Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Schools close as smog-laden India capital considers lockdown

Schools were closed indefinitely and some coal-based power plants shut down as the smog-shrouded Indian capital and neighboring states invoked harsh measures Wednesday amid considerations of a lockdown in New Delhi to combat worsening air pollution. India's top court is deliberating on the lockdown — a first of its kind in the country to stem pollution and not to control coronavirus infections. It's not clear how far it would go, but the New Delhi government has already shown its willingness to impose an emergency weekend lockdown, similar to the one implemented during the pandemic. It's now waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, which could come as early as Nov. 24. The government is discussing whether it would keep the industries open, and some experts say a lockdown would achieve very little in controlling pollution but rather would cause disruptions in the economy and impact the livelihoods of millions of people. “This is not the solution that we are looking for, because this is hugely disruptive. And we also have to keep in mind that the economy is already under pressure, poor people are at risk," said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director at the Center for Science and Environment, a research and advocacy organization in New Delhi. $2 for 2 months Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more CLAIM OFFER Even then, soaring pollution levels in the capital prompted a federal environment ministry panel to issue strict guidelines on Tuesday night to stem the pollution and to show residents that the government was taking action to control an environmental crisis that has been plaguing the capital for years. Besides the closure of schools, the Commission for Air Quality Management ordered a stop to construction activities until Nov. 21 and banned trucks carrying non-essential goods. The panel also directed the states to "encourage" work from home for half of the employees in all private offices. Despite some improvement in New Delhi air over the past two days, readings of dangerous particles Wednesday were still as high as seven times the safe level, climbing above 300 micrograms per cubic meter in some parts of the city. The World Health Organization designates the safe level for the tiny, poisonous particles at 25. Forecasters warned air quality would worsen before the arrival of cold winds next week that will blow away the smog. Today’s top headlines Sign up for the Afternoon Update and get the day’s biggest stories in your inbox. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Earlier this month, air quality levels fell to the “severe” category in the capital and residents faced bouts of severe, multiday pollution. It prompted a stern warning last week from India’s Supreme Court, which ordered state and federal governments to take “imminent and emergency” measures to tackle what it called a crisis. Among the many Indian cities gasping for breath, New Delhi tops the list every year. The crisis deepens particularly in the winter when the burning of crop residues in neighboring states coincides with cooler temperatures that trap deadly smoke. That smoke travels to New Delhi, leading to a surge in pollution in the city of more than 20 million people. Emissions from industries with no pollution control technology, pollutants from firecrackers linked to festivals, and construction dust also sharply increase in winter months. Several studies have estimated that more than a million Indians die every year because of air pollution-related diseases. The capital has often experimented with limiting the number of cars on the road to lower vehicular emissions, using large anti-smog guns and halting construction activity. But the steps have had little effect. Residents say the government isn't doing enough. Suresh Chand Jain, a New Delhi shop owner, said authorities should introduce stricter regulations aimed at limiting car use and controlling the burning of crop residues in neighboring states, emissions of which contribute hugely to the capital’s bad air quality. “Shutting down the city will not end the pollution,” said Jain. Experts say such emergency measures are not helpful in the long run. "These are done only to ensure that you don’t worsen the situation, that you shave off the peak. But it is not a silver bullet that is going to just clean the air immediately,” said Roychowdhury. Read more at: https://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/article255888216.html#storylink=cpy

s smog chokes the city of 20 million people, New Delhi considers a lockdown, but not for COVID.

As smog chokes the city of 20 million people, New Delhi considers a lockdown, but not for COVID. According to the Associated Press, India is mulling a lockdown after smog blanketed New Delhi and neighboring regions on Wednesday, in an attempt to lower deadly levels of air pollution. To assist alleviate the problem, authorities stopped schools indefinitely and shut down certain coal-fired power facilities on Wednesday. The metropolis, which has a population of more than 20 million people, is largely dependant on coal, which provides 70 percent of the country’s electricity. New Delhi’s air contains hazardous particles. Wednesday’s levels were seven times higher than the permissible standard, reaching 300 micrograms per cubic meter in certain parts of the city. The safe level, according to the World Health Organization, is 25. It’s unclear how long the lockdown would last. The state administration of New Delhi is considering a weekend lockdown and is seeking for authorisation from India’s top court. In addition to the school cancellations, the Commission for Air Quality Management has ordered that work be halted until November 21 and that trucks transporting non-essential products be prohibited from traveling. Some experts think that a lockdown would achieve little in terms of pollution management, instead causing economic disruptions and harming the livelihoods of millions of people. “This isn’t the solution we’re searching for because it’s so disruptive,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of the Center for Science and Environment, a New Delhi-based research and advocacy group. “We must also remember that the economy is already under stress, and the poor are at risk.” See the list below for more Associated Press reporting. Residents complain that the government isn’t doing enough to help them. Authorities should impose stronger laws to limit car use and control crop residue burning, according to Suresh Chand Jain, a New Delhi business owner. “Closing the city won’t stop the pollution,” Jain added. According to experts, such emergency measures are ineffective in the long run. “These are just done to ensure that the situation does not worsen and that the peak is shaved. However, it is not a magic bullet that will instantly clear the air “According to Roychowdhury. A federal environment ministry council issued severe restrictions Tuesday night in response to rising pollution levels in the capital, demonstrating to people that the government is taking action. This is a condensed version of the information.

