Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Worrying: Delhi Most Polluted Among Five Ncr Cities Despite Less Pollution In Winter, Noida Most Polluted Among Five Cities Of Delhi Ncr

According to the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi remained the most polluted among five NCR cities this year, despite the pollution levels being lower last winter. According to the CSE study, Delhi still had the highest number of days with ‘severe’ or ‘poor’ air quality among major cities in the NCR. Noida was the least polluted city of NCR. Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director-Research, CSE, said in the report, a comprehensive analysis of PM 2.5 during the entire winter season (October 2022-January 2023) in Delhi-NCR shows that there is a tilting of the pollution curve in winter and peak The level has also decreased. Urban Lab has done this analysis in CSE. Accordingly, there is a steady decline in the seasonal average levels of air pollution. However a higher level exists at city stations. Seasonal averages differed significantly between cities and towns in large parts of the NCR, but periods of high pollution were synchronous despite the large distances. Post navigation P

Air Pollution: Delhi is not among the 10 most polluted cities in Asia, this Indian city on top

Delhi, which is often in headlines for its bad climate, did not make it to the list of top 10 most polluted cities in Asia this time. Based on the World Air Quality Index (Air Pollution AQI Level), in the data available on Monday, 5 cities were from China, 1 from Mongolia and the other four were from India. In the latest data, pollution in Gujarat’s capital Gandhinagar was measured at alarming levels with the Air Quality Index (AQI) at 724, the highest in the list. At the time of filing this report, Gandhinagar was followed by Pan Bazar, Guwahati (665), Khindipada-Bhandup West, Mumbai (471) and Bhopal Chauraha, Dewas (315).

Air pollution level in Delhi-NCR this winter was lowest for season since 2018: CSE

New Delhi: This winter saw the cleanest air in the Delhi-NCR region since large-scale monitoring started in 2018, according to the latest analysis of air pollution levels by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The concentration of air pollutants in Delhi stood at 160 micrograms per cubic meter for the October-January period, which is the lowest level recorded since wide-scale monitoring started in 2018-19, the leading think tank said in its report.

Delhi experiences better air quality this winter

This winter has been the cleanest in New Delhi-NCR since large-scale air quality monitoring started in 2018,” said Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The analysis was conducted by the Urban Lab at CSE, and has revealed a continuous drop in seasonal average levels of air pollution, although elevated levels prevailed at city stations, said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director-research. “This improvement is a combined effect of meteorology and emergency action based on pollution forecasting.” There was heavy and extended rainfall in the early phases of the season that prevented smog episodes from building up and also lowered the seasonal average. “The analysis shows that there were still 10 days of severe and severe-plus air quality and one four-day long smog episode during this winter.” The city-wide winter average for Delhi stood at 160 microgramme per cubic metre (µg/m³) for the October-January period, which is the lowest level recorded since wide-scale monitoring started in 2018-19. Like the city-wide winter average for Delhi, the winter peak pollution level was found to be the lowest recorded since wide-scale monitoring started in 2018–19. This year’s city-wide peak was 401 g/m3, which was recorded on November 3, 2022. This winter, only one smog episode was recorded from January 6–9, 2023. The average daily intensity of this smog stood at 287 µg/m³.

The Rockefeller Foundation to Present Energy Transition and Access Solutions at CERAWeek 2023

