Karnal district, meanwhile, Singh is enthusiastically awaiting the first reward for his new eco-friendly approach. “If one farmer receives these carbon credit payments, others will not need much convincing to join,” he said.

C&D waste in Delhi highest in 35 cities: Report

According to the report, the C&D waste the Capital generates was more than four times the estimated quantity Delhi generates around 3,711 tonne per day (TPD) of construction and demolition (C&D) waste — the highest among the 35 non-attainment cities that have disclosed their data on the Central Pollution Control Board’s Portal for Regulation of Air-pollution in Non-Attainment cities (PRANA) — a new report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said on Monday. According to the report, the C&D waste the Capital generates was more than four times the estimated quantity of 817.49 TPD. The report, titled “Construction and demolition waste – closing the waste loop for sustainability” said the remaining 96 cities have not shared the data, which is part of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) to improve local air quality. Stay tuned with breaking news on HT Channel on Facebook. Join Now The Capital’s number was followed by Ahmedabad at 1,000 TPD, and Faridabad and Noida at 300 TPD each. The report also pointed to flaws in calculating C&D waste under the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) 2.0. “It is quite possible that the SBM thumb rule is resulting in underestimation of C&D waste. This requires further evaluation. The top generators — according to the SBM 2.0 estimations – are Mumbai (919.75 TPD), Delhi (817.49 TPD), Kolkata (702 TPD) and Bengaluru (426.02 TPD). This is a gross underestimation compared to what has been reported by the cities,” the report said. “The data from micro-action plans in PRANA shows that only 35 cities (26% of the 131 non-attainment cities that have uploaded their plans) have provided statistics on C&D waste generation. Together, these cities have generated 6,563.48 TPD. Delhi has reported the highest generation in the country, with 3,448 TPD,” it added. The study said that cities under it are expected to apply a thumb rule of 50 grams per capita per day to estimate their C&D waste generation as part of the city solid waste action plan. This means the 35 cities’ estimated waste production was 3,052 TPD — less than half of the actual 6,663 TPD it produced. Experts said that the goal should be that all C&D waste ends up at processing plants. “We have found that based on the SBM 2.0 estimates, cities are not planning for the actual waste being generated, but much lower, which can defeat the purpose of managing C&D waste effectively,” said Mitashi Singh, programme manager, Sustainable Habitat Programme at CSE.

COP28: No fossil fuel phase-out in new global stocktake text

The text, however, goes on to strengthen the language on coal by now adding “rapidly phasing down unabated coal” and “limitations on permitting new and unabated coal power generation” A new draft of the global stocktake (GST) text landed on Monday evening, suggesting a range of options for mitigation, but had no references to phasing out fossil fuels, an omission experts said could severely hamper attempts to arrest global warming to 1.5°C under the Paris Agreement. The draft will set the stage for a final round of contentious negotiations, to begin after the final text drops early on Tuesday morning, in the two-week summit in Dubai, which has exposed deep fissures over fossil fuels, climate finance, and adaptation and mitigation measures. Following the release of the new draft, COP28 President Sultan Al-Jaber called on the attending countries to deliver “the highest ambition on all items, including on fossil fuel language”. The new draft of the COP28 agreement, published by the United Arab Emirates’ presidency of the summit, proposed various options but did not refer to a “phase out” of all fossil fuels, which was included in a previous draft. Instead, it listed eight options that countries “could” use to cut emissions, including: “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero” by or around mid-century. Other actions listed included tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030; “rapidly phasing down unabated coal”; accelerating zero and low emissions technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies, including such as carbon capture and utilisation and storage, and low carbon hydrogen production, so as to enhance efforts towards substitution of unabated fossil fuels in energy systems. These so-called mitigation options were listed under serial number 39 of the text which states: “Also recognises the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in GHG emissions and calls upon Parties to take actions that could include, inter alia…” In a cause for alarm, the text has deleted all options on phasing out fossil fuels. “The fourth draft of the GST text is a collation of multiple divergent viewpoints but ambition is watered down by eliminating the call to phase out all fossil fuels. Coal is mentioned twice but oil and gas is missing in the document showing low ambition on tackling 55% of global emissions that come from oil and gas. This is a huge missed opportunity,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager & researcher climate change at Centre for Science and Environment.

