Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Antimicrobial Resistance: New CSE report focuses on major ethnoveterinary medicine programme

Delhi-based think-tank, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), will release a special report titled Ethnoveterinary medicine: An alternative to antibiotics for the dairy sector to mark World Antimicrobial Awareness Week (WAAW). World AMR Awareness Week (WAAW)- Celebrated globally every year from November 18-24 to create awareness and understanding of the issue. This year, the theme is “Preventing Antimicrobial Resistance Together”. Emphasised the prevention of AMR through a ‘One Health” approach. The increasing threat of AMR- Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been recognised as a ‘silent pandemic’ and is a global public health threat today. Due to AMR, antibiotics are becoming ineffective and infectious diseases are becoming difficult to treat. Some 4.95 million deaths were associated with, and 1.95 million deaths directly attributable to bacterial AMR across the world in 2019. AMR is also likely to heavily impact livelihood and economies. AMR and One Health Approach- The ‘One Health’ approach is the best way to address AMR since resistance against antimicrobials is operated among human, animal and environmental sectors. It accelerates due to the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in human health, animal health, food-animal production, aquaculture and crop production. Waste from farms, factories, community and healthcare settings contributes to the emergence and spread of AMR through environmental routes. Lack of authentic information on AMR and antimicrobial use (AMU) in the veterinary sector is a major limitation. Prevention measures- Adoption of strategies and approaches that can reduce the need for antimicrobials Better sanitation Access to clean water and appropriate hand hygiene Better biosecurity Timely vaccinations Use of alternatives and appropriate waste management Preventing pollution and overuse of chemicals What is Ethnoveterinary medicine- Ethnoveterinary medicine (EVM) involves the use of traditional/herbal preparations in treating diseases of cattle. Advantage of Ethnoveterinary medicine- Reduces Antibiotics use Traditional practice of herbal medicines for poultry health management can diminish the cost of production thereby giving more benefit to the farmers. Farmers’ self-dependence. Preserve herbs. User-friendly, Eco friendly. Provide some intervention for viral diseases. Cosr- effective

COP27 climate talks: what succeeded, what failed and what’s next

Researchers are frustrated at the glacial pace of decarbonisation — but cheered the commitment to create a ‘loss and damage’ fund. The 27th United Nations climate conference (COP27) ended on Sunday morning with researchers largely frustrated at the lack of any ambition to phase out fossil fuels. However, there was one silver lining: delegates from low and middle income countries (LMICs) came away with an agreement on a new ‘loss and damage’ fund to help them cover the costs of climate-change impacts. The final 10-page summary text, which was agreed on 20 November, says that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels requires “rapid, deep and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” by 2030. But calls to phase out fossil fuels were blocked by oil-producing states, and some delegates struggled to find reasons to be cheerful at the glacial pace of decarbonization. Many blamed the energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for a lack of progress on fossil fuels. ‘Actions, not just words’: Egypt’s climate scientists share COP27 hopes “It’s clear that the window for 1.5 is closing fast,” says Chukwumerije Okerere, who studies climate governance at the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike Nigeria. According to some, it might not be possible to keep this goal “unless there is massive carbon dioxide removal on an unprecedented scale”, he adds. A record 45,000 people registered to attend COP27, leading some to question whether such a format is appropriate to tackling a planetary emergency. “The negotiations that are happening are completely devoid of reality,” says Sunita Narain, director-general of the Centre for Science and Environment, an environment research organization in New Delhi, India. Although there is value in bringing people together to share ideas and build momentum, she fears that the core purpose of the meeting — to push world leaders to commit to stronger actions and hold them accountable — has been lost. “I have never seen anything like this. We’ve reduced the whole thing into a grand spectacle,” she says. Researchers and activists attending the talks for the first time described disbelief as government negotiators spent days going back-and-forth over single words in the text. “I am just, quite simply shocked about the [negotiating] process I have seen,” says Blutus Mbambi from the Centre for Climate Change Action and Advocacy in Lusaka, Zambia. “But we will keep on advocating. We will keep on pushing.” The fight for finance Representatives from low and middle income countries (LMICs) and China were quietly confident that COP27 would lead to the creation of a new loss-and-damage climate fund when this was added to the agenda at the start of the conference. The fund would support countries suffering from the effects of climate change, such as Somalia, where more than 7 million people are facing hunger from an ongoing drought; or Pakistan, where floods this year caused around $30 billion worth of damage. A flood-affected student walks past a deluged government primary school in Chandan Mori, in Dadu district, Pakistan. Earlier this year, severe flooding left around a third of Pakistan underwater and displaced millions of people.Credit: Asif Hassan/AFP/Getty US climate envoy John Kerry arrived at COP27 opposing such a fund, and claimed that existing funds could pay for climate-related losses and damages. US negotiators also opposed the principle that high emitters should accept liability for their historical emissions, fearing this could lead to claims running potentially into trillions of dollars. The European Union was also sceptical initially, but eventually changed its position, which put pressure on the US to follow. The fine print — including how much will go into the fund and who will contribute — will have to be discussed at next year’s conference. In a first for a climate COP, the final text also backs reform of giant lenders such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which are lynchpins of the global economy. The IMF has $1 trillion available to lend to countries in financial distress, but only a small fraction of this is climate finance. The COP’s endorsement of reform is significant, says Sarah Colenbrander, who studies climate finance at the Overseas Development Institute, a think tank in London. That’s because it comes from countries who are also shareholders in these institutions, and can make change happen. Energy crisis impact The energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine loomed large during the discussions. High natural gas prices have reshaped global energy markets and pushed some wealthy European countries to temporarily fall back on coal while looking abroad for new sources of natural gas. Climate change is costing trillions — and low-income countries are paying the price Although the negotiations received a boost from a separate deal announced at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, in which wealthy countries agreed to provide $20 billion to help Indonesia wean itself off coal, much of the attention at COP27 was on the European rush for natural gas. Germany has signed a deal with Egypt to advance green hydrogen as well as liquified natural gas exports, while other governments and companies are courting projects in countries such as Senegal, Tanzania and Algeria. European leaders insist these measures are short-term fixes that won’t detract from their long-term commitments, but the optics are very bad, says Narain. Before the crisis, the rhetoric from the developed world was that nobody was going to fund fossil fuel projects in developing countries, she says. “But now everybody is asking us to increase supply.” These tensions had tangible impacts on the negotiations at COP27. Language calling for a phase out of fossil fuels was jettisoned from the final text, while new wording was added calling for accelerated development of “low-emission” energy systems, which many fear will be used to justify further natural gas development. The failure to rein in fossil-fuel interests could also undermine the success on loss and damage negotiations, says Joab Okanda, senior Africa advisor for the advocacy organization Christian Aid, based in Nairobi, Kenya. “More fossil fuels means more loss and damage.” Mohamed Salem Nashwan, who studies construction engineering at the Arab Academy of Science, Technology and Maritime Transport in Cairo, is not confident that there will be much progress on fossil fuels at COP28, which is due to be held in Dubai next year. “The host is heavily linked to the fossil fuel industries,” he says. Somalis displaced by drought and war wait for water at the Sebedow Camp. The COP27 agreement mentioned the importance of protecting food and water supplies.Credit: Scott Peterson/Getty Food focus The COP27 deal also says that “safeguarding food security and ending hunger” is a fundamental priority, and that communities can better protect themselves from climate effects if water systems are protected and conserved. By contrast, last year’s Glasgow Climate Pact made no mention of agriculture, food or water. “There is real progress in terms of words,” says Joachim von Braun, an agricultural economist at Bonn University in Germany. The new additions are welcome, says Claudia Sadoff, executive director of CGIAR, the global network of agricultural research centres, but she adds that “the text on the food crisis is not supported by [government] actions that need to be taken”. COP27 climate summit: what scientists are watching COP27 saw little by way of new dedicated funding for food systems from governments. By contrast, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation pledged to spend US$1.4 billion over four years to help small-holder farmers address the immediate and long term impacts of climate change. “Every moment the world delays action, more people suffer, and the solutions become more complex and costly,” the foundation’s chief executive Mark Suzman said in a statement. Absent from the text is any reference to the IPCC’s estimate that food systems are responsible for between 21% and 37% of global emissions. “The opportunities for ‘carbon farming’ and land use change to make a contribution to [climate] mitigation are ignored,” says von Braun.