This week, Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation, Ashvin Dayal, Senior Vice President of Power & Climate, and Eileen O’Connor, Senior Vice President of Communications, Policy, and Advocacy, will travel to Houston, Texas, to join more than 900 global leaders at CERAWeek by S&P Global 2023. During the conference, themed: Navigating a Turbulent World: Energy, Climate and Security, the three will discuss challenges and breakthrough opportunities related to accelerating just energy transitions, expanding energy access, and ending energy poverty. In addition, Dr. Shah will participate in a conversation on addressing climate change in the developing world at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “If humanity continues with business as usual, the world is on track to warm by about 3 degrees Celsius, at which temperature life for far too many people will be harsher, poorer, and more fragile,” said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. “I look forward to speaking in Houston about how The Rockefeller Foundation is working with partners around the world to scale innovative technologies, and identify new ways to mobilize financing, to both avert climate catastrophe and improve the lives of millions of underrepresented people around the world.” Alongside the engagement at Rice University, Dr. Shah, Ms. O’Connor, and Mr. Dayal will talk about The Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts to advance just energy transitions in emerging and developing countries via the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP). A year after its official launch, GEAPP released early results of its efforts in its 12 partner countries during COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The $500 million that The Rockefeller Foundation committed to GEAPP is the single largest investment in The Rockefeller Foundation’s $22-billion, 109-year giving history. CERAWEEK INNOVATION AGORA STUDIO – Monday, March 6th 4:30-5:10 pm (CST) Balancing Net Zero and Just Energy Priorities in Energy Transition How can we promote energy transition policies that address climate concerns and balance with the basic need for universal energy access all global citizens should experience? Eli Aheto, Managing Director, Beyond Net Zero Ashvin Dayal, Senior Vice President, Power & Climate Initiative, The Rockefeller Foundation Sunita Narain, Director General, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) Takeshi Soda, Director for Oil and Gas Division, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE), Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), Japan Susan Kish, Managing Partner, Andesa Advisors CERAWEEK INNOVATION CLIMATE HUB – Tuesday, March 7th 2:30-3:00 pm (CST) Improving Energy Access While Addressing Climate Change Can combating climate change and alleviating energy poverty go hand in hand? How do we lift people out of energy poverty while combating the climate crisis? This is the energy trilemma—maintaining security, reliability and affordability—while lowering emissions. Ashvin Dayal, Senior Vice President, Power & Climate Initiative, The Rockefeller Foundation Enoh Ebong, Director, United States Trade and Development Agency Annette Hugh, Global Head of Market Development & Engagement, S&P Global Commodity Insights Maria Fernanda Suarez, Managing Director, Accenture CERAWEEK EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE – Thursday, March 9th 10:50-11:30 am (CST) Spotlight | How to End Global Energy Poverty Energy poverty is limited access to energy resources that precludes people and nations from meeting basic human needs and achieving their aspirations for a better future. About 750 million people, mostly in Africa, lack complete energy access and about 3.5 billion do not have reliable power for more than a few hours a day. Developing countries are demanding access to power technologies and financing on competitive terms. Bridging this gap has become a global challenge—to mobilize resources and new capacities at scale. How much of the problem can be solved through innovation in distributed energies? Is reinvention needed in global financial and development strategies? In commercial practices? Join a discussion on emerging solutions that can define a path of progress. Carlos Pascual, Sr. Vice President Geopolitics and International Affairs, S&P Global Commodity Insights Rajiv J. Shah, President, The Rockefeller Foundation RICE UNIVERSITY JAMES A. BAKER III HALL – Thursday, March 9th 4:30-5:45 pm (CST) Addressing Climate Change in the Developing World: A Conversation with Rajiv Shah Dr. Rajiv J. Shah will give remarks on the need to accelerate just energy transitions in developing countries and speak with Kenneth B. Medlock III, the senior director of the Institute’s Center for Energy Studies — one of the world’s leading energy think tanks — about the opportunities and challenges of using renewable energies to meet global demand. He will also visit with Baker Institute for Public Policy fellows, scholars, and researchers studying a wide range of foreign and domestic policy issues. The Event will be livestreamed on The Rockefeller Foundation’s social media channels, and Houston area media can attend in person here. About The Rockefeller Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on collaborative partnerships at the frontiers of science, technology, and innovation that enable individuals, families, and communities to flourish. We work to promote the well-being of humanity and make opportunity universal and sustainable. Our focus is on scaling renewable energy for all, stimulating economic mobility, and ensuring equitable access to health care and nutritious food. For more information, sign up for our newsletter at rockefellerfoundation.org and follow us on Twitter @RockefellerFdn.

Now, remote sensors to keep track of vehicular emissions in Gurgaon

GURGAON: On the side of a road in Manesar, a box-like device mounted on a tripod collected data on emissions of vehicles passing by for a few hours on Sunday. This data, once analysed, will help the authorities identify vehicles releasing emissions beyond permissible limits. The Sunday exercise, a pilot for the city, is part of measures that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) has to implement to curb air pollution in NCR. Before this, a similar study was carried out in Delhi. remote_sensing Officials told TOI they would study the data gathered by these remote sensing devices to keep an eye on emissions till mid-April. For real-world application, the policy's aim is to install these devices on major roads of five NCR cities - Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad - by the end of December 2024, they said. "We'll see if the monitors are able to collect accurate data on the vehicles, emissions by genre of vehicle technology, age of the vehicle, fuel type, and provide feedback on real-world performance of vehicle technology on road and deterioration over time," said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director for research and advocacy and head of the air pollution and clean transportation programme at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Roychowdhury is also a member of the CAQM sub-committee. The devices use sensors and light beams to measure the concentration of gaseous compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) being released from the exhaust of vehicles. They are equipped with cameras to note down the vehicle registration number. Among the many benefits of this equipment is large-scale screening in moving traffic, far easier and more efficient than checking every vehicle manually to see if it meets the emissions criteria. Apart from detecting older vehicles that aren't allowed on the roads, the devices can also tell if a vehicle that met the certification test is emitting higher pollutants than it should be. This can indicate if there are systemic flaws to be dealt with or an individual engine that is faulty. Most of these functions are not possible with periodical PUC (pollution-under-control) testing that is the norm right now. Roychowdhury said a study for Delhi had found that emissions from traffic contribute around 17% to PM 2.5 pollutants - tiny particles that can get absorbed into the bloodstream after being inhaled and cause serious illnesses. Figures are likely to be similar across NCR cities, she said. According to the CAQM policy formed in July 2022 and approved by the Supreme Court, Delhi and its peripheral cities need to institutionalise remote sensing measurement of emissions by vehicles. In February, CAQM had facilitated a pilot study in Delhi. In Gurgaon, the exercise was carried out with the assistance of Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the traffic police. "The Supreme Court directive of July 29, 2019, took on board the recommendations on remote sensing for on-road emission monitoring that require the ministry of road transport and highways to frame rules for its implementation. In 2018, the International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT) carried out a study to identify high emitters, and correlate remote sensing techniques and PUC results. Thereafter, the draft for the policy was made. We are now conducting pilots in Gurgaon and in nearby cities. The plan for its implementation will be developed for Delhi and the key NCR cities for time-bound implementation," Roychowdhury said. Experts said remote sensors could have a wider impact on tackling air pollution in NCR. "Given the advancement in new vehicle technologies under the regime of BS-IV and BS-VI emissions standards, it is necessary to introduce more advanced and efficient screening of fleets to overcome the limitations of PUC testing," said Shubhansh Tiwari, a research associate at the Amity Centre for Air Pollution Control. Roychowdhury admitted that the task to install the devices on all roads was likely to take some time. "We cannot have a deadline because it is a huge project," she told TOI.