The Secret Behind Pepsi’s Name Will Surprise You, Trust Us

While Pepsi and Coca-Cola both marketed themselves as medicinal drinks, today they get much flak for their high sugar content and dismal nutritional value. In 2004, the Centre for Science and Environment, a Delhi-based environment advocacy group, claimed that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products contained toxins far above the norms permitted in the developed world. Pepsi is unarguably one of the most popular sodas in the world. This 125-year-old beverage was invented in 1898 by pharmacist Caleb D. Bradham in New Bern, North Carolina, USA. Initially, the drink was named “Brad’s Drink” after its inventor. According to PepsiCo’s website, Bradham bought the name “Pepsi Kola” from a local competitor and changed it to Pepsi-Cola. The drink’s name was shortened to Pepsi in 1961. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the name Pepsi comes from “dyspepsia”, the Greek name for indigestion or upset stomach. Initially, Pepsi was promoted as a medical drink that cures indigestion. Explaining this renaming of the drink, Jenny Danzi, the senior director at Pepsi, told Food & Wine, “Bradham renamed ‘Brad’s Drink,’ his popular non-alcoholic digestive crafted with a mix of kola nuts, sugar, water, caramel, lemon oil, nutmeg, and other additives, to ‘Pepsi-Cola.’ He believed the drink was more than refreshment, aiding in digestion, getting its roots from the word dyspepsia, meaning indigestion.” One theory suggests that the name “Pepsi” may have been a reference to the digestive enzyme called pepsin. However, pepsin was never used as an ingredient in Pepsi-Cola. Today Pepsi is mostly marketed as a refreshment soft drink, to be taken as accompaniment to meals and snacks. As of 2023, Pepsi is believed to be the second most valuable soft drink product globally. It stands behind Coca-Cola in sales numbers. It is interesting to note that Pepsi was invented 12 years after Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola, also known as Coke, was launched in the market in 1886 in Atlanta by a pharmacist named Dr John S. Pemberton. According to Southern Living, the name Coca-Cola comes from the carbonated drinks two main ingredients: the coca leaf and the kola nut. Advertiser Frank Mason Robinson, who worked as a bookkeeper for Dr John S. Pemberton, is credited with suggesting the name “Coca‑Cola” alongside designing the drink’s logo, which is still in use. According to the book, “For God, Country, and Coca-Cola”, Coca-Cola was marketed as a medicinal energy drink that can cure indigestion and headaches. Ever since their inception, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have competed for the same target audience. Their rivalry is dubbed “Cola Wars”. While Pepsi and Coca-Cola both marketed themselves as medicinal drinks, today they get much flak for their high sugar content and dismal nutritional value. In 2004, the Centre for Science and Environment, a Delhi-based environment advocacy group, claimed that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products contained toxins far above the norms permitted in the developed world.

Delhi generates maximum C&D waste in country, says CSE report

New Delhi: Delhi generates 3,711 tonnes per day (TPD) of construction and demolition waste, the highest among the 35 non-attainment cities, stated a report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on Monday. The report, ‘Construction and demolition waste – closing the waste loop for sustainability’, stated that the data was disclosed by the 35 non-attainment cities on the Central Pollution Control Board’s portal for regulation of air pollution in non-attainment cities, while the remaining 96 had not shared any data. PRANA is part of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) designed to improve local air quality. “Of the 131 non-attainment cities that have shared their city action plans on it, only 35 (26%) have data on C&D waste generation. Together, these cities have generated 6,563.5TPD C&D waste. Only eight cities have reported how much C&D waste they collect daily,” the report stated. Delhi is followed by Ahmedabad at 1,000TPD, and Faridabad and Noida at 300TPD each. It stated that Delhi’s capacity to treat 5,150TPD through five plants was more than adequate, and the goal should be to send all C&D waste to processing plants. The report pointed out flaws in calculating C&D waste under the Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0, under which cities are expected to apply a thumbrule of 50 gram per capita per day as part of the city solid waste action plan. “The top generators — according to the SBM 2.0 estimations — are Mumbai (919.8TPD), Delhi (817.5TPD), Kolkata (702TPD) and Bengaluru (426TPD). This is a gross underestimation.” Additional assessments carried out by CSE in the 35 cities revealed that the actual generation was expected to be much higher given the status of live construction sites. For instance, Delhi generates 3,711TPD, more than four times the estimated quantity. Mitashi Singh, programme manager of sustainable habitat at CSE, said, the data, needed to plan NCAP, had not been updated beyond 2021. We also published the following articles recently Bhatanwali waste plant: HP board submits plan to NGTThe Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (HPSPCB) has submitted a green action plan to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for Bhatanwali village panchayat in Sirmaur district. The plan proposes to create a miniature forest environment in the area using the Miyawaki method, a technique for growing dense forests with native plants. The estimated cost of the Miyawaki forest in Bhatanwali is approximately Rs 25 lakh. The action plan aims to restore the environment in the area, which has been affected by the solid waste management plant.105871986 This Indian city is the safest as per the latest reportKolkata has emerged as the safest city in India for the third consecutive year, with the lowest number of cognisable offenses per lakh population. Pune and Hyderabad secured the second and third positions. Kolkata witnessed a 16% decline in crime rates compared to the previous year. The city's success is attributed to the efforts of law enforcement agencies, including additional police stations. However, the report highlights a rise in crimes against women in Kolkata. Despite this, Kolkata has shown improvement in violent crimes, with a reduction in murder cases.105746806