Experts flag lack of key commitments at COP27

COP27 was concluded in Egypt’s Sharm El Sheikh on Saturday, extended by a day after dramatic remarks from several country representatives who rued the lack of “ambition” to do more on the climate crisis, even as some of them – especially those from developed nations – were accused of trying to divert some of their responsibilities to poorer nations. World leaders failed to rise to the climate crisis challenge at this year’s UN Climate Conference (COP27), experts said on Monday, pointing out how there was a lack of any commitments to cutting emissions or providing more money to help the transition to clean fuels. COP27 was concluded in Egypt’s Sharm El Sheikh on Saturday, extended by a day after dramatic remarks from several country representatives who rued the lack of “ambition” to do more on the climate crisis, even as some of them – especially those from developed nations – were accused of trying to divert some of their responsibilities to poorer nations. This is despite the fact that the talks took a much-awaited decision to set up a Loss and Damage fund to help developing nations deal with disasters linked to global warming, although much needs to be clarified on this front too, including who will contribute to it and how the money will be paid out. “COP27 at best treaded water on mitigation. But the reality is that the ‘ambition cycle’ that the COP is meant to drive may have run out of steam without more finance coming on the table to back up the round of national pledges. A work programme on mitigation has been established but that will move slowly,” said Navroz K Dubash, professor at the Centre for Policy Research. Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouses gases, a step that is taken, among other things, by shifting to cleaner fuels. “Does this mean that nothing will happen on mitigation? Not necessarily. Countries, including India, seem to be putting in place efforts at transitioning to green technologies such as energy storage and hydrogen, driven by the hope of competitive advantage. We may be in a phase where actual action outstrips international statements of ambition, at least in some parts of the world, which would not be a bad outcome,” Dubash added. To be sure, the COP27 cover text, which summarises the key decisions agreed upon by 197 countries, mentions that more efforts must be made to keep global warming under 1.5°C – the call was first made last year, at Glasgow during COP26. This COP (conference of parties) was meant to firm up implementation roadmaps for the call, but lacked any concrete steps. “COP 27 does not reflect the need for urgency in action -- both in terms of mitigation and financing. The loss and damage fund, though agreed upon, is weak on detail and intent. The fact that the EU (European Union) and other western countries faced with energy crisis want to continue use of natural gas, also a fossil fuel, has made the rapid transition out of fossils now even more difficult. I believe this COP should go down as one in which the world leaders failed us badly,” said Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment. Narain’s reference on the transition was to a change in wording in one section, which called for efforts to be made to use “low emission” sources. “Apart from reiterating the same intent, the final resolution does not call upon parties to decarbonise faster and in fact weakens the global need to move away from fossil fuels by bringing in low emissions energy (alluding in all likelihood to gas) in addition to renewable energy,” said Ashwini Hingne, senior manager, Climate Program, World Resources Institute India. Behind a lot of the inertia are geopolitical complications. The European Union acknowledged at the conference that it will have to depend on diversified sources of natural gas for the next three years. When EU Climate chief Frans Timmermans was asked on EU looking to source natural gas from Africa, he said during a press briefing at COP27 on November 15 that: “We have to make sure our households and businesses survive in the next couple of years. We will be faced with this winter and next two winters where we have to ensure we have fossil fuels to survive. Because of speeding up deployment of renewables and because of consumption reduction we are still on target. So yes, we are burning more coal than we had intended and look for LNG where we can find it but that’s only for next three years,” he said, referring to the disruption in gas supply to Europe due to Russia’s war on Ukraine. This was even when developed countries like EU pushed for global commitments to phase out fossil fuels, a stand experts said did not have a moral ground because of their plans to press ahead with more oil and gas use. “Since EU and other developed countries are disappointed that fossil fuel phase out is not in the text, we would like them to take leadership and revise their nationally determined contributions and put into plans their fossil fuel phaseout urgently and stop expansion of fossil fuels including oil and gas,” said Meena Raman, director of Third World Network and an expert on the climate negotiations.

Beijing Is Tackling Its Air Pollution Problem. Why Can’t New Delhi?

The return of smog season in India’s capital has again left residents asking why nothing has changed. The answer may be largely political. A decade ago, the capitals of Asia’s two largest countries both had some of the dirtiest skies in the world. On the worst days, millions were enveloped in thick gray canopies of smog that darkened the sun and besieged the lungs. Since then, one of those cities has made significant improvements. After the Chinese government declared a war against pollution in 2013, Beijing pressed ahead with a multiyear, $100 billion effort to clean its air. The authorities clamped down on factories, forced old vehicles off the road and shifted from coal to natural gas. While more still needs to be done, Beijing officials say the city now has over 100 more days of clear skies each year than when the campaign began. But in the other city, New Delhi, the air this autumn has been as foul as ever. The onset of air pollution season brought weeks of haze to the city, prompting officials to briefly halt truck traffic, close schools and ask people to work from home. Those who still ventured out coughed into their masks and rubbed their eyes. The air felt bitter on the tongue. Every year, the skies in the Delhi region turn acrid from pollution generated by millions of vehicles, the burning of stubble on surrounding farms and the use of open fires for heating and cooking in rural homes. And every year, residents are left to ask why nothing changes. The diverging fortunes come down, in no small part, to differences between China’s authoritarian system and India’s huge and messy democracy. Overall, China ranks relatively low on international indexes of environmental performance. But in the case of Beijing’s pollution, the Chinese government tackled it with single-minded focus when its scale became too daunting to ignore, forcing rapid, coordinated action in response to public anger. India, experts say, has lacked both political resolve and public pressure to address the issue. Voters have more pressing concerns in a country where tens of millions still live in poverty. Politicians use the crisis to attack adversaries, rather than seek solutions. “A lot of it has to do with the political will and the coordination between the various governments,” said Avikal Somvanshi, a data specialist for the Clean Air Campaign at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi.

Plastic Trouble: Packaging Makes up Nearly 60% of Plastic Usage in India, Says Report

Amid the single-use plastic ban, a significant chunk of plastic is being used for packaging in India, according to a latest report. India consumed 18.45 million metric tonnes (MMT) of plastic in 2018-19; 59% of this went into packaging, the report revealed. This means that of all the petrochemicals produced in the country (29.1 MMT), more than 37% was used to manufacture plastics for packaging applications. The new report was released at a national conclave entitled ‘The Plastic Life Cycle’ by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in Delhi on November 22 to highlight the omnipresent character of the ‘plastic problem’. According to the report, between 2000 and 2015, the global production of plastic increased by a whopping 79%. The total mass of plastic on our planet is now twice the mass of all living mammals, and about 80% of all the plastics ever produced continues to remain in the environment. “We are given to understand that the problem of plastic is a waste management issue and not a material production issue because we can recycle it, burn and bury it, or ship it to other countries where it can be handled. But it is not that simple. We have crossed the last frontier on plastic with our current production and consumption patterns. Plastic has not gone away. Plastic that we produce on land is now ending up in our oceans, and from there and elsewhere, into our own bodies,” said CSE director general Sunita Narain. Narain further said that CSE’s report is an effort to understand the plastic life cycle and the plastic pollution challenge from the perspective of different stakeholders who are integral to the landscape. The report, thus, is an extensive assessment of the roles played by stakeholders from the petroleum, petrochemical and plastic industry; the biodegradable and compostable plastic industry; and producers and brand owners to retailers and consumers; the formal and informal sector recyclers and aggregators; and end-of-life solution providers. Atin Biswas, Municipal Solid Waste Management unit, CSE, said, “The coming years are going to be critical for defining how we approach this enormous challenge of plastic waste. The technical capacity of the state governments, ULBs, and other stakeholders would play a pivotal role in achieving a plastic waste-free nation. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the life cycle of plastic to strategise and streamline our approach towards managing plastic waste not only in India but across the globe.” While releasing the report, Leena Nandan, secretary at the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, said that the issue of managing plastic waste was indeed an extremely complex one, but it is something that can be resolved. In fact, efforts to mitigate the ill effects of plastics have gained traction through the introduction of policies such as a single-use plastic ban and extended producer responsibility. The Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 has listed plastic waste management as one of its key agendas. There is an intimate connection of plastic to climate change as well. Plastic production has quadrupled over the last four decades, and if this trend continues, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from plastics alone would reach 15% of the global carbon budget by 2050. In fact, if the plastic industry were a country, it would be the fifth largest greenhouse gas emitter on Earth.