Directorate of Education joins hands UNEP for 'Tide Turners Plastic Challenge' initiative

The Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, has joined hands with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for implementing the "Tide Turners Plastic Challenge" initiative in schools. An official notification issued said: “ The objective of the said programme is capacity building, community outreach and advocating ground-level solutions against plastic pollutants.” Under this initiative, the best solutions implemented in the schools shall be showcased during the upcoming World Environment Day on June 5, 2023, with the theme “Solutions to beat plastic pollution”. A report on State of the Environment 2022 by the Centre for science and environment states that Delhi generates 689.8 tonnes of plastic waste daily, highest among the metropolitan cities. The report highlighted that while high plastic waste can be attributed to high population and growth of segregation and need for higher awareness and civic action also remains a major impediment to addressing the plastic pollution in the city. “This initiative enhanced exposure and developed leadership skills in all participants both from urban and rural areas. Although this is a global initiative being implemented in 40 countries, India stands above all both in terms of volume of participation and impact on the ground” said the circular.

Coal vs gas, or coal and gas?

Coal is bad, and so is natural gas, when it comes to climate change. Then why is it that the Western world, which has to date built its economy on dirty coal, is now wedded to gas as its dream fuel? Why is dirty coal singled out when it comes to climate change? Why not natural gas, which too is a fossil fuel and emits gases that contribute to global warming? I know I am asking an inconvenient question. But bear with me. I do so, knowing that we need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But we need clarity on what we are doing and why. As an environmentalist based in Delhi, I am clear that coal burning is bad for our health; it generates emissions that we must not breathe. It is bad also because it is burnt in thousands of small- and medium-sized industrial boilers, where pollution abatement is either expensive or impossible to regulate. Furthermore, thermal power plants that use coal to generate energy add to local pollution because many units are old and cannot be refurbished and refitted with technologies to control emissions of particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), or nitrogen oxides (NOx). It is for this reason, and as part of the effort to combat local air pollution, that my city of Delhi has banned the use of coal; it has shut down the last of its aged coal-based thermal plants. Now, it has stopped the use of coal within 100 km of the city. All industries using coal to fuel their furnaces have been told to move to natural gas or other clean fuels or will be forced to shut down. The ultimate objective is to increase the use of electricity as energy by industries and vehicles, which will come from clean sources, ideally renewables. But in the interim, the solution is to move to natural gas, which is cleaner than coal when it comes to local air toxins. The problem is that the price of natural gas has shot up — partly because of the war in Ukraine and Europe’s need for this energy source. Virtually every gas tanker is now headed to Europe and this is impinging on India’s clean gas transition. So, I am not an apologist for coal. But I am asking this “why-coal-and-not-gas” question because the science of pollution for local and global is not the same. Coal emits carbon dioxide (CO2). Natural gas emits half of what coal emits in terms of CO2 as well as methane. These are not local pollutants but add to warming because of their long life in the atmosphere. The technology pathway for these pollutants is twofold: One is to reduce the use of coal and gas by increasing efficiency or by switching to renewables. The other is to continue to use the fuel but capture the CO2 and then store it underground or utilise it (using carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, or CCUS). In the case of natural gas, methane control means detecting leakages and preventing the gas from escaping into the atmosphere. I am explaining this to say that we need to understand the difference in local and global pollution strategies and not mix up the two. Coal is bad, and so is natural gas, when it comes to climate change. Both require strategies for switch, phase-out and abatement. Then why is it that the Western world, which has to date built its economy on dirty coal, is now wedded to gas as its dream fuel? The European Union has baptised it “green fuel”. Oil and gas companies are drilling more gas, terming it the necessary energy source. In fact, it is now argued that the question is not the continued dependence on natural gas but the need for abating emission. It is even said, within energy circles, that green hydrogen — manufactured using renewable or other green fuel — is not necessary for the green transition. Blue hydrogen, made from natural gas, is also green if the emissions are abated and CO2 captured. The emphasis is on abatement and not on the phase-out of the fossil fuel, which is natural gas. So, I ask again, why not discuss abatement in the case of coal? A recent paper published in Nature Climate by Greg Muttitt and others from the International Institute of Sustainable Development and University College, London, discusses how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimates the need to cut down on gas and oil — gas usage needs to fall only by 14 per cent by 2030, as compared to the complete and unrealistic phase-out of coal, which, it says, must happen in the coming 10 years for the temperature rise above pre-industrial levels to stay below 1.5°C. They conclude that the 1.5°C pathway needs drastic emission reductions of coal, and oil and gas; and that this underestimation puts a huge burden on coal-dependent countries of the South. In fact, they calculate that the speed of transition that is required from the developing world is 2x more than any country has done to date. The question also is why countries of the Western world, which have already appropriated the giant share of the carbon budget —way beyond any definition of fair share — should be given a free pass on the continued use of natural gas. I ask these questions not to deny the need for a transition but to provoke replies, which I hope will help us build a future that is both shared and clean.