Will parking rates be increased? MCDs still deliberating

As per an analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment, vehicular emissions contribute the highest share to Delhi’s PM 2.5 levels in terms of local sources of pollution. With air quality deteriorating and the Graded Response Action Plan suggesting that parking rates be increased, MCD officials say the matter is under consideration. As per an analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment, vehicular emissions contribute the highest share to Delhi’s PM 2.5 levels in terms of local sources of pollution. On hiking parking rates, a South MCD official said, “It has not been implemented yet and is under consideration. It was implemented in 2017 but the response was poor. We had also informed the erstwhile Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority back then the results had not been satisfactory.” During the pollution spike in 2017, the revised rates were Rs 80 per hour at parking lots under the South civic body. The official said in market areas such as Greater Kailash 1 and 2, people had started parking their vehicles on the main roads and lanes to avoid the hiked rates. “Those who have to take their cars out, end up doing it regardless. And to save money, they look for other alternatives like parking on roads. This system would only work if there is a deterrent such as towing away vehicles parked on roads,” said the official. However, the official added that they will discuss the matter further. A North MCD official said they are still considering it. The EDMC too is still in the consideration stages. An official said, “The file has been put up for approval.” An official of the New Delhi Municipal Council MCD said a meeting is to be held soon to discuss hiking rates. At parking lots in Connaught Place and Janpath, attendants working with Sai Parking charged customers the usual fee of Rs 20 per hour on Sunday evening. “We have heard that the fee might increase but we have not been informed of it yet,” said an attendant. Similarly at GK-1, M Block Market, people were charged the usual cost of Rs 20 per hour. Here too, attendants said they do not know anything about an increase in parking fees as yet.

Prayers to the sun in a toxic river in India

Regardless of the warnings not to enter the toxic, polluted Yamuna River on the festival of Chhath, still the worshippers came, write Mujib Mashal and Hari Kumar As the worshippers descended the slope to the riverbank, dressed in their festival best and carrying offerings, a voice on the loudspeaker repeated: “The water is deep, don’t let go of your child’s hand, don’t let them in the water.” It was a much-needed warning for the thousands of families in attendance for the four-day Hindu festival of Chhath that ended on Thursday, ... https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/delhi-toxic-river-india-pollution-b1956545.html

Air Pollution in India Is So Bad That Schools Are Actually Closing

Over the last few years, India has established many climate goals — and has been on-track to achieve them. At the beginning of 2021, India announced it would attain its goal to reach 40 percent electric power capacity by the end of 2022, a few years earlier than expected. The country is also on its way to reduce emissions by upwards of 33 percent, and create upwards of 2.5 billion tons of carbon sinks. But India's smog problem, which is caused by air pollution, is an environmental travesty. Residents in cities nationwide are being advised to stay inside, to avoid breathing in polluted air. People are also being asked to refrain from driving, to lower car pollution levels. "Meteorological conditions will be highly unfavorable for dispersion of pollutants till Nov. 18, 2021 in view of low winds with calm conditions during the night," read an announcement from the federal pollution control board, as per Reuters. Hopefully, the smog will die down soon — but what's causing it? Why is the smog so bad in India right now? In major Indian cities like New Delhi, the sky is filled with grey hazy smog, and people on the streets can be seen struggling to breathe, according to ABC News. Since Sunday, Nov. 14, the air quality index has been classified as "very poor" citywide, and deadly particulate matter has been measured at six times as much as it should be. This is unfortunately relatively normal for this time of year, because crop residues are burned in the wintertime to prepare for the next growing season. Poor industrial practices and coal production are fueling the other half of the ongoing pollution crisis. Energy needs are continuously growing nationwide, however, and India has only recently changed its agreement from phasing out coal to "phasing it down" — this has been met with quite a bit of pushback from environmental experts worldwide. “It is not at all desirable,” said the Centre for Science and Environment's program director for climate change, Samrat Sengupta told AP News.