Delhi Leads In Construction And Demolition Waste Generation: CSE Report Reveals Alarming Figures

The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) released a new report on Monday, revealing that Delhi produces approximately 3,711 tonnes per day (TPD) of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. This figure is the highest among the 35 non-attainment cities that have disclosed their data on the Central Pollution Control Board’s Portal for Regulation of Air-pollution in Non-Attainment cities (PRANA). The report, titled "Construction and Demolition Waste – Closing the Waste Loop for Sustainability," highlighted that Delhi's C&D waste generation is more than four times the estimated quantity of 817.49 TPD. Notably, 96 other cities have not shared their data as part of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) to improve local air quality. The study indicated that only 35 cities, constituting 26% of the 131 non-attainment cities with uploaded plans, provided statistics on C&D waste generation, totaling 6,563.48 TPD. Delhi reported the highest generation in the country, with 3,448 TPD. The report highlighted that cities, applying a thumb rule of 50 grams per capita per day, estimated their C&D waste generation as part of the city solid waste action plan. However, the estimated waste production of these 35 cities (3,052 TPD) was less than half of the actual 6,663 TPD they produced. Experts emphasized the need for all C&D waste to be directed to processing plants, expressing concern that cities were not adequately planning for the actual waste generated, potentially undermining effective C&D waste management efforts. Mitashi Singh, programme manager at CSE, urged a reevaluation of the SBM 2.0 estimates to ensure accurate waste management planning.

Indian cities falling short in construction waste control: CSE study

As Indian cities grapple with escalating air pollution, a fresh report from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) reveals a widespread lack of readiness among these cities to effectively manage construction and demolition (C&D) waste, which significantly contributes to urban pollution. The country’s resource extraction rate is a staggering 1,580 tonnes per acre, dwarfing the global average of 450 tonnes per acre. In response to this growing concern, the National Clean Air Programme has set a target for the 131 non-attainment cities in India to reduce their particulate pollution by 40% by 2026. Indian construction sector set to boom The report, entitled “Construction and Demolition Waste: Closing the Loop for Sustainability,” was unveiled by CSE during a national conference held today, highlighting the urgent need for a systematic and scientific approach to C&D waste management for a cleaner, more sustainable urban environment. Upon the release of the report, Sunita Narain, the Director General of the Centre for Science and Environment, remarked: “Management of construction and demolition waste could be a transformative factor. A decade ago, the primary concern was the impact of this waste on water bodies, as indiscriminate dumping was polluting them. However, by 2018-19, the focus shifted to the dust this waste generated, as it was discovered to significantly contribute to air pollution. It became clear that there is a substantial opportunity to improve the situation in this sector.” According to the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India’s construction sector is poised for significant growth, projected to reach a value of US $1.4 trillion by 2025 and contribute approximately 13% to the national GDP. This expansion will include the addition of billions of square meters for various infrastructural developments, including affordable housing, commercial spaces, and transportation networks. Rajneesh Sareen, Director of CSE’s Sustainable Buildings and Habitat Programme, emphasizes that this growth will not only lead to a substantial increase in waste but also escalate the demand for raw building materials, necessitating extensive mining. The draft National Resource Efficiency Policy of 2019 indicates that India’s material consumption has sextupled from 1.18 billion tonnes in 1970 to seven billion tonnes in 2015, with a resource extraction rate significantly higher than the global average and a relatively low recycling rate. According to estimates from the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) 2.0, the cities producing the most construction and demolition (C&D) waste are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Bengaluru. However, these numbers are much lower than what the cities themselves have reported. For example, Delhi actually produces more than four times the estimated amount, and Kolkata produces over twice as much. This shows that the current methods used to guess how much C&D waste is made need to be improved. When it comes to collecting this waste, only a few cities have shared how much they pick up every day. For instance, Delhi collects about 1,770 tonnes, while smaller cities like Lucknow, Varanasi, Meerut, Agra, Bareilly, Chittoor, and Gajraula collect much less. The total amount collected by these cities is around 2,020 tonnes per day. Some cities charge for collecting the waste based on its weight or the cost of transportation. A few cities also fine people who don’t manage their waste properly, and some have vehicles to pick up the waste. The data shows that most cities collect less than 10% of their C&D waste. However, some smaller cities claim they collect all of it. In contrast, big cities like Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai don’t collect as much. This suggests that smaller cities might have a better chance of improving how much waste they collect. Out of all the cities, 54 have specific places where people can drop off their C&D waste. Twenty-nine of these cities have shared where these drop-off points are located. Meanwhile, nine cities have said they don’t have any collection points at all. Mismanagement of construction and demolition waste Mitashi Singh, Programme Manager at CSE, adds that the mismanagement of construction and demolition waste, often disposed of in ecologically sensitive areas, inflicts severe environmental harm. Furthermore, the construction process itself is a major source of dust and particulate matter, contributing to the air pollution crisis in Indian cities and associated health risks such as lung cancer and respiratory diseases. Also Read: 97% of waterbodies in Odisha concentrated in villages The CSE report includes a performance matrix assessment of 14 cities across seven states, evaluating them on six parameters and 26 sub-parameters, along with guidelines for controlling construction dust. The report recommends a holistic ecosystem approach to waste management, the prompt establishment of relevant bye-laws, accurate data collection on waste quantities, robust waste collection and treatment infrastructure, efficient construction practices to reduce waste and dust, and financial reforms to support waste management and air pollution control efforts. Incomplete data on city waste Out of the 131 non-attainment cities that have submitted their action plans on PRANA, a mere 35 (26%) possess data on construction and demolition (C&D) waste generation. Collectively, these cities produce 6,563.48 tonnes of C&D waste per day, with Delhi leading in waste generation. However, only eight cities have disclosed their daily C&D waste collection figures. The current estimation guidelines for C&D waste generation need revision due to significant variability in the data. The Centre for Science and Environment’s analysis suggests that the actual amount of waste generated could be considerably higher, especially when considering active construction sites. The C&D Waste Management Rules of 2016 provided a schedule for cities to establish and start C&D waste recycling plants. Among the 131 non-attainment cities, 53 have reported on the status of their plants, with only 12 cities having at least one operational plant. The remaining cities are in various stages of planning or construction. Furthermore, the C&D Rules require cities to enact municipal bylaws, which 17 cities have reported doing. To enhance monitoring and waste collection, cities are also implementing dedicated helpline numbers and developing mobile applications.