‘Iron, steel sector emissions can be drastically reduced’

An analysis of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) shows that it is possible to bring down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from iron and steel sector drastically by 2030, while more than doubling India’s output of steel. And this can be done by planning, technology and adequate funds.Speaking at a stakeholder workshop organised by CSE on ‘Decarbonising India’s Iron and Steel Sector by 2030 and Beyond’ speakers and participants including Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel Ruchika Chaudhry Govil, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Richa Sharma, Additional Industrial Advisor, Union Ministry of Steel Parmjeet Singh and Director, World Steel Association Andrew Purvis discussed details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the sector and its future emission scenarios for 2030. The workshop navigated the issues of fuel shift, low carbon technology, energy efficiency, increasing generation and usage of steel scrap and carbon capture utilisation and storage for the Indian iron and steel sector. As the sector plans to double its production by 2030 with 60-65 per cent production based on coal-intensive technology— blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF), steel players are actively considering the option of carbon capture utilisation and storage. At the workshop, the panellists elaborated on the national and international scenarios for economic and technological viability of CCUS for the sector. The CSE recommended a switchover to cleaner fuels in the case of BF-BOF, use of natural-gas injection or hydrogen to reduce the use of coal along with shifting from coal-based DRI to gas-based completely which would have the possibility to further transform to hydrogen-based DRI production. Second, it recommended an increase of scrap use to generate more scrap along with increasing the amount of recycled steel in production to its optimum in both production technologies. Third, it recommended to organise the finance as a switchover to new fuels and technologies would require finance. The Government and steel industry should work towards a combined proposal for international climate finance. Speaking on the occasion, Ruchika Govil from the Ministry of Steel said that the ministry has welcomed CSE’s recommendations, and is willing to work with CSE to make the steel sector less carbon-intensive. “The bottom line is that it is possible to bend the CO2 curve even for a sector like iron and steel. Countries like India can develop while drastically reducing their GHG emissions. The only question is if the rich world will accept the imperative of climate justice and provide the funds for the technology transformation necessary for a future-ready industry,” said director general, CSE, Sunita Narain.