कॉप26 सम्मेलन : जलवायु न्याय पर नहीं बढ़ी बात, सरल भाषा में जानिए, पांच प्रमुख मुद्दों पर दुनिया को क्या मिला

सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट की महानिदेशक सुनीता नारायण की मानें तो, इस तथ्य को नहीं मिटाया जा सकता कि अमेरिका, यूरोपीय देश, ब्रिटेन, कनाडा, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, जापान, रूस और चीन जैसे देश 70 फीसदी कार्बन स्पेस घेर चुके हैं। सालभर आपदाओं, तापमान वृद्धि और महामारी से संघर्ष के बीच आयोजित ग्लासगो जलवायु सम्मेलन से धरती की आबोहवा सुधारने को लेकर काफी उम्मीदें जताई जा रही थीं। लेकिन दो हफ्ते तक चली इस वैश्विक बैठक से दुनिया को अहम मुद्दों पर विफलता और निराशा ही हाथ लगी। जलवायु विशेषज्ञों के मुताबिक, कॉप26 ने भले ही जलवायु बदलाव के खतरों के मद्देनजर तात्कालिक कदम उठाने की जरूरत स्वीकार की हो, लेकिन ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन रोकने, आर्थिक रूप से कमजोर देशों के सहयोग और चीन पर लगाम लगाने जैसे अहम मुद्दों पर ठोस प्रतिबद्धताएं नदारद रहीं। उलटे सम्मेलन में अमीर और विकासशील देशों के बीच अविश्वास ज्यादा खुलकर सामने आ गया... बड़ा सवाल... क्या ग्लासगो जलवायु समझौता धरती के तापमान में बढ़ोतरी को डेढ़ डिग्री से नीचे रखने में सफल हो पाएगा? सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरमेंट की महानिदेशक सुनीता नारायण की मानें तो, इस तथ्य को नहीं मिटाया जा सकता कि अमेरिका, यूरोपीय देश, ब्रिटेन, कनाडा, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, जापान, रूस और चीन जैसे देश 70 फीसदी कार्बन स्पेस घेर चुके हैं। वहीं, 70% देशों को अभी विकसित होना है। जाहिर तौर पर उनका उत्सर्जन बढ़ेगा। इसके चलते तापमान वृद्धि से बचना मुश्किल है। पांच प्रमुख मुद्दों पर दुनिया को क्या मिला 1. बड़े प्रदूषकों पर नियंत्रण नहीं जानकारों का कहना है, जलवायु परिवर्तन को थामने के लिए जलवायु न्याय आधारशिला के रूप में होनी चाहिए। इसमें कोई दोराय नहीं है कि विश्व की 70 फीसदी आबादी को अभी अपने विकास के लिए कार्बन स्पेस की जरूरत है और उन्हें विकसित होने से नहीं रोका जा सकता। कॉप-26 को इसमें समानता लाते हुए कम कार्बन उत्सर्जन के रास्ते खोलने की दिशा में कदम बढ़ाना चाहिए था। लेकिन सम्मेलन में बहुत कम प्रति व्यक्ति कार्बन फुटप्रिंट वाले गरीब देशों पर पेरिस समझौते के पालन के लिए जोर डालना न सिर्फ उन्हें विकास से रोकना बल्कि उनका मखौल उड़ाने जैसा है। मसलन, विकासशील भारत के 2070 तक नेट जीरो के लक्ष्य की आलोचना की गई। असल में ऐतिहासिक रूप से बड़े प्रदूषक देशों को कम उत्सर्जन का भार अपने कंधों पर लेना सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए था, लेकिन फिलहाल वे अभी बहुत कम भूमिका निभा रहे हैं। 