COP28: Fighting climate change can create jobs in India

The 28th UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai brought together heads of states and representatives from over 190 countries to discuss and negotiate the global response to the climate crisis. With temperatures exceeding 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900 average) and on track to surpass the critical 1.5°C threshold by 2030 and 2°C by 2050, the stakes are high. According to a report from the UN Environment Programme, about a quarter of the year 2023 recorded temperatures exceeding 1.5°C above the pre-industrial levels, while November 17 witnessed for the first time the temperatures exceeding 2°C. It is time for drastic measures. Don’t Count On Global Climate Aid Despite the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C, the lack of binding commitments and inadequate global climate finance, hinders progress. Developing countries like India bear the brunt of extreme weather events on a daily basis, while contributing the least to emissions. A report from the Centre for Science and Environment indicates that in 2023, India experienced extreme weather almost on a daily basis.

NDMC extends doubling of parking fees to privately managed sites

The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) has extended the doubling of the parking fees to the privately managed sites days after the civic body announced the move citing the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM)’s directions in November for mitigating the pollution sources. On November 13, the council said it was doubling the fees at the parking sites it directly manages in the New Delhi region until January 31. The four-wheelers were charged ₹20 hourly with a maximum of ₹100 daily and two-wheelers ₹10 per hour. In the case of multilevel parking sites, the charges were ₹10 for up to four hours for cars and ₹5 for two-wheelers. The rates were doubled from November 28. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which manages over 96% of Delhi’s geographical area, has not enforced the parking fee increase. The parking rates were increased four times in November 2017 as part of efforts to check pollution. Centre for Science and Environment executive director (research and advocacy) Anumita Roychowdhury said only increasing parking rates in selected commercial areas will not be effective. “Parking needs to happen only in legally demarcated parking areas of a ward with stringent penalties on illegal parking. Only this can reduce demand for parking, usage of personal vehicles and reduce emissions.”

COP28 side-event on carbon capture technologies in cement sector highlights key barriers and successes