Bring more women into the workforce: Ashoka Mody

The ‘technical economist with a Marxist rebel’s heart’, lays down what India must do for higher growth In India Is Broken — And why it’s hard to fix, veteran economist Ashoka Mody chooses the road less travelled to tell the story of the multitudes of lived realities that still need comeuppance within the country’s much-vaunted economic liberalisation success story. But instead of just reeling off a critique of contemporary India’s glaring dichotomies and inequities, Mody traverses through the history of socio-economic faux pas since independence, unsparing in his criticism of flawed decisions and pursuits by successive governments that have brought things to such a pass today. In an interview, Mody explains why he believes the country is now in ‘a bad equilibrium’ even as millions who have emerged from poverty remain precariously poised. Edited excerpts: Do you believe India’s woes are rooted in the pursuit of flawed policies? When social norms and public accountability erodes, policy has no meaning. Just take Joshimath’s sinking for instance. Who did not know that it will sink? In 1976, the N.C. Mishra Commission report said this is a very fragile area, please work very carefully here. Still, under that town, a tunnel is being made, the aquifer has been punctured, dams have been made, roads are being built for the Char Dham yatra. Who is accountable to these people who are now being asked to leave for some pittance? We know what is to be done, but there is no incentive to do the right thing. The first time the Ghazipur landfill caught fire was around 1992. You take the Reuters report on that fire and put the same paragraphs in 2022. You won’t know the difference. Similarly, Yamuna’s pollution problem — as soon as it enters Delhi — first came up in 1982, when the Centre for Science and Environment issued a report. Forty years have passed. How many High Court and Supreme Court directives were given that this has to be cleaned up? Everything is flouted. Everybody knows what is the right thing to do, but there is no incentive to do it, nor make people who don’t do it accountable. That is the fundamental cause of the pessimism. A boy looking for recyclable items in the polluted Yamuna, in New Delhi. A boy looking for recyclable items in the polluted Yamuna, in New Delhi. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma So this is more than just a policy failure? I call this a moral failure because if society no longer believes in right and wrong, if public officials have no reason to be accountable, that is a moral failure. At that point, no trust and cooperation are possible to build the public goods that we need. The same thing is true for education, health, police recruitment... In 1983, Bhairab Dutt Pande, Cabinet Secretary during the Emergency, as Governor of Punjab when it was under President’s rule, noted that the police had many vacancies and there was a law and order problem. So he decided to fill the vacancies and worked out a method of recruitment, personally vetted it and selected people. He was told he needed an authorisation from the Home Ministry in Delhi. They refused. Apparently, for every position, someone was being paid. If you formally recruit them through a due process, all that would go. I can give you a million such examples. But the source of despair is coming from this — if I know you are going to cheat me, then it’s my incentive to cheat you before you cheat me. That is what we call a bad equilibrium. We are in a bad equilibrium. A political rally at India Gate, New Delhi, seeking the implementation of the anti-corruption legislation. A political rally at India Gate, New Delhi, seeking the implementation of the anti-corruption legislation. | Photo Credit: Getty Images Many of us feel some of this every day, internalise it and carry on. What provoked you to put it down now? Since the 1991 liberalisation, there has been this so-called India story. “India is doing really well with market-oriented reforms”. Initially, the growth rates were not very high but towards the end of the 1990s, they picked up, and then suddenly in the early 2000s, growth picked up even more and stayed high. The story was this is all because of liberalisation and we must do more of it. I have this really odd background, with 25 years at the World Bank and IMF. I am a technical economist and I know how these numbers are put together, having done growth forecasts for multiple countries. But my heart is that of a Marxist rebel and if you do not include a large part of the population in the growth process, I see it as a fundamental flaw. Go back 350 years to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, every country that has succeeded, without exception, has done two things. It has educated its children and brought more women into the workforce. Because when women come into the workforce, they treat their daughters well, they educate them, their daughters then educate their daughters, and that process begins a virtuous circle of education and smaller families and higher productivity growth. It seems basic, but show me one country that has not done these two things. When people celebrate the market reforms, I say, “Yes, we needed liberalisation, those controls were stupid.” But we have to teach our children and nurture their health too. The judicial system is broken. Look at the backlogs in the judicial system, the undertrials, the custodial torture. Look at the air and water. Every river in India is dying. For all the great pharma prowess that people celebrate about Hyderabad, they are dumping their effluents into River Musi which has died. They’re putting antibiotics there so organisms are developing antimicrobial resistance. So this idea that somehow we can grow without all these other things [is misplaced]. The highly polluted Musi river where toxins from pharma industries are dumped. The highly polluted Musi river where toxins from pharma industries are dumped. | Photo Credit: Nagara Gopal What is the story you set out to write? In the meantime, this is sort of the acid test — where are the jobs? We have a jobs crisis. You liberalised the market, but which country has grown just on that basis? For a while, you got a little boost. World trade grew in the early 2000s and then we had a financial bubble, so GDP grew. But what was the nature of the growth process? New jobs did get created but it was mainly in construction and finance. Today, India has more construction workers than manufacturing workers, but what kind of employment is this? That is why what I show in the book is that ‘Yes, dire poverty did come down. But people moved from below $2 a day to between $2 and $3 a day. If you’re in that zone, one illness or layoff and you slip back — I call this the precarious zone. So we moved people from dire poverty to [a] precarious zone, and we declared victory that we have reduced poverty and so many 100 million people have come out of poverty.’ What is their lived reality? Can they buy a table fan in summer? So it is that frustration that an elite group of Indians living first world lives is telling an India story which works for them. But then there is everybody else. That is the story I set out to write. And the reason I wrote it as a history rather than as a contemporary commentary is that I began to feel that there were cumulative effects that what started then has had cascading effects. And that cascading process is what I’ve tried to capture in the history.

Fight against climate change will exacerbate inequalities in global trade systems – CSE, Down To Earth Analysis