Beijing is tackling its air pollution problem; Why can't New Delhi?

The return of smog season in India's capital has again left residents asking why nothing has changed; the answer may be largely political A decade ago, the capitals of Asia’s two largest countries both had some of the dirtiest skies in the world. On the worst days, millions were enveloped in thick gray canopies of smog that darkened the sun and besieged the lungs. Since then, one of those cities has made significant improvements. After the Chinese government declared a war against pollution in 2013, Beijing pressed ahead with a multiyear, $100 billion effort to clean its air. The authorities clamped down on factories, forced old vehicles off the road and shifted from coal to natural gas. While more still needs to be done, Beijing officials say the city now has over 100 more days of clear skies each year than when the campaign began. But in the other city, New Delhi, the air this autumn has been as foul as ever. The onset of air pollution season brought weeks of haze to the city, prompting officials to briefly halt truck traffic, close schools and ask people to work from home. Those who still ventured out coughed into their masks and rubbed their eyes. The air felt bitter on the tongue. Every year, the skies in the Delhi region turn acrid from pollution generated by millions of vehicles, the burning of stubble on surrounding farms and the use of open fires for heating and cooking in rural homes. And every year, residents are left to ask why nothing changes. The diverging fortunes come down, in no small part, to differences between China’s authoritarian system and India’s huge and messy democracy. Overall, China ranks relatively low on international indexes of environmental performance. But in the case of Beijing’s pollution, the Chinese government tackled it with single-minded focus when its scale became too daunting to ignore, forcing rapid, coordinated action in response to public anger. India, experts say, has lacked both political resolve and public pressure to address the issue. Voters have more pressing concerns in a country where tens of millions still live in poverty. Politicians use the crisis to attack adversaries, rather than seek solutions. “A lot of it has to do with the political will and the coordination between the various governments,” said Avikal Somvanshi, a data specialist for the Clean Air Campaign at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. “The infighting,” he lamented, “keeps happening.” Take, for instance, a recent exchange between local and national leaders in India, who have perennially traded blame over who is responsible for the capital’s poor air quality. An official in the party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi compared Delhi’s chief minister — a member of an opposition party — to Hitler, saying the minister had “converted his city into a gas chamber.” The chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, swiped back on a television show, asking why “the central government is sitting in hiding, locked up in a room.” In China, the one-party system brooks no opposition; when the central government prioritizes an initiative, local authorities fall in line. That happened in the case of Beijing’s pollution, as the capital worked in tandem with regional officials and neighboring cities, said Zongbo Shi, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Birmingham in England. In India, where local governments are run by an array of parties, coordination is “really complicated,” Professor Shi said. In the absence of political will, economic interests win out; Delhi is surrounded by regions that are home predominantly to farmers and blue-collar workers who typically prioritize urgent economic needs over the environment. India is much less wealthy than China, which has enjoyed four decades of rapid growth, so Delhi cannot invest as much in environmental cleanup. India’s economic output was $2,300 per person last year, while China’s was $12,500. “It’s very hard to trade off air pollution with money — money is likely to win that fight,” said Michael Greenstone, the head of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. “There are dual and conflicting goals here: reducing air pollution and growing the economy.” Indian leaders have little incentive to bridge the divides in part because cleaning the skies is low among voters’ priorities. Even as air pollution has been known to kill more Indians than any other risk factor, voters ranked air quality as their 17th most urgent concern in a countrywide survey before the 2019 election, well behind jobs, health care and infrastructure. Only about 12 percent of respondents called air pollution a priority. In China, by contrast, residents — especially a growing middle class — made their frustration known even within the authoritarian system. Some in Beijing began to call the most toxic bouts of smog an “airpocalypse.” Alarm grew as studies showed that air pollution was contributing to more than one million premature deaths across China each year. (Today, censorship makes it harder to express complaints on all issues, including environmental ones.) “The people’s will can have a great influence on what happens,” Professor Greenstone said. “Until there’s consistent demand, it’s very, very hard to get real improvements.” In India, he added, air pollution “has not taken the same central political priority as it has in China to date.” With no unified effort, experts say, Delhi officials have taken limited action. In recent years, the city has closed two coal-burning power plants and required factories to switch to piped natural gas from coal, and there are plans to deploy at least 8,000 electric buses by 2025, said Jasmine Shah, a vice chairman of the Delhi government think tank that helps create the city’s air pollution policy. But officials have also turned to more dubious solutions. On a recent afternoon, giant fans fitted at the bottom of a green “smog tower” threw out cool, filtered air near an imposing Sikh temple in the heart of Delhi. Nearby, an “anti-smog gun” attached to a truck sprayed water into the air. Ishmeet Kaur, a 19-year-old college student, considered the smog tower from across the street. “A cosmetic effort by the government,” she said, “to make us feel better.” “If only the politicians took our health seriously and did something real about this problem,” she added as she coughed into a black face mask. “We will have to rely on the weather gods.” When China acted on its own pollution problem, it took on a crisis decades in the making. Since the 1980s, rapid industrialization and urbanization had driven China’s extraordinary rise as an economic power. But its reliance on energy-intensive heavy industry to fuel that growth came at an immense environmental cost. In 2013, Chinese officials released a new national air action plan, began publishing important air-quality data and publicly raised alarms about the pollution problem. As part of the national plan, Beijing was required to reduce its pollution by 25 percent. China then undertook an array of steps, experts said: It tightened industrial emission standards on some factories and phased out or upgraded other outdated ones; discarded 20 million old vehicles; upgraded 200,000 industrial boilers; and switched to natural gas from coal as the source of electricity for six million households. In some cases, the decisive action came with a cost: When officials removed the coal boilers, for instance, some homes were temporarily left without winter heating. “A clear example of a poor execution of a plan to make a massive difference,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst at the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, based in Helsinki, Finland. “It caused major suffering for a lot of people.” Nonetheless, researchers found that the tough policies worked. From 2013 to 2017, the concentration of dangerous fine particulate matter known as PM 2.5 in China’s atmosphere declined by roughly a third. Beijing’s air is still far from perfect, especially in the winter. For more than 100 days last year, the air was considered “unhealthy for sensitive groups of people” or carried a worse rating. According to Professor Greenstone of the University of Chicago, Beijing’s average level of microparticle pollution in 2020 was three times that in Los Angeles. This weekend, Beijing’s smog reached levels classified as “very unhealthy.” But while the city has seen improvement overall, in Delhi, the concentration of air pollutants remained at roughly the same hazardous levels between 2013 and 2020, according to the Energy Policy Institute. India has long known how to fix Delhi’s air pollution. A 1997 government white paper identified vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions as the main culprits and suggested sweeping action. During the 1990s, the city tightened emission standards, relocated polluting industries and required thousands of its buses and auto rickshaws to switch to compressed natural gas from diesel fuel. But Delhi continues to struggle with poor air quality. On a recent Monday, the sky was a lovely light blue. But the tint was misleading. The air quality was classified as “poor,” according to government data, which gave it a “very unhealthy” index score of 294. Anything 50 or under is considered satisfactory.

Beijing Is Tackling Its Air Pollution Problem. Why Can’t New Delhi?