Electricity demand, CO2 leakage risks to drinking water and high costs among key issues Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) is one of the biggest pathways that big industries and energy sector are relying on to reduce their emissions in the race to become net-zero. CCUS involves the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2), generally from large point sources such as power plants and industries using fossil-fuels. Capturing is done through a wide range of technologies, like various pre-combustion technologies, oxy-fuel technology, direct separation technology and others. The captured CO2 is either stored in underground geological formations or utilised in a wide range of applications, including industrial processes, fuel manufacturing and concrete curing. CCUS is particularly important for the cement sector, where there is less scope for emission reduction from other pathways in the long run. The Global Cement and Concrete Association’s (GCCA) roadmap to net-zero suggested that CCUS is expected to contribute around 36 per cent of net emission reduction in the sector by 2050. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop CCUS projects in the sector. But the deployment of the technology is difficult and faces several economic, technological and ecological barriers. International Energy Agency (IEA) credible pathways to 1.5 degrees Celsius point out that even in a low overshoot scenario, carbon capture plants of around 1.2 Gigatonnes (Gt) CO2 capacity need to be implemented in hard-to-abate sectors by 2030, against the roughly 0.3 Gt CO2 capacity currently planned. A side-event on CCUS technology in the cement sector at the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has put the spotlight on key challenges and progress of carbon capture projects for developing and developed countries. Some of the key challenges discussed during the event are discussed further. LONG IMPLEMENTATION TIME A speaker from Canadian think-tank CCS Knowledge Centre highlighted that implementation of a commercial-scale carbon capture technology, from feasibility studies to development and final construction and risk assessment, can typically take more than six-years to complete. Additionally, storage or utilisation solutions also need to be in place, without which capturing is of no value. Although there are number of CCUS projects in cement plants globally, all of them are in development stages. To put this into perspective, there are 41 CCS facilities in operation globally, 26 under construction and 325 in development, according to Global CCS Institute’s facility database. Of the 41 operational facilities, none of them is from the cement industry. Heidelberg Materials’s plant in Brevik Norway is set to be fully operational by 2024, which will make it the world’s first operational carbon capture facility at a cement plant. The facility will capture 400,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. The company’s Canada plant in Edmonton, which is projected to start commercial capture of CO2 by 2026, is set to be the world’s first carbon neutral cement plant. Support from the federal and provincial government has been key in the success of the project, Beth-Hardy Valiaho, vice-president at the CCS Knowledge Centre, noted at the side-event. The Edmonton facility is aiming to capture over 1 million tonne CO2 per year. Other CCUS plants that plan to start operation in the next few years are CEMEX plant in Rudersdorf, Germany (2026) and Holcim Olympus project in Milaki, Greece (2028). It is interesting to note that most of these projects are located in the Global North. While China and India, who are the top producers of cement globally, have only a few projects in early stages of development. According to Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment’s Decarbonizing India: Cement sector report, CCUS could be one of the recommended pathways for reducing emissions in Indian cement sector in the long run but not by 2030, especially after witnessing the slow progress on CCUS in the Indian cement sector. Dalmia Cement is the only one known for announcing a large-scale carbon capture demonstration plant in 2019 which is still awaited. RISKS WITH STORAGE Studies on the impacts of CO2 leakage in geological storages mentioned during the event emphasise potential risks in CO2 storage related to groundwater contamination. A researcher from the University of Texas, Katherine Romanack, working on CO2 storage explained that while CO2 will be stored at depths greater than 800 metres, which is below underground water, there are potential risks to human health and marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the form of CO2 or brine migration into water. She further added that CO2 leakage can decrease the pH of water, making it acidic. These studies highlighted various impacts of CO2 leakage/migration — leakage in aquifers can mobilise heavy metals, such as iron and manganese, in water, which can make it harmful for human health. Moreover, the environmental impacts of leakage seem to cover small surface areas under the seabed, not affecting the majority of seabed, but if the gas leaks into aquifer, seawater or atmosphere, it can disperse and affect a much larger area than below ground/seabed. However, Romanack pointed out that such leakages are rare and CO2 is not likely to reach groundwater. She added that if, in an unlikely event, it does, the impact will be transient and localised. FINANCING CCS CCS is one of the biggest mitigation measures that is being banked upon, but it is also one of the most expensive. Examples of projects that have been implemented in Europe, the United States or Canada all have government support as a common factor. There is a lot of operational cost that goes into piloting CCS projects that makes it difficult for cement plants to effectively implement projects. Jonas Helseth from Bellona Foundation pointed out the financial barriers to commissioning CCS projects. He underlined that storage infrastructure needs a lot of investment and these projects are unpopular because public money is being spent for industrial benefit in most of the countries. While the US already has storage infrastructure, most of the world does not. Therefore, there is a need for a better model like creating demand for low-carbon cement and concrete, through which these projects can be funded, said Helseth. Another panellist at the event, Claude Lorea, director from GCCA, also highlighted key finance requirements in form of grants and low interest rate loans should be provided to these projects. HIGH DEMAND OF ELECTRICITY Carbon capture part of CCUS is the most energy intensive process, it was further highlighted at teh evenmt. The process can almost double the electricity demand of the cement plant, highlighted Lorea. For countries like India, which are planning to increase coal consumption to meet rising energy demand, this is a big challenge. Moreover, plants need to look at renewable sources to meet this electricity demand to effectively reduce their fossil fuel dependence. MAJOR CCUS DEPLOYMENT BY 2050 NEEDED There is a need to increase the capture capacity of CO2 by 2050. Global CO2 capture in IEA net-zero scenario should increase from 1.6 Gt in 2030 to 7.6 Gt in 2050, underlining that CCUS is particularly important for the cement sector. On the bright side, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) synthesis report, the global geological storage capacity for CO2 storage is estimated to be around 1,000 GtCO2, which is more than the storage requirements till year 2100 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and given that the storage sites are appropriately selected and managed, CO2 can be permanently isolated from the atmosphere. The report added that currently, global rates of CCS deployment are far below those in modelled pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C to 2°C. Enabling conditions such as policy instruments, greater public support and technological innovation could reduce these barriers. We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.