A news analysis by the Indian-based Centre for Science and Environment and Down To Earth Magazine, revealed that developed countries around the world are abandoning free trade in the name of climate change. According to the analysis, the United States and the European Union are leading this trend toward protectionism, armed with massive subsidiaries and tariffs, and this may change the global trade system. AvantikaGoswami, author of the Down To Earth report and CSE’s programme manager for climate change, said, in the race to build low-carbon economies, countries are introducing policies to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels, promote manufacturing of clean-energy technologies, and decarbonise industries. “In the race to build low-carbon economies, countries are introducing policies to speed up the transition from fossil fuels, promote manufacturing of clean-energy technologies and decarbonise industries.” According to him, the race appears to be part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, countries have sparked fears of trade wars as governments try to restore green industries and dominate the global supply chain of goods and technologies required to avert a climate catastrophe under the guise of climate action. According to CSE, the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, which provides approximately $370 billion in subsidies, primarily through tax credits, over a 10-year period for renewable energy, electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, carbon capture and storage, and clean hydrogen. It stated that this has irritated other green technology manufacturing powers such as the EU, South Korea, and Japan, who are concerned that their companies will jump ship and expand. This has enraged other green technology manufacturing powers such as the EU, South Korea, and Japan, which are concerned that their companies will abandon ship and expand operations in North America. According to Goswami, “Developing countries like India cannot match the IRA’s scale of subsidies. If we take the example of electric vehicles (EVs) in our country, there are three incentive schemes that are offered – the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles (FAME II) with an outlay of Rs10,000 crore; and two Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes of Rs25,398 crore (automotive sector including EVs) and Rs18,100 crore (battery storage), respectively.” Goswami added that there is also the question of access to critical minerals. Prices of minerals in the global market are set by the big players. “China is the biggest buyer today. Once the US enters this race for its own domestic manufacturing on a large scale, India will have to aggressively scale up its EV production to command prices on its own terms.” According to CSE experts, India should focus on EV sectors where it has a ready domestic market, such as two-wheelers and three-wheelers, which account for 63% and 34% of the domestic EV market, respectively. “It can also become a hub for recycling of spent batteries, which will enable it to recover the processed critical minerals that it is currently lacking.” According to CSE, the EU reached a provisional agreement on a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in December 2022, which is a tax on imports of goods such as steel and aluminum from countries with lax emission reduction rules. The CBAM has been criticised by BRICS countries, and India’s finance minis­ter has warned the coun­try’s firms to reset themselves and be ready for “tariff walls coming up newly in the name of climate change”. According to UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), a CBAM will reduce global carbon emissions by no more than 0.1 percent if applied at US $44 per tonne – but it will have an adverse distributional impact because it will reduce global real income by US $3.4 billion, with developed countries’ incomes suffering the most. According to UNCTAD, a CBAM will reduce global carbon emissions by no more than 0.1 percent if applied at US $44 per tonne – but it will have an adverse distributional impact because it will reduce global real income by US $3.4 billion, with developed countries’ incomes rising by $2.5 billion while developing countries’ incomes fall by $5.9 billion. Other developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, may follow suit and impose a carbon border tax. When confronted with the CBAM, developing countries require access to finance and technology in order to decarbonize their manufacturing sector and maintain export competitiveness. The EU is India’s third largest trading partner; according to the Down To Earth report, India’s iron and steel, and aluminum sectors would be the most vulnerable to CBAM, albeit to a lesser extent than other countries. India does not have a single domestic carbon price, but it does have an upcoming domestic carbon market, a national NDC and net zero target, and industrial firms’ voluntary climate targets. It remains to be seen whether this patchwork of market-based schemes and climate signals will create a case for Indian industry to avoid the tariff burden imposed by CBAM, according to Goswami.

Him Academy Public School, Vikas Nagar

An audit, on the basis of best practices of waste management, air and food energy, was conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, wherein the school was adjudged as a ‘Resource Efficient School’ and hence accredited with Green School Certificate. On behalf of the school, Manju Thakur, Head, Eco Club, HAPS, received the certificate from Sunita Narain, Director, CSE, in a gala ceremony held at CSE Convention Centre in New Delhi on February 21. Nupur Thakur, Class VIII student, also participated in a ‘Solar Workshop’ conducted at Digital Studio of CSE Convention Centre and she was also awarded with the participation certificate by Souparno Banerjee, Senior Director, CSE. The management of the school congratulated Manju Thakur and Nupur Thakur in a special morning assembly for the achievement.

High temperatures help make February second cleanest in Delhi since 2016

NEW DELHI: Aided by the early exit of winter, Delhi this year saw its second cleanest month of February since the air quality index was introduced in April 2015. The average AQI during the month was 237, the lowest after 225 in February last year.Though the month didn't see any "good" or "satisfactory" air days, strong winds and high temperatures helped disperse pollutants, experts said. The month saw five "very poor", 13 "poor" and 10 "moderate" air days. There were four "very poor" days in February last year. Strong winds, high temp cleared air in February New Delhi: Temperatures that were generally four to nine degrees above normal played a key role in keeping the air relatively clean this February, which recorded the second best average AQI for the month since 2016. Explaining the meteorological factors behind the comparatively low AQI relatively low this February, a met official said, "The first half of February was windy. The strong winds aided in dispersion of pollutants. The second half of the month saw high temperatures on most days which helped in better ventilation. The temperatures were four to nine degrees above normal on most days." The average AQI of February was highest in 2016 at 291. It was 267 in 2017, 243 in 2018, 242 in 2019, 241 in 2020 and 288 in 2021. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said, "The overall pollution levels are expected to come down in February compared to the peak and average levels in winter. This has also been the warmest February in the past 17 years. The level of pollution concentration is also lesser due to changing meteorology." She added, "This is the time to ramp up action to ensure sustained improvement and reduce dependence on emergency action during winter. Focus on reducing emissions from all key sectors." According to CPCB, January and February 2023 saw 47 days when the AQI was between 301 and 500 (in the "very poor" to "severe" range). Last year, 44 such days were recorded during the same period. An AQI reading of 50 or below is classified as "good", readings between 51 and 100 on the index fall in the "satisfactory" category. Readings between 101 and 200 are considered "moderate". "Poor" air ranges from 201 to 300, "very poor" from 301 to 400 and "severe" from 401 to 500.