A decade ago, the capitals of Asia’s two largest countries both had some of the dirtiest skies in the world. On the worst days, millions were enveloped in thick gray canopies of smog that darkened the sun and besieged the lungs. Since then, one of those cities has made significant improvements. After the Chinese government declared a war against pollution in 2013, Beijing pressed ahead with a multiyear, $100 billion effort to clean its air. The authorities clamped down on factories, forced old vehicles off the road and shifted from coal to natural gas. While more still needs to be done, Beijing officials say the city now has over 100 more days of clear skies each year than when the campaign began. ADVERTISEMENT But in the other city, New Delhi, the air this autumn has been as foul as ever. The onset of air pollution season brought weeks of haze to the city, prompting officials to briefly halt truck traffic, close schools and ask people to work from home. Those who still ventured out coughed into their masks and rubbed their eyes. The air felt bitter on the tongue. Every year, the skies in the Delhi region turn acrid from pollution generated by millions of vehicles, the burning of stubble on surrounding farms and the use of open fires for heating and cooking in rural homes. And every year, residents are left to ask why nothing changes. The diverging fortunes come down, in no small part, to differences between China’s authoritarian system and India’s huge and messy democracy. Overall, China ranks relatively low on international indexes of environmental performance. But in the case of Beijing’s pollution, the Chinese government tackled it with single-minded focus when its scale became too daunting to ignore, forcing rapid, coordinated action in response to public anger. India, experts say, has lacked both political resolve and public pressure to address the issue. Voters have more pressing concerns in a country where tens of millions still live in poverty. Politicians use the crisis to attack adversaries, rather than seek solutions. ADVERTISEMENT “A lot of it has to do with the political will and the coordination between the various governments,” said Avikal Somvanshi, a data specialist for the Clean Air Campaign at the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. “The infighting,” he lamented, “keeps happening.” Take, for instance, a recent exchange between local and national leaders in India, who have perennially traded blame over who is responsible for the capital’s poor air quality. An official in the party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi compared Delhi’s chief minister — a member of an opposition party — to Hitler, saying the minister had “converted his city into a gas chamber.” The chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, swiped back on a television show, asking why “the central government is sitting in hiding, locked up in a room.” In China, the one-party system brooks no opposition; when the central government prioritizes an initiative, local authorities fall in line. That happened in the case of Beijing’s pollution, as the capital worked in tandem with regional officials and neighboring cities, said Zongbo Shi, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Birmingham in England. In India, where local governments are run by an array of parties, coordination is “really complicated,” Professor Shi said. In the absence of political will, economic interests win out; Delhi is surrounded by regions that are home predominantly to farmers and blue-collar workers who typically prioritize urgent economic needs over the environment. India is much less wealthy than China, which has enjoyed four decades of rapid growth, so Delhi cannot invest as much in environmental cleanup. India’s economic output was $2,300 per person last year, while China’s was $12,500. “It’s very hard to trade off air pollution with money — money is likely to win that fight,” said Michael Greenstone, the head of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. “There are dual and conflicting goals here: reducing air pollution and growing the economy.” Indian leaders have little incentive to bridge the divides in part because cleaning the skies is low among voters’ priorities. Even as air pollution has been known to kill more Indians than any other risk factor, voters ranked air quality as their 17th most urgent concern in a countrywide survey before the 2019 election, well behind jobs, health care and infrastructure. Only about 12 percent of respondents called air pollution a priority. In China, by contrast, residents — especially a growing middle class — made their frustration known even within the authoritarian system. Some in Beijing began to call the most toxic bouts of smog an “airpocalypse.” Alarm grew as studies showed that air pollution was contributing to more than one million premature deaths across China each year. (Today, censorship makes it harder to express complaints on all issues, including environmental ones.) “The people’s will can have a great influence on what happens,” Professor Greenstone said. “Until there’s consistent demand, it’s very, very hard to get real improvements.” In India, he added, air pollution “has not taken the same central political priority as it has in China to date.” With no unified effort, experts say, Delhi officials have taken limited action. In recent years, the city has closed two coal-burning power plants and required factories to switch /article65982386.ece” rel=”noopener noreferrer” target=”_blank”>to piped natural gas from coal, and there are plans to deploy at least 8,000 electric buses by 2025, said Jasmine Shah, a vice chairman of the Delhi government think tank that helps create the city’s air pollution policy. But officials have also turned to more dubious solutions. On a recent afternoon, giant fans fitted at the bottom of a green “smog tower” threw out cool, filtered air near an imposing Sikh temple in the heart of Delhi. Nearby, an “anti-smog gun” attached to a truck sprayed water into the air. Ishmeet Kaur, a 19-year-old college student, considered the smog tower from across the street. “A cosmetic effort by the government,” she said, “to make us feel better.” “If only the politicians took our health seriously and did something real about this problem,” she added as she coughed into a black face mask. “We will have to rely on the weather gods.” When China acted on its own pollution problem, it took on a crisis decades in the making. Since the 1980s, rapid industrialization and urbanization had driven China’s extraordinary rise as an economic power. But its reliance on energy-intensive heavy industry to fuel that growth came at an immense environmental cost. In 2013, Chinese officials released a new national air action plan, began publishing important air-quality data and publicly raised alarms about the pollution problem. As part of the national plan, Beijing was required to reduce its pollution by 25 percent. China then undertook an array of steps, experts said: It tightened industrial emission standards on some factories and phased out or upgraded other outdated ones; discarded 20 million old vehicles; upgraded 200,000 industrial boilers; and switched to natural gas from coal as the source of electricity for six million households. In some cases, the decisive action came with a cost: When officials removed the coal boilers, for instance, some homes were temporarily left without winter heating. “A clear example of a poor execution of a plan to make a massive difference,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst at the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, based in Helsinki, Finland. “It caused major suffering for a lot of people.” Nonetheless, researchers found that the tough policies worked. From 2013 to 2017, the concentration of dangerous fine particulate matter known as PM 2.5 in China’s atmosphere declined by roughly a third. Beijing’s air is still far from perfect, especially in the winter. For more than 100 days last year, the air was considered “unhealthy for sensitive groups of people” or carried a worse rating. According to Professor Greenstone of the University of Chicago, Beijing’s average level of microparticle pollution in 2020 was three times that in Los Angeles. This weekend, Beijing’s smog reached levels classified as “very unhealthy.” But while the city has seen improvement overall, in Delhi, the concentration of air pollutants remained at roughly the same hazardous levels between 2013 and 2020, according to the Energy Policy Institute. India has long known how to fix Delhi’s air pollution. A 1997 government white paper identified vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions as the main culprits and suggested sweeping action. During the 1990s, the city tightened emission standards, relocated polluting industries and required thousands of its buses and auto rickshaws to switch to compressed natural gas from diesel fuel. But Delhi continues to struggle with poor air quality. On a recent Monday, the sky was a lovely light blue. But the tint was misleading. The air quality was classified as “poor,” according to government data, which gave it a “very unhealthy” index score of 294. Anything 50 or under is considered satisfactory.