2. नेट जीरो लक्ष्य पर मामूली प्रगति नेट जीरो के बजाय इस दशक के अंत तक उत्सर्जन कटौती पर फोकस होना चाहिए था। सेवन प्लस वन (अमेरिका, यूरोप, ब्रिटेन, कनाडा, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, जापान, रूस और चीन) देशों से उत्सर्जन कटौती जलवायु परिवर्तन रोकने की चाबी है। ताकि विकास की ओर बढ़ते अन्य देशों की कार्बन स्पेस तक पहुंच बढ़े। 3. जलवायु वित्त पर कदम नाकाफी पेरिस समझौता कहता है कि अमीर राष्ट्रों को 2025 तक गरीब देशों को 100 अरब डॉलर सहायता देनी है। लेकिन यह धन प्रवाह अब तक भ्रामक है। केवल जर्मनी, नॉर्वे और स्वीडन ही अपना हिस्सा दे रहे हैं। जलवायु बदलाव रोकने में पैसा अहम है लेकिन इसके इस्तेमाल में पारदर्शिता भी उतनी ही जरूरी है। 4. कोयले पर कवायद रही विफल विकासशील राष्ट्रों को आर्थिक तरक्की के लिए कोयले की जरूरत है। उन पर इसका इस्तेमाल रोकने का दबाव बनाया जा रहा है। कॉप-26 के समझौता ड्राफ्ट में अंतिम वक्त पर भारत व चीन के हस्तक्षेप के बाद ‘फेज-आउट’ की जगह ‘फेज-डाउन’ का इस्तेमाल किया गया। 5. चीन से निपटने पर यथास्थिति बरकरार वैश्विक मंच से चीन को कटघरे में खड़ा करना चाहिए था। ड्रैगन ने दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा उत्सर्जक होने के बावजूद कार्बन डाइऑक्साइड घटाने के लक्ष्य नहीं दिए। यह अकेले इस दशक के लिए शेष 33 फीसदी कार्बन बजट भी इस्तेमाल कर लेगा। कोयले से बिजली उत्पादन न घटाने तक चीन कार्बन तटस्थ नहीं होगा। भले ही चीन कह रहा हो कि वह विदेश में कोयला पावर प्लांट नहीं लगाएगा, लेकिन अपने घर को लेकर वह चुप है। जानकारों के मुताबिक, असल में चीन को विकाशील देशों के समूह से हटाया जाना चाहिए। नुकसान और क्षतिपूर्ति पर भी नहीं बढ़े कदम इस मुद्दे पर पेरिस समझौते में गहरी खामियां हैं। नुकसान और क्षतिपूर्तियों को मुआवजा या दायित्व के रूप में नहीं माना जाता। विशेषज्ञों का कहना है कि इस पर फिर से काम करने की जरूरत है। कॉप-26 में इसे स्थायी एजेंडा बनाकर पीड़ित देशों को उचित मुआवजा दिया जाना चाहिए था। सहमति के बिंदु...पर क्या ये पर्याप्त है अब हर पांच साल के बजाय, अगले साल तक तमाम देश अपनी 2030 क्लाइमेट कार्रवाई योजना या एनडीसी (राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर निर्धारित योगदान) को ज्यादा मजबूत करेंगे मिटिगेशन महत्वाकांक्षा और उसके क्रियान्वयन को फौरन बढ़ाने के लिए एक कार्ययोजना बनाई जाएगी 2030 क्लाइमेट एक्शन टारगेट को बढ़ाने के लिए देशों के मंत्रियों की वार्षिक बैठक बुलाई जाएगी सभी देश जलवायु परिवर्तन पर उनके कदमों की वार्षिक संश्लेषण रिपोर्ट जारी करेंगे कोयले का उपयोग घटाने और जीवाश्म ईंधन पर सब्सिडी खत्म करने के प्रयास किए जाएंगे सभी देश कोयले पर निर्भरता कम करेंगे जीवाश्म ईंधन का इस्तेमाल चरणबद्ध खत्म करेंगे विकसित देश 2025 तक अनुकूलन के लिए गरीब और विकासशील देशों को दी जा रही आर्थिक मदद 2019 के स्तर से दोगुना करेंगे अनुकूलन पर वैश्विक लक्ष्य को परिभाषित करने के लिए दो वर्षीय कार्ययोजना बनेगी