Fight against climate change will worsen existing inequalities within global trade systems, says a new analysis by CSE and Down To Earth

Developed countries of the world are reneging on free trade in the name of climate change – says a new analysis and the subject of its latest cover story by Down To Earth magazine. Armed with massive subsidies and tariffs, the US and EU are leading this trend towards protectionism. This may change the global trade system as we know it. Says Avantika Goswami, the writer of the Down To Earth report and program manager for climate change at the New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE): “In the race to build low-carbon economies, countries are introducing policies to speed up the transition from fossil fuels, promote manufacturing of clean energy technologies and decarbonize industries. On the face of it, this race appears to be part of the global effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But they have also sparked fears of trade wars, as governments on the pretext of climate action try to restore green industries and dominate the global supply chain of goods and technologies essential to avert a climate catastrophe.” CSE, which helps publish Down To Earth, recently organized an international webinar on the subject, which was addressed by Rob Davies, former minister of trade and industry in South Africa; Paul Butarbutar, executive director, Indonesia Centre for Renewable Energy Studies; Katie Gallogly-Swan, economic affairs officer, UNCTAD; Apratim Sahay, senior policy manager, Green New Deal Network; Sunita Narain, director general, CSE and editor of Down To Earth; and Goswami. A new trade order: The machinations of the US and EU In August 2022, the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a bill offering about US $370 billion in subsidies, mainly through tax credits over 10 years, for renewable energy, electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, carbon capture and storage, and clean hydrogen. This has rankled other green technology manufacturing powers like the EU, South Korea, and Japan, which fear that their companies may jump ship and expand business in North America. Says Goswami: “Developing countries like India cannot match the IRA’s scale of subsidies. If we take the example of electric vehicles (EVs) in our country, three incentive schemes are offered – the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles (FAME II) with an outlay of Rs 10,000 crore; and two Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes of Rs 25,398 crore (automotive sector including EVs) and Rs 18,100 crore (battery storage), respectively.” There is also the question of access to critical minerals. Prices of minerals in the global market are set by the big players. China is the biggest buyer today. Once the US enters this race for its domestic manufacturing on a large scale, India will have to aggressively scale up its EV production to command prices on its terms. CSE experts suggest that India should focus on the EV sectors in which it has a ready domestic market — two-wheelers and three-wheelers, which constitute 63 percent and 34 percent of the domestic EV market. It can also become a hub for recycling of spent batteries, which will enable it to recover the processed critical minerals that it is currently lacking. In December 2022, the EU reached a provisional agreement on a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) – a tax on imports of goods like steel and aluminum from countries with lax emission reduction rules. The CBAM has been criticized by BRICS countries, and India’s finance minister has warned the country’s firms to reset themselves and be ready for “tariff walls coming up newly in the name of climate change”. According to UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), if applied at US $44 per tonne, a CBAM will reduce global carbon emissions by not more than 0.1 percent — but it will have an ad­verse distributional impact because it will decrease global real income by US $3.4 billion, with developed countries’ incomes rising by US $2.5 billion while developing countries’ in­comes fall by US $5.9 billion. Other developed countries like the UK may follow suit and implement a carbon border tax. When faced with the CBAM, developing countries need access to finance and technology to decarbonize their manufacturing sector so that export competitiveness is maintained. For India, the EU is its third largest trading partner – the Down To Earth report points out that India’s iron and steel, and aluminum sectors would be the most exposed to CBAM, albeit to a lesser extent than other countries. India does not have one domestic carbon price – but it has an upcoming domestic carbon market, a national NDC and net zero target, and voluntary climate targets by industrial firms. Whether or not this patchwork of market-based schemes and climate signals will create a case for Indian industry to avoid the tariff burden from CBAM is yet to be seen, says Goswami. Speaking at the webinar, Davies said: “A CBAM is directly attacking the market access of developing countries, and it could be expanded to all exports eventually. African countries are emitting the least, and the gain from imposing this tax on them would be minimal in terms of carbon emission reduction. We need to respond to these measures.” As per UNCTAD, “policies like IRA and CBAM point to a missing developmental dimension in trade commitments, combined with growing evidence that industrialized economies are outsourcing pollution at the same time as they avail themselves of industrial policy tools to bolster their dominance within emerging green industries.” Industrialisation has enabled sustained productivity growth in the EU and US, but industrial development has been an uphill battle for developing countries, in part due to trade agreements designed to constrain their policy space. WTO – heavily influenced by developed countries – treats subsidies, tariffs, and export bans as “trade-distorting”. Thus, current trade rules prevent developing countries from using local content and technology transfer requirements, or tools like government procurement to stimulate domestic industries. Now that rich countries are increasingly embracing industrial policy to ensure their economic resilience, it is difficult for them to prevent developing countries from implementing similar policies. Echoing these sentiments expressed in Down To Earth, Katie Gallogly-Swan of UNCTAD said: “We need to reframe the trade rules for a time of climate change and address the long-standing concerns of developing countries. We need to strengthen the core principles of ‘special and differential treatment’ at WTO and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the UNFCCC process. A more positive agenda would support developing countries’ priorities, additional financing, green technology transfers, capacity building supporting environmentally sustainable economic diversification, and adequate policy and fiscal space to support their integrated policies to advance towards their climate and developmental goals.” In her concluding address, Sunita Narain from CSE said: “In this era of climate change, developing countries need to build self-sufficiency in domestic production of green technologies. They must be allowed to deploy ‘industrial policy’ tools like subsidies to forge their equity and green development growth paths, without being subject to over-reaching trade rules. If a country is rich in green minerals, it should be able to deploy a set of policies that attempt to retain those minerals, process them domestically, and create jobs and a manufacturing sector and thus, build innovation and technology locally. Narain added: “We should look at what rules will work for us best (the developing world), and work for us in a climate-constrained world. We need to make sure we can combat emissions, and at the same time, have economic growth. In doing so, maybe for the first time, we will end up making a trade deal which does not work against the environment, but for it; a deal that works for people.”