COP 28: Changing the narrative

As I sit down to write this, COP28 — the latest climate conference being held in Dubai this year — has entered its second week. The conference is being held when the world is more fractured and fissured than ever before — divided over the two wars and horrendous human toll — and at the same time being brought to its knees because of extreme weather events that are ravaging the poor. It also comes at a time when the world — particularly, the already rich and industrialised world — has little political appetite for real emission reduction. They have switched fuels, from coal to natural gas in most cases, which has brought down carbon dioxide levels to an extent, but now when the going gets tough, public opinion is wavering on the costs of the transition. It is important to note that natural gas is a fossil fuel and has a climate footprint. Action is now tough, so it is easy to pass the buck to the rest of the world, where economic growth is a necessity. Against this grim backdrop, it is good news that the world has come together to agree on the loss and damage fund and even put money into it. It is another matter that the funds are still nowhere near the amounts needed to pay for the damages that climate change is bringing to the poorest in the world. It is also another matter that the rules of this fund must come without new conditionalities and not push the already vulnerable further into debt or development that makes no sense. But still let’s take a moment to exhale. There are two other developments that I would like you to take note of; not because they are earth-shattering but because they are game changers — that is, if we can get them right. The first is the issue of finance; it is a make-or-break issue in climate negotiations. The reason is that many countries need the right to development. But when the world has literally exhausted its carbon budget — the amount of carbon dioxide that the world can emit to keep temperatures below 1.5°C rise — the only way ahead for these countries is to develop differently; to move away from coal to renewables; and to electric vehicles before they start building cities for private cars. They cannot afford the transition even with the decreasing costs of renewable energy. The question of finance is not about charity but about payment for this transformation to keep the world safe. At every COP, discussions stall because of this question of money. Then, the world gets busy counting how much is needed and how huge the gap is. But at COP28, the discussion on finance has taken a step forward — not because new money at the scale needed has been put forward but the need to discuss the quality of finance is now on the table. The COP28 president, Sultan Ahmed Al-Jaber, raised the question of finance to be accessible and affordable to countries. In the draft document of the Global Stocktake (GST), which is expected to be the major outcome of COP28, it is mentioned that countries need finance that does not add to their debt burden. Currently, even if you accept the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) accounts of climate finance, which says that the world is close to reaching $100 billion annually — a promise made a decade ago — the bulk of this money comes as loans, which would then put further strain on the already stressed economies. So, this change in narrative is important, but needs a future road map. The second issue is of fossil fuels; it is as intrinsic as it is controversial. For too long, the western discourse has been simplistic: Phase out fossil fuels and then, almost as if it is synonymous, phase out coal. This discourse has gone nowhere. The fact is that the production and use of fossil fuel is increasing, and not just in our world. The US, today, is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, beating Qatar. The US is also producing more oil per day than ever seen in history; 13.5 million barrels a day, which beats Saudi Arabia. But it is easy to paper over this fact when coal becomes the whipping-boy. There is no question that coal is bad; but it is also the fuel used in the world that has not yet moved to somewhat cleaner gas. Targeting coal means shifting the burden of the transition to countries that cannot afford even dirty energy to meet the needs of their people. At COP28 this issue needs to be out into the open. It is time we discussed the science behind the phaseout of fossil fuels; by when and which fuel. Then the logical question would be which fuels the world will get to use and who gets to use the remaining quota of oil, gas, or coal that the world has time to burn. This, then, is the zillion-dollar question in future climate negotiations. The writer is at the Centre for Science and Environment sunita@cseindia.org, X: @sunitanar