“北京可以，新德里为何不行？”

十年前，北京和新德里的空气污染水平还“不相上下”。如今，前者已经通过历时数年、耗资数千亿的治理取得重大改善，后者今秋的天气却是一如既往的污浊。 “北京在解决其空气污染问题，为何新德里不行？”《纽约时报》日前以此为题报道指出，在很大程度上，这种截然不同的命运归因于政治。中国政府能迅速采取协调一致的行动解决问题，而印度政客则利用污染危机攻击对手。在缺乏政治意愿的情况下，经济利益被优先考虑，印度官员采取的行动有限。 纽约时报》报道截图 《纽约时报》11月22日报道称，随着桔杆焚烧高峰期的到来，自本月初起，新德里已经经历了数周的雾霾，政府不得不暂时禁止柴油卡车通行，关闭学校、工厂和建筑工地，并要求民众居家工作；仍然冒险出门的人戴上口罩也忍不住咳嗽、揉眼。《纽约时报》形容，糟糕的空气甚至能在舌尖上留下苦味。 据美国哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）11月4日报道，印度中央污染控制委员会的数据显示，新德里当天的24小时平均空气质量指数（AQI）超过470，属于空气污染“严重”级别。这也是AQI指数级别中最高的一级。当地时间本周一（21日），新德里的天空呈现出淡蓝色，但根据政府数据，空气质量仍属于“差”，294的指数得分“非常不健康”。 事实上，这样的新闻近来每年都会见诸报端。“每年，德里地区的天空都会因数以百万计汽车产生的污染、周围农场的秸秆焚烧以及农村家庭使用的明火取暖和烹饪而变得刺鼻。每年，居民们都在问为什么什么都没有改变。”《纽约时报》写道。 当地时间11月6日，印度新德里，车辆在笼罩在浓密的雾霾中的道路上行驶。图片来源：视觉中国 不到十年前，北京也有着类似的困扰。但根据北京市政府今年初发布的数据，2021年该市空气质量已首次全面达标，大气环境中细颗粒物（PM2.5）和臭氧（O3）的年均浓度均显著降低。此外，北京去年的空气优良天数达到288天（其中一级优天数为114天），较2013年增加了将近4个月。 是什么造成了如此大的差距？究其原因，报道援引专家分析称，在于中印政治制度、富裕程度和民众主要诉求的不同。 2021年北京空气质量状况。图片来源：《北京日报》 报道称，在北京，当大气污染问题的规模变得令人难以忽视，中国政府一心一意地解决了它，并迅速采取了协调一致的行动。 2013年，北京开始执行新修订的国家《环境空气质量标准》，同年发布的《2013-2017年清洁空气行动计划》要求北京到2017年让PM2.5年均浓度下降超25%，一场大气污染防治战役全面打响。次年1月，时任北京市市长王安顺透露，北京已就治霾问题与中央签订了责任状，其中治理PM2.5投入将高达7600亿元。 但在印度，政府既缺乏解决这一问题的政治决心，也缺乏公众压力。在这个仍有数千万人生活在贫困中的国家，选民们有更紧迫的担忧。政客们利用危机攻击对手，而不是寻求解决方案。 “这在很大程度上与政治意愿和不同政府机构之间的协调有关。”新德里科学与环境中心清洁空气运动的数据专家阿维卡尔·索姆万什（Avikal Somvanshi）感叹，印度政治人物之间的“内斗一直就没停过”。 报道指出，印度地方和国家领导人常年就谁该为首都糟糕的空气质量负责而相互推诿。日前，来自执政党印度人民党的印度环境、森林和气候变化部部长布彭德·亚达夫就公开指责反对党执政的北部旁遮普邦未能阻止农民焚烧桔杆。 亚达夫在推文中还将德里首席部长、平民党主席阿尔温德·凯杰里瓦尔比作希特勒，暗示是后者将德里“变成了一个毒气室”。 凯杰里瓦尔后来则在一档电视节目中反驳道，为什么“中央政府躲起来，把自己锁在一个房间里”。 亚达夫推文截图 英国伯明翰大学大气科学教授时宗波分析称，在中国，当中央政府优先考虑某项行动计划时，地方当局就会服从命令。治理北京污染就是这种情况，首都与地区官员和邻近城市协同行动。而在印度，地方政府由不同政党管理，协调工作“非常复杂”。 在缺乏政治意愿的情况下，经济利益占了上风。报道指出，印度的富裕程度远不及中国，所以新德里不能在环境方面投入很多，而民众也没有改善环境的持续需求。 尽管空气污染造成的印度人死亡人数超过其他任何风险因素，但在2019年大选前的一项全国调查中，选民将空气质量排在他们最紧迫关注的第17位，远远落后于就业、医疗保健和基础设施。只有约12%的受访者将解决空气污染列为首要任务。 相比之下，中国的民众——尤其是逐渐壮大的中产阶层——表达了对污染问题的不满。芝加哥大学能源政策研究所主任迈克尔·格林斯通（Michael Greenstone）认为，人民意愿会对事情的走向产生重大影响。 格林斯通指出，在印度，空气污染“目前还未像在中国那样被列为核心政治优先事项”。由于没有统一安排，德里官员采取的行动有限。 帮助制定城市空气污染政策的德里政府智囊团副主席雅思敏·沙阿（Jasmine Shah）表示，近年来，该市关闭了两座燃煤发电厂，要求工厂从煤炭转向管道天然气，并计划到2025年部署至少8000辆电动公交车。 但印度官员们给出的解决方案也不乏一些不可靠的。近日，德里市中心建起了一座绿色“雾霾塔”，其底部的巨型风扇可吹出经过滤的新风，附近还有卡车用“防雾霾枪”向空中喷水。19岁的大学生伊什梅特·考尔（Ishmeet Kaur）对《纽约时报》称，“政府做的是表面功夫，为了让我们感觉好点”。 德里市中心的“雾霾塔”。图片来源：法新社 印度街头的“防雾霾枪”。图片来源：《印度快报》 “要是政客们认真看待我们的健康，对这个问题做点实事就好了。”她戴着黑色口罩，说话的时候还在咳嗽，“我们将不得不依靠掌管天气的神灵。”

北京在解决其空气污染问题，为何新德里不行？”

观察者网讯）十年前，北京和新德里的空气污染水平还“不相上下”。如今，前者已经通过历时数年、耗资数千亿的治理取得重大改善，后者今秋的天气却是一如既往的污浊。 “北京在解决其空气污染问题，为何新德里不行？”《纽约时报》日前以此为题报道指出，在很大程度上，这种截然不同的命运归因于政治。中国政府能迅速采取协调一致的行动解决问题，而印度政客则利用污染危机攻击对手。在缺乏政治意愿的情况下，经济利益被优先考虑，印度官员采取的行动有限。 纽约时报》报道截图 《纽约时报》11月22日报道称，随着桔杆焚烧高峰期的到来，自本月初起，新德里已经经历了数周的雾霾，政府不得不暂时禁止柴油卡车通行，关闭学校、工厂和建筑工地，并要求民众居家工作；仍然冒险出门的人戴上口罩也忍不住咳嗽、揉眼。《纽约时报》形容，糟糕的空气甚至能在舌尖上留下苦味。 据美国哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）11月4日报道，印度中央污染控制委员会的数据显示，新德里当天的24小时平均空气质量指数（AQI）超过470，属于空气污染“严重”级别。这也是AQI指数级别中最高的一级。当地时间本周一（21日），新德里的天空呈现出淡蓝色，但根据政府数据，空气质量仍属于“差”，294的指数得分“非常不健康”。 事实上，这样的新闻近来每年都会见诸报端。“每年，德里地区的天空都会因数以百万计汽车产生的污染、周围农场的秸秆焚烧以及农村家庭使用的明火取暖和烹饪而变得刺鼻。每年，居民们都在问为什么什么都没有改变。”《纽约时报》写道。

COP27: EU proposal on climate loss & damage fund ‘lacks moral integrity’ say developing countries