IMF warns against ‘protectionism’ in rich world’s green subsidies

The US will subsidise North American-made electric vehicles, sparking responses from other rich countries – but there are concerns on the effects on the developing world. As rich countries compete to get electric vehicles made in their countries, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that a “slide into protectionism” will make it harder poorer countries to access green technology and reduce emissions. Ahead of last weekend’s G20 finance ministers summit in India, IMF boss Kristalina Georgieva wrote in a blog that there are “signs of progress, as major economies realign their fiscal frameworks to accelerate the green transition.” “But policies should stay focused on that transition—rather than providing a competitive advantage to domestic firms,” Georgieva noted. She continued to write that policies should “be carefully designed to avoid wasteful spending or trade tensions, and to make sure that technology is shared with the developing world”. In the Indian city of Bengalaru, finance ministers from 20 of the world’s biggest economies agreed to “fight protectionism” – a commitment they make at the summit almost every year. Subsidy race The US’s recent Inflation Reduction Act gives a subsidy of of $7,500 to anyone buying an electric vehicle in the US. But that vehicle must have been assembled in North America. This condition has angered other car-making countries who see it as an unfair attempt to get car companies to relocate to the US. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and South Korea have all complained to the US government. In response, the European Union is considering loosening its rules to allow governments to provide more subsidies for electric vehicle manufacturers. Can’t compete But, like Georgieva, campaigners and analysts from developing countries raised concerns over these measures. Fabby Tumiwa, head of the Indonesian think-tank Institute for Essential Services Reform, told Climate Home that developing countries need to access green technology and investment to compensate for the declinine of polluting industries like coal mining. But, he said, they “have very limited capacity” to compete with rich countries’ incentives and subsidies. Tumiwa said emerging economies can only retaliate by imposing policies to limit exports of raw materials and process them domestically. “What rich countries must do is to provide access for emerging economies to acces the technology and it will be better if they can participate in the global supply chain for green technology”, he said. Double standards Avantika Goswami, from the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, said that in general green subsidies can spur research and development and deployment of green technologies. But, she said, the risk is that global inequalities are deepened if companies move their manufacturing back to rich countries. That could hurt developing countries’ economies through decreased export revenues or foreign investment, she said. She said that developing countries should be able to provide incentives for domestic industry without being accused of protectionism. “The developed world already bends the rules of free trade to suit its national interests”, she said. Border tax Faten Aggad, climate diplomacy adviser for the African Climate Foundation, said that some of the measures “introduced in the name of climate are essentially protectionist”. She cited the European Union’s carbon border tax which aims to tax the emissions of imported carbon-intensive products like steel, aluminium and fertiliser. The EU claims it will stop European industry moving to places with less environmental regulations but major economies like China, India and South Africa say it will unfairly penalise their economies. The Africa Climate Foundation will soon release a report which suggests Africa will lose $16 billion a year because of the tax, she said. Trade disputes She added that developing countries depend on access to green technology from Europe, the USA and China and that trade conflicts between these blocks “will only complicate this”. She said it would be “counter-productive” if these conflicts push countries into having to chose a technology provider “based on ideological alignment rather than cost-effectivness”. But Beijing-Based Greenpeace campaigner Li Shuo said that competition between major countries on green subsidies and border taxes “is not necesarily a bad thing” as long as the policies are focussed on the green transition. “In other words, it’s climate change that countries should be fighting, not each other,” he said.