Why India opted not to sign COP28 declaration on climate and health

The second week of the annual UN climate change summit or COP has begun. Among other things, negotiations on fossil fuel generation are ongoing. For the first time in the history of COPs, Samoa, a Polynesian island country, called for an end to new investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, on behalf of all small island states. Smaller island states are responsible for very little greenhouse gas emissions but bear the brunt of climate emergencies. But, the first week of the two-week conference was more than just photo ops with world leaders. The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalised, 134 countries signed the Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action and 124 countries came together and signed the ‘Declaration on Climate and Health’. December 3 was even celebrated as World Health Day. India did not sign the Declaration or participate in official activities on World Health Day. "That is because we need to balance our COP goals with SDG goals," said Harish Hande from SELCO Foundation. In its unofficial bid to lead the vulnerable countries against climate change, it is standing strong on protecting its agriculture and health sectors. The non-binding declaration calls for nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the health sector “swiftly, sustainably, and substantially.” It’s not practical for India to curb greenhouse gases for cooling in the health sector, according to PTI, because vaccines, drugs etc require cold storage rooms. “We need cold storages for storing vaccines and medicines and these are linked to making our healthcare systems resilient,” Leena Nandan, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests told The Hindu, “However, suggestions that using these are contributing to climate emissions and that we must choose some fuels over the other are not acceptable.” “If anything, we need to make health action central to climate action”, said Anumita Roy Chowdhary, Executive Director, Research and Advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment. For a country like India, we need to acknowledge the ill impacts of climate change on the population, she said. “We need to change the way we do urban planning, change the way we travel etc,” she said, adding that those need to be our priority. Health sector experts at the COP were also quick to point out that since India is a huge exporter of generic medicines, moving towards decarbonising the sector can impact not only 1.4 billion Indians but also several populations across the world, not to mention the impact on livelihoods of those who work in the health sector. "Health tech caters mostly to those who can afford it, while the poor wait for long hours to access it," said Hande. (Raksha Kumar is a media fellow, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development)

COP 28—what to expect as UNFCCC annual climate meet enters final lap

As negotiations at COP 28 at Dubai enter the final lap, the fact of the matter is that “nothing major” has emerged, so far, from the UNFCCC annual meet and “nothing much major really” can be expected, as per observers. Though the summit began on a positive note with countries agreeing to operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund in the opening plenary, the controversy regarding a “leaked” letter by OPEC asking members to “reject any language on fossil fuels”, set the narrative. According to reports, countries, or parties as they are called, continue to be at loggerheads over the critical issue regarding the phase-out of fossil fuels, thereby putting a question mark over whether any commitment was possible at all through global warming talks. Apparently, several countries felt that the conference should focus only on reducing climate pollution and not target fossil fuels while many others, including the European Union and climate-vulnerable nations, want COP28 to end with a clear deal on the end of fossil fuel use. Fossil fuel phase-out, how feasible Is the issue regarding phasing out fossil fuels so simple? Observers say putting the blame for global failure to curb fossil fuel use on developing countries like India and China is “unfair and simplistic”. According to noted environmentalist Sunita Narain, the fossil fuels issue is “as intrinsic as it is controversial” and making coal the “whipping boy” is not the answer. “It is time we discussed the science behind the phase-out of fossil fuels; by when and which fuel. Then the logical question would be which fuels the world will get to use and who gets to use the remaining quota of oil, gas or coal that the world has time to burn,” she adds. According to Narain, for too long, the western discourse has been “simplistic, phase out fossil fuels and then, almost as if it is synonymous, phase out coal. This discourse has gone nowhere. The fact is that the production and use of fossil fuel is increasing, and not just in our world.” The fact is the US is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, beating Qatar, “producing more oil per day than ever seen in history, 13.5 million barrels a day”, she says. “But it is easy to paper over this fact when coal becomes the whipping boy. There is no question that coal is bad; but it is also the fuel used in the world that has not yet moved to somewhat cleaner gas. Targeting coal means shifting the burden of the transition to countries that cannot afford even dirty energy to meet the needs of their people,” Narain asserts. Loss and Damage Finance Facility Notably, the biggest headline from COP27 last year was the much-anticipated agreement to set up a Loss and Damage Finance Facility (LDFF) meant for supporting developing countries, primarily the least developed ones, impacted by climate change, in time to launch at COP28. Narain says the world has come together to agree on LDFF and even put money into it but funds are still nowhere near the amounts needed to pay for damages that climate change is bringing to the poorest in the world. “It is also another matter that the rules of this fund must come without new conditions and not push the already vulnerable further into debt or development that makes no sense,” she adds. The money promised so far by developed nations – about $700 million – represents a small fraction of what is needed every year. The nature and the timing of the pledged amount remains uncertain and there are fears that a major chunk of the finances will come as loans, adding to the burdens of the already hard-hit. The corporate angle and the ‘leaked letter’ Amid the ensuing debate around fossil fuels and renewables in the text, observers say non-state entities like corporates, regions and institutions will play a role in whatever eventuates. The “leaked letter” by the Secretary General of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries asking members to scuttle any deal/reject any language on fossil fuels elimination use created much tension in negotiating rooms. The letter from Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais to all 13 OPEC members and some other fossil-fuel-dependent economies asked them to reject any formulation that is focused on fossil fuels instead of the emissions that it leads to. It is a line that has been taken by Saudi Arabia, the most influential member of OPEC, at the COP28 negotiations on fossil fuels, as per the reports. COPs are convened under the UNFCCC—a multilateral treaty adopted in 1992. India India’s stance, including on climate finance and mitigation, is well documented. India’s long-term goal is to move towards a system that doesn’t lead to irreversible damage to the environment. At the same time, its growth story also has to be protected in mind the fundamentals of the common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). India believes that not all countries can be held responsible for the state of climate in the world today; therefore, action, including on the controversial issue of fossil fuels, has to be taken on the basis of individual national responsibilities and capabilities.