At COP27 negotiations Thursday, European Union agreed to set up a loss & damage climate finance facility that serves 'most vulnerable countries' only, and draws on a wide donor base. Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt: During a late night intervention Thursday, the European Union — led by the executive vice president of the European Green Deal, European Commission, Frans Timmermans — agreed to set up a loss and damage climate finance facility that serves “most vulnerable countries” only, and draws on a wide donor base. But while the EU announcement is being perceived as a breakthrough, several developing countries that laboured to bring the issue on the COP27 climate summit agenda think the proposal is far from desirable. The G77 and China group, comprising over 130 countries of varying sizes, have demanded a loss and damage finance facility that will provide funds to all developing countries facing devastation in the face of climate change. After negotiations led to no concrete outcomes, the COP27 Presidency handed over discussions on loss and damage funds to heads of delegations for ministerial consultations. On Thursday, at an informal stocktake, The EU proposed to set up a fund under the Conference of Parties to the Paris Agreement on climate change, which would serve “the most vulnerable countries” — an undefined category under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — and be “one part of a mosaic of solutions, including looking into debt and reforming the Multilateral Development Banks”, Timmermans said. The proposal also seeks to link loss and damage financing to efforts towards mitigating climate change, with Timmermans saying “if we don’t scale up ambition or mitigation immediately, we will pass tipping points and no amount of loss and damage (funds) will be enough”. Western countries, including the U.S., have been pushing developing countries to do more to reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The 2015 Paris Agreement states that countries should limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees, and preferably 1.5 degrees, above pre-industrial levels, to avoid exacerbating the worsening effects of climate change. Powered By VDO.AI Though the proposal finds common ground with the G77 on the urgent need to set up a fund for loss and damage, “everything that follows is detrimental to developing countries”, a negotiator from that group of countries said, declining to be named. Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at the Climate Action Network, said the E.U.’s proposal was welcome, but its focus on the vague category of vulnerable countries, as well as its insistence on a wider donor base — which developing countries argue could undermine the rules of the convention — are “unacceptable”. “Narrowing down the list of countries at a time when many large developing countries are also facing the brunt of the climate crisis is unacceptable. Most developing countries also want global warming to be limited to 1.5 degrees, and want to transition to low carbon pathways of development. But that has to be supported with finance,” Singh told ThePrint. He added: “Europe’s proposal doesn’t talk about meeting finance targets that they have failed to so far meet, or how it will fund those low carbon development pathways.” Whether a loss and damage facility is established will be considered the litmus test for COP27’s success, experts have said. Loss & damage finance has to be guided by historical emissions’ So far, the G77 and China are united in opposing the EU’s proposition, according to observers. “The EU’s offer lacks any form of moral integrity to try to use the plight of developing countries suffering from loss and damage as leverage,” said a negotiator from an African country. The negotiator added: “The proposal is devoid of any predictable, new and additional finance, and there’s no commitment on their part to provide any resource but rather to make developing countries contribute together, with other sources that still need to be identified.” Timmermans had earlier said he expected China to contribute to loss and damage finance because it is “one of the biggest economies on the planet”. Developed countries are trying to expand the donor base for climate finance to include “major economies” from developing countries, even though the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which forms the basis of climate negotiations, doesn’t recognise that categorisation. “If they want China to contribute, ultimately a country like India will be included too, even though the chasm between India and China is wide,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager at the Centre for Science and Environment. She added: “All of the mechanisms they have proposed wouldn’t be governed by the principles of the convention, which means they won’t be held to account by any binding framework. There is a very clear demand for a finance facility within the convention, and the ‘mosaic of solutions’ moves away from that singular demand.” An Indian government official said India would not agree to a proposal to widen the donor base, because it wasn’t fair to ask. “We don’t want to be locked into a situation that’s not fair. Finance for loss and damage has to be guided by historical emissions and per capita emissions. The EU’s idea of ‘most vulnerable’ countries is open to interpretation, and left open ended” said the official. The U.S. is the largest historical emitter, accounting for nearly a quarter of all emissions since pre-industrial times. The E.U. is the second-largest historical emitter, with 22 per cent of emissions. Another point of resistance to Timmermans’ proposal stems from the fact that developed countries want to enhance climate ambition to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees, while also resisting the principle of equity in approaching the mitigation target. In other words, they do not wish to consider their own historical emissions and advantages when proposing higher climate ambitions for countries with fewer resources, negotiators from developing countries have said. According to sources, the EU views loss and damage and climate mitigation as “two sides of the same coin”, and believe any assistance on loss and damage must be accompanied by “dramatically cutting emissions to avoid more dangerous climate change”. Most of the world’s carbon budget has been usurped by developed countries to advance their economies, scientific data shows. Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees shrinks the carbon budget further, compared to “well below” 2 degrees of warming, as proposed under the Paris Agreement, putting pressure on developing countries to adopt a low carbon transition, even as developed countries fail to deliver on their promises of delivering adequate finance. According to Goswami, linking loss and damage with mitigation, as the EU and other developed countries are pushing to do, also makes for a tenuous link. “As the G77 has pointed out, you can be carbon neutral and still be impacted by the effects of climate change,” she said, adding, “If you’re a vulnerable country facing rising sea levels, how can you mitigate your way out of that reality? It’s just not possible.” Countries are still trying to come up with an agreement on loss and damage finance as talks spilled over beyond Friday, the COP27’s scheduled concluding day.

To Tackle Stubble Burning, Governments Have Repeatedly Chosen Ineffective Routes

If policy makers want to see the end of the stubble burning, they have to shed their political differences and come up with a road map which factors in the inability of farmers to bear straw management costs. The year was 2019, and farmers where once again being blamed for air pollution in Delhi. As is the practice, Supreme Court took cognisance of the air pollution issue and summoned the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi to know about steps taken by them to reduce pollution in the Delhi National Capital Region. Chinese Construction of Waterfalls in the building 350, फीट ऊंची इमारत से बह निकला झरना - Travel Nfx 01:18 % Buffered 00:30 / 03:02 Copy video url Play / Pause Mute / Unmute Report a problem Language Share Vidverto Player With the Chief Secretaries in attendance, the Supreme Court directed the state governments of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi to provide Rs 100 per quintal financial assistance to small and marginal farmers for managing paddy stubble. Following the direction, the Punjab and Haryana government attempted to pay lip service but it was half hearted. In 2019, the Punjab government provided financial assistance of Rs 28.51 crore to only 31,231 farmers and the Haryana government provided financial assistance amounting to Rs 1.63 crore to 3,930 farmers last year. On February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court perused the counter affidavit dated February 26, 2020, filed on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, which stated the following: “[A]s far as providing incentive of Rs 100 per quintal of paddy produced to those farmers who will not burn paddy residue is concerned, the issue has been earlier examined in consultation with the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and found that the inclusion of cost of stubble removal in the MSP may not be a viable option as it will not help those farmers who are not getting the benefit of MSP and also create price distortion in the market. The issue has been suitably clarified to the Government of Punjab. Any such incentives, if at all necessary, should be provided by the State Governments from their own budget as has been done during the last year by the Government of Punjab and Haryana.” So, in February 2020, the Union government had stated that it will not be a part of the financial assistance of Rs 100 per quintal to farmers who are not burning paddy straw. The policy thus became clear that the Union will entirely bank on the Crop Residue Management (CRM) Scheme introduced in 2018-2019, which promotes management of crop residue by retention or incorporation into the soil or collection for further utilisation through the use of appropriate mechanisation inputs. CRM also encourages the use of farm machinery banks, through which farmers can rent straw management machines. A farmer burns paddy waste stubble in a field on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Credit: Reuters The goal of this scheme is to create awareness among stakeholders through demonstration, capacity building activities and differentiated information, education and communication strategies for effective utilisation and management of crop residue. Member of Environment Pollution (Preservation & Control) Authority for the National Capital Region (EPCA), Sunita Narain, stated on record that farmers should not be incentivised to stop stubble burning, and that a better approach is that farmers should be given free machinery or a mechanism should be put in place, through which stubble is purchased from the farmers. “An incentive for not burning stubble is a perverse incentive. This has been our view for the last three years,” she said. Under the CRM scheme, farmers are provided financial assistance of 50% for straw management machines and 80% subsidy is provided for farmer producer organisations, co-operative societies and panchayats to establish custom hiring centres. Farmers can buy smart seeders, happy seeders, super seeders, super straw management machines, rotavators, bailers, choppers, mulchers, and other machines under the CRM scheme. During the period from 2018-19 to 2021-22, Rs 2,440.07 crores have been released. Punjab got Rs. 1147.62 crores, Haryana received Rs. 693.25 crores, Uttar Pradesh got Rs. 533.67 crores, the NCT of Delhi got Rs. 4.52 Crores and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research got Rs. 61.01 crores. During the current year, so far, Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and ICAR have received Rs 240.00 crores, Rs. 191.53 crores, Rs. 154.29 crores and Rs. 14.18 crores. Also read: The Govt Has Spent Crores But Failed to Find a Viable Alternative to Stubble Burning in Punjab During the last four years, more than 2.07 lakh machines – including more than 3,243 balers and rakes which are used for ex-situ collection of straw – were distributed to individual farmers and to more than 38,000 agriculture machinery custom hiring centres in these four states (including Delhi). ADVERTISING In line with the Supreme Court’s directions of November 6, 2019, this season, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) governments in Punjab and Delhi proposed a scheme that would give Punjab’s farmers Rs 2,500 per acre as an incentive for not burning crop residue. Under this scheme Punjab and Delhi government would have pitched in Rs 500 per quintal, and the Union government would have contributed Rs 1500 per quintal. The total cost would have been around Rs 1,875 crore, with Punjab and Delhi government’s share coming to Rs 375 crore each, and the Union government’s share amounting to Rs 1,125 crores. But this proposal was refused by the Union government. With this approach, this season, Punjab relied on 1.07 lakh machines to manage the 220 lakh tons of paddy straw generated in the state, and Haryana had a total of 72,777 machines to manage the paddy stubble. Did this approach work or not? Punjab recorded 71,304 fire incidents in 2021; 76,590 in 2020; 55,210 in 2019; 50,590 in 2018; 45,384 in 2017; and 81,042 in 2016, and as of November 15, 2022, Punjab has already recorded more than 45,000 farm fires this year. The number is likely go up as 10-15% of paddy stubble is still lying in the fields. A report titled ‘Impact assessment study of central sector scheme for promotion of agricultural mechanisation for in-situ paddy stubble management in Punjab’, funded by the state department of agriculture and farm welfare in 2020- 21, interacted with 2,160 farmers. As many as 1,320 of them were using straw management machines, and 840 farmers were not. Also read: Why Rising Diesel Prices Could Lead to More Stubble Burning This report stated that 97% of these farmers had said that straw management machines require high-powered tractors, which small farmers cannot afford. More than 80% reported shortage of tractors, machinery and skilled manpower to operate them. During the study it was found that only a small proportion of farmers could avail themselves of the subsidy on stubble management machinery. Only 14.3% respondents applied for the subsidy, and 10% could obtain it. Most farmers who adopted straw management machines found that machines are overpriced, which dilute the benefits of subsidies. This data suggests that despite booking farmers, and making red entries in their records, the approach of flooding Punjab with machinery is not working. While farmers have been asking governments for financial assistance, the entire emphasis has been on flooding Punjab with more machines, which many reports claim are being underused. On the other hand, if we look at the figures of farm fires in Haryana, we see that they have dipped by 45% this year. As on November 15, Haryana recorded 3,149 incidents of stubble burning, compared to 5,724 last year. One of the main reasons in the drop in farm fires in Haryana can be attributed to the fact that Haryana is providing an incentive of Rs 1,000 per acre to those farmers who do not burn stubble. Besides this, a Rs 50 per quintal incentive is also being given to the farmers for making stubble bales. It is high time the governments understand that farmers are unable to bear the operating costs of machines. Despite the subsidy on straw management machines, with the increased costs of fuel and labour, small and the marginal farmers are in no state to own or rent the machines. If policy makers want to see the end of the stubble burning, they have to shed their political differences and come out with a road map which factors in the inability of farmers to bear straw management costs. The Supreme Court’s 2019 direction which provides financial assistance of Rs 100 per quintal to farmers who are not burning paddy straw is a very good start.

How Delhi can manage its waste sustainably

When the Centre launched the second edition of its flagship Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) in October 2021, it signalled a paradigm shift in efforts to create garbage-free cities. It emphasised the scientific treatment of waste to meet current and projected waste generation in cities and mandated civic authorities to remediate their legacy waste dumpsites by March 31, 2024. For details please click the attachment.

Sansad TV: Perspective- Air Pollution: That Choking Feeling

Introduction: Air quality in the Delhi-NCR is deteriorating with each passing day and it continues to remain in the severe category. Air pollution in the national capital and NCR region has been severely affecting people’s health especially elders and children. This problem however is not just limited to the NCR region. According to the national Air Quality Index several major and small towns in the country are in the poor to severe category. According to latest assessment by the Centre for Science and Environment, when pollution concentrations from all sources – local, NCR and beyond are added, Delhi’s vehicles account for nearly 17 per cent of total PM2.5 concentration. However, vehicles’ daily share of pollution from local sources varied between 49.3 per cent and 53 per cent during the week of Diwali this year. Delhi-NCR region is most troubled by air pollution at the onset of winter season with stubble burning accounting for at least one third of the pollutants. Various steps have been taken for monitoring and management of air quality for reducing air pollution. Increasing Air Pollution: It is clear that the problem of air pollution has increased very seriously and over the years its intensity and seriousness has grown. In many places there is no proper air quality measurement mechanism. There are thermal power plants around Delhi and the polluted air moves towards the neighbouring cities. There are large mounds of solid waste Seasonally farmers of Punjab and Haryana burn their crop residues for preparing their fields for next crop and during the winter the air becomes heavy, there is temperature inversion and the dispersal of the pollutants is very low. During winter we also see people burning fire during night to bear the cold. All this put together has a cumulative effect on the air quality. The thrust towards renewable energy is time consuming and expensive. Construction and demolition are the two major sources of Particulate Matter in the atmosphere. The bad air quality tells you that the governance is not upto mark. It is a huge problem and increasing geographically every year. According to air quality data compiled by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Delhi is among the world’s most polluted cities. Particulate matter, PM2.5 and PM10 in Delhi, exceed national standards and the more stringent World Health Organization limits. Delhi needs a 65% reduction to meet the national standards for PM2.5. Delhi’s toxic air also contains high doses of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. According to the WHO, India has the world’s highest death rate from chronic respiratory diseases and asthma. Consequences of Air Pollution: Large number of deaths (around 2000) is attributed due to pollution which is very frightening. The figures may not be correct because they are only estimates. India has recorded 50% increase in the pre mature deaths linked to PM 2.5 and this is between 1990 and 2015 almost coinciding with the economic liberalisation. Air quality has become a serious health issue because the pollutants enter deep inside the lungs and the lungs capacity to purify bloods gets reduced which affects the person’s growth, mental ability and the working capacity especially for children, pregnant women and elderly people. Poor people are more vulnerable to air pollution because they are the one who spend more time on roads. Measures to improve air quality: Improving public transport Limiting the number of polluting vehicles on the road Introducing less polluting fuel Strict emission regulations Improved efficiency for thermal power plants and industries Moving from diesel generators to rooftop solar Increased use of clean renewable energy Electric vehicles Removing dust from roads Regulating construction activities Stopping biomass burning, etc. Way Forward: Undertake a thorough review of the various laws and institutions in order to look at their efficacy and utility. Have detailed consultation with all relevant stakeholders, especially those outside Delhi, which includes farmers’ groups and small scale industries and the public at large.” Draft a Bill and it should be put up for public comments. The members of Commission for Air Quality Management(CAQM) in National Capital Region and adjoining Areas met and reviewed the air quality scenario in the region. Minimize use of personalized transport to the extent possible Restrict travel unless absolutely essential Encourage work from home Strict enforcement of laws and rules regarding dust control measures including at construction sites Strict enforcement to prevent burning of municipal solid waste and biomass Intensify water sprinkling particularly in dust prone areas Use of anti-smog guns at pollution hotspots specially at construction sites Strict implementation of extant rules, Courts and Tribunal orders regarding stubble burning and use of fire crackers Seek co-operation from civil society and public spirited citizens to report air pollution incidents on the Sameer App Encourage coal using industries in NCR to minimize the use of coal in the coming months.