Less than 8% of India’s coal power plants can control SO2 emissions, a new analysis finds

Less than eight per cent of India’s coal-based power plants have installed the technology recommended by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to keep sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions in check, an analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) has found. Flue Gas Desulfurisation (FGD) units are used to remove sulphur compounds from the exhaust emissions of power plants. India is the largest emitter of SO2 in the world, according to a 2019 Greenpeace study. In fact, across India, only a combined capacity of 16.5 Gigawatts (GW) of coal plants have installed FGDs and Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (CFBC) boilers equivalent to 5.9 GW. The CREA analysis found that 92 per cent of the country’s coal power plants function without FGDs. Since December 2022, only 3.2 GW capacity has installed SO2 control technologies, the analysis revealed. Eight years ago, the MoEF&CC introduced emission standards in 2015 for regulating SO2, NOx (nitrogen oxides), and Hg (mercury) emissions. The deadline has been extended four times for units in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and three times for most other units across the country. “Blanket extension of the deadline for all coal power plants without checking on their progress by MoEF&CC and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) played a major role in derailment of emission controls from coal-based electricity generation units,” Sunil Dahiya, South Asia Analyst at CREA said in a statement. In 2021, the MoEF&CC divided the categories of coal-power plants based on geography to enforce deadlines. Category A is demarcated to coal-based power plants within a 10-kilometre radius of the NCR and of cities with a million-plus population. Category B is within a 10 km radius of critically polluted areas or non-attainment cities, and Category C is the remaining plants throughout the country. Interestingly, the majority of the country’s power plants belong to Category C, with the longest deadlines. The deadlines for plants within the city are shorter due to high pollution levels that could harm people. As of October 2023, for power plant units in the 300 km radius of Delhi-NCR, FGD installations have been completed for 2.6 GW installed capacity of the cumulative capacity of 13.4 GW. Bids have been issued for 3.4 GW capacity. WHAT OF NTPC? Of the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC)’s total 56.3 GW coal capacity monitored by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) for FGD installation, only 3.6 GW has been installed with FGDs as of October 2023, the study stated. The NTPC, CEA and Central Pollution Control Board have stipulated a timeline of 18-36 months for installation and synchronisation of FGDs from the bid-award date. For the whole country, by December 2020, 66.5 GW capacity had already been awarded the bids, but most of this capacity had been not commissioned for FGD installation. “NTPC is a clear example that showed ambition and leadership initially by awarding bids for most of its capacity but no progress and no penalisation of others who didn’t move on the pathway to installing FGD and repeated extensions have slowed NTPC down as well,” Dahiya explained in a statement. According to a recent analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), because of multiple deadline extensions, the plants may not violate the norms. But their emissions, especially for SO2, are much higher than the prescribed limit. As of December 2023, the new deadlines are: ● December 31, 2024, for power plant units within a 10 km radius of Delhi-NCR and million-plus cities. Extended from the earlier date of December 2022; ● December 31, 2025, for power plant units within a 10 km radius of critically polluted cities. Extended from the earlier date of December 31, 2023; ● December 31, 2026, for all other power plant units across the country. Extended from the earlier date of December 31, 2024; Anubha Aggarwal, programme officer, Industrial Pollution, CSE, New Delhi told Down to Earth: “The deadline is always being pushed on flimsy grounds. First, they had regulatory concerns and cost issues, followed by COVID-19 and barriers to import from China. Overall, it shows an unwillingness and reluctance. Adding to this is the lack of transparency in how the deals transpire during and after bidding.” However, even after installing and operationalising the FGD instrument, Delhi’s Dadri thermal power plant SO2 emissions are on the higher side. It means the FGD is not technically compatible with the plant’s capacity or is not running continuously alongside the plant, Aggarwal said. Despite having a mandatory feasibility test before installation, there is the possibility of challenges with efficiency, Aggarwal added. India’s energy generation installed capacity stands at 425 GW. The thermal sector holds a predominant position within the overall installed capacity, encompassing coal (48.6 per cent), gas (5.9 per cent), lignite (1.6 per cent), and a minimal share (<0.2 per cent) from diesel, according to the 2023 CEA report. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/less-than-8-of-india-s-coal-power-plants-can-control-so2-emissions-a-new-analysis-finds-93279