Air bubbles in Delhi’s dystopia Premium

With air pollution a seasonal occurrence in north India every winter, particularly in the National Capital Region, those who can afford to install ever more sophisticated air filtration systems are doing so in homes, office spaces, schools, gyms and hotels. Nikhil M. Babu and Jacob Koshy report on the technologies which provide a temporary respite for a few and the class stratification that is becoming all the more evident On a chilly November morning, four-year-old Tejaswini Singh got down from her father’s scooter and walked towards the metal gate of the government school in Aliganj where she studies. Singh, who was wearing a grey skirt and pink shirt but no mask, stopped to wave goodbye before she disappeared behind the gate. “Now the air quality is better,” said her father, Bimal Kumar, while explaining why his daughter was not wearing a mask despite the air quality being ‘very poor’ in Delhi. “But I was relieved when the school closed earlier this week due to severe air pollution.” When asked if there were solutions for clean air at school, Kumar, 59, shook his head. About 9 km away, a grey Audi pulled up outside Gate 1 of The Ardee School, a private educational institution. In the central courtyard of the school, past the many security guards and the reception with glass doors, is a 12-foot-high screen displaying the indoor and outdoor Air Quality Index (AQI): 13 and 139, respectively. “We use an advanced air purification system, which is installed on the terrace of the building. It pumps in purified air through a metal duct (from the dome of the building) to each floor of the school,” a spokesperson of the school said. The system was installed in 2021.

COP27 pledge may repel West’s bid to skirt blame

The first draft of a deal being hashed out at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt appeared to repel efforts by developed nations to shift some of their onus of action and funding to developing countries like India and China, setting up what appeared to be a difficult dash for consensus before a Friday deadline. The first draft of a deal being hashed out at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt appeared to repel efforts by developed nations to shift some of their onus of action and funding to developing countries like India and China, setting up what appeared to be a difficult dash for consensus before a Friday deadline. Released as a “non-paper”, or an unofficial draft, by Egypt’s COP27 president, the 20-page text retains the distinction between rich and poor nations, and highlights the Paris Agreement principles of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)”, which relates to the fundamental understanding that countries will act as per their national circumstances and respective capabilities. “We are at crunch time in the negotiations. COP27 is scheduled to close in 24 hours — and the parties remain divided on a number of significant issues,” said UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres. “There is clearly a breakdown in trust between North and South, and between developed and emerging economies. This is no time for finger pointing. The blame game is a recipe for mutually assured destruction. I am here to appeal to all parties to rise to this moment and to the greatest challenge facing humanity. The world is watching and has a simple message: stand and deliver,” he added. Negotiators were spending the time till deadline to pore over every word of the text, which will lay down the shape of the global consensus on how to fight the climate crisis. The early draft, an observer from India said, was encouraging for developing countries. “It is an extensive cover text that reflects the concerns of developing countries. It has highlighted the real gap in delivery of climate finance, it talks of the depleting carbon budget and the need for developed countries to attain net-negative emissions by 2030, it refers to India’s call on sustainable lifestyles and consumption, and, most importantly, it doesn’t rephrase the Paris Agreement goal which developed countries were trying to push for,” said this person, asking not to be named. But, India’s proposal to not selectively single out sources of emissions among fossil fuels for action was not a part of the text. India and several other developing nations that rely on coal for energy pushed for requiring all fossil fuels to be phased down, a phrasing that would have included more expensive oil and gas that richer countries largely rely on. The wording on coal One of the developing country negotiators said this was not necessarily a setback for India because the recognition that even action on coal will have to be “in line with national circumstances” and the need for a “just transition”. “We had all put proposals forward. The process is by consensus of all. One of the things that is clear to us is that we cannot go any further than the language in Glasgow because of our national circumstances, energy and developments needs presently. This is work in progress. No conclusions can be drawn at the moment,” said a delegate from India, noting that the early draft reflects the language on equity and CBDR strongly. A second developing country negotiator said that “several parties, including US and the Arab group, were opposed to the idea of calling for a phasedown of all fossil fuels. Statements and country positions are not the same. This too will be negotiated on tonight.” “We have to understand why India agreed to Glasgow language to be repeated. It may be because the earlier call to phase down all fossil fuels was tactical as pressure from rich nations was also building up on expanding donor base etc and such a call was needed put the developed country groups on the backfoot,” said an expert who declined to be named. An observer, who saw India’s intervention on Thursday evening, said: “All countries are sticking to their positions. But the text can change significantly tomorrow morning. India also said focus on only one fuel is prescriptive and it is not okay with such an approach. It is important to remember the same coal language is already in Glasgow Pact and in G20 communique so it is difficult to undo it completely.” Most contentious But talks on other contested issues, such as mitigation work programmes (matters related to reducing emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals) and the Loss and Damage fund did not appear to have made any progress since these sections were only identified by placeholder text. Rich countries have been pushing to expand the donor base to include developing countries like India and China for climate finance, particularly for Loss and Damage and for mitigation, according to observers. “The logjam over expansion of the donor base and taking on similar mitigation efforts is continuing behind doors. The Arab countries in particular are fuming because of being counted as high income countries. India and China are also being pushed. But Paris Agreement is paramount and no other country classification can be recognised other than how Paris Agreement classifies countries under its annexures,” said a third developing country negotiator, asking not to be named. Experts said there were some positives from the early draft. “Important statements [have been made] on the issue of disproportionate use of carbon budget and the need for climate justice for mitigation and finance. I hope these are not diluted or removed in final draft,” said Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment, commenting on the so-called non-paper. “The elements paper, which will form the basis of the cover text, has been a hard-to-navigate document. It lists down a lot but doesn’t stack up to anything that can be termed as progress so far. It puts placeholders in key agenda items like mitigation work programme. Offers no clarity on the fate of a financing facility for loss and damage, which was a key demand of this COP. A statement in the text acknowledges [the need for] scaled up finance to the tune of $4-6 trillion per year for global transformation to low carbon. Current estimates suggest a mobilisation of less than $1billion from all sources,” said Aarti Khosla, director and founder of Climate Trends, who is tracking the negotiations. “The cover text decision in its present form recognises the low impact of NDCs that will be far short of [leading to] 45% emissions reduction by 2030. But, it suggests that global peaking is possible in 2030 if all conditional and unconditional NDCs are implemented fully. This implies additional financial flows. All fossil fuel phasedown is not mentioned but the failure of developed countries to reduce emissions and the urgency of their becoming net negative by 2030 is mentioned in the current text,” said RR Rashmi, distinguished fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute. The place holder on Loss and Damage led to anxiety among small island countries bearing the worst impacts of climate change. “We are running out of time and patience. The developed countries have failed to mobilise $100 billion but they have unlimited money for pharmaceuticals and weapons but not for Loss and Damage. Our need is existential and waiting for two years is untenable,” said Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change, Vanuatu, in a press briefing. “At the moment the cover text looks like a declaration and not a decision. It needs to be narrow and sharp,” said a negotiator from a South American country, asking not to be named. 1.5°C goal alive Key among the issues discussed was the 1.5°C goal. COP27 countries, the document said, “stresses the importance of exerting all efforts at all levels to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,”. It goes on to point out that developed countries have failed to mitigate emissions based on their fair share and historical responsibility, a portion that is likely to be of particular contention. “Expresses deep regret that developed countries who have the most capabilities financially and technologically to lead in reducing their emissions continue to fall short in doing so, and are taking inadequate and unambitious goals to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, while they continue to emit and disproportionately consume the global carbon budget,” the draft said. Overall, the cover decision encourages wealthy countries to increase support and align funding flows with the 1.5°C goal. This is not the final text and it may change significantly. Egypt being a developing country itself has been trying to reflect the concerns of developing country groups. “The Paris Agreement says in black and white. Under Article 2, it states that the entire Paris Agreement should be guided by based on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. This is a conversation that takes place every year. We are patrons at this time and we are trying to find a common ground. We will have to find the right language to accommodate differentiation. We are aware of the various positions and we are working now to accommodate the parties’ views but also the legal agreement that we ratified together,” Egypt’s COP27 ambassador Wael Aboulmagd said on Wednesday evening when asked by HT on how the Presidency would address the push by rich countries to remove differentiation among countries. Negotiators said the task to find consensus will be difficult. “It’s going to be quite a long and difficult journey to the end of this process,” European Union climate policy chief Frans Timmermans told a news conference. “Today, I’m afraid I’m not sure yet where these talks will land.”