आपकी सांसे फुला देगा पराली का ये बढ़ता धुआं, एक्सपर्ट्स ने दी ये चेतावनी

नई दिल्ली, अनुराग मिश्र/विवेक तिवारी। दिल्ली में प्रदूषण की स्थिति गंभीर होती जा रही है। हालांकि दिल्ली सरकार ने प्रदूषण की विकराल स्थिति को देखते हुए कुछ दिनों के लिए स्कूल, सरकारी कर्मचारियों को घर से काम करने और निर्माण गतिविधियों पर रोक लगाने को कहा है लेकिन स्थिति अभी भी बेकाबू है। प्रदूषण के बड़े कारकों में धूल, निर्माण कार्य, पराली, वाहन आदि माने जाते हैं। दिल्ली के प्रदूषण में पराली के धुएं की हिस्सेदारी लगातार बढ़ती जा रही है। सफर के आंकड़ों के अनुसार बीते 35 दिनों में दिल्ली के प्रदूषण में पराली का स्तर बढ़ा है। 20 अक्तूबर को जहां दिल्ली के प्रदूषण में पराली के धुएं का शेयर 12 प्रतिशत था, 21 अक्तूबर को वह बढ़कर 12 प्रतिशत हो गया। 5 नवंबर को यह बढ़कर 36 फीसद, 7 नवंबर को 41 फीसद, 11 नवंबर 27 फीसद, 12 नवंबर को 26 फीसद, 13 नवंबर को 37 फीसद रहा। पृथ्वी विज्ञान मंत्रालय के सफर प्रोजेक्ट के निदेशक डा. गुफरान बेग का कहना है कि 13 नवंबर को पराली से निकलने वाले धुएं की दिल्ली के प्रदूषण में हिस्सेदारी 31 फीसद तक पहुंच गई थी। बेग के अनुसार अगर पराली के मामलों को नियंत्रित नहीं किया गया तो स्थिति और भयावह हो सकती है। हवा भी बिगाड़ती है दिल्ली में प्रदूषण का मिजाज दिल्ली में हवा की गति भी प्रदूषण के मिजाज को बिगाड़ती है। अगर हवा धीमी चलेगी तो पीएम 2.5 हवा में समाहित रहेगा जिससे प्रदूषण बढ़ेगा। हवा की कम गति और कम तापमान की वजह से पीएम कण हवा में समाहित हो जाते है। आईआईटी ने दिया सेंसर बढ़ाने का सुझाव आईआईटी कानपुर ने एक रिपोर्ट तैयार की है जिसमें दिल्ली प्रदूषण को मापने वाले सेंसर को बढ़ाने के सुझाव दिए है। इस रिपोर्ट को नेशनल क्लीन एयर प्रोग्राम के सदस्य और कानपुर आईआईटी के प्रोफेसर सच्चिदानंद त्रिपाठी और कानपुर आईआईटी के निदेशक अभय कारंदिकर ने तैयार किया था। उन्होंने उदाहरण देते हुए कहा था कि नजफगढ़ क्षेत्र में पराली जलने की घटनाएं होती है। वहां पर तीस किलोमीटर में एक मॉनिटरिंग स्टेशन है। वहीं धौलाकुआं में हैवी ट्रैफिक होता है वहां से आठ किलोमीटर की दूरी पर आर के पुरम में एक मॉनिटरिंग स्टेशन है। उन्होंने कहा कि दिल्ली जैसे शहर में अभी 36 मॉनिटरिंग स्टेशन है जबकि यहां पर 200-300 एयर क्वालिटी सेंसर होने चाहिए। बीजिंग और लंदन जैसे शहरों में सैकड़ों की तादाद में मॉनिटरिंग स्टेशन है जिससे वहां हवा की गुणवत्ता का सही मापन संभव है। CAR के डिप्टी डायरेक्टर जनरल डॉक्टर एके सिंह के मुताबिक किसान पराली को जला कर अपने खेतों को बंजर बना रह हैं। मिट्टी के लिए ऑर्गेनिक कार्बन बेहद जरूरी है। अगर मिट्टी में इसकी कमी हो जाए तो किसानों द्वारा इस्तेमाल किए जाने वाले कैमिकल फर्टिलाइजर भी काम करना बंद कर देंगे। अच्छी फसल के लिए मिट्टी में आर्गेनिक कार्बन होना बेहद जरूरी है। मिट्टी में सामन्य तौर पर अगर आर्गेनिक कार्बन 5 फीसदी से ज्यादा है तो अच्छा है। लेकिन पिछले कुछ सालों में देश के कई हिस्सों में मिट्टी में आर्गेनिक कार्बन की मात्रा 0.5 फीसदी पर पहुंच गई है जो बेहद खतरनाक स्थिति है। सिंह कहते हैं कि अगर किसान इस बात को समझ जाए तो इससे उनकी आय तो बढ़ेगी ही उनके खेतों में भी हरियाली बढ़ेगी। पराली का धुंआ सेहत के लिए हानिकारक है। इससे वायुमंडल में कार्बन डाइऑक्साइड, कार्बन मोनोआक्साइड और मीथेन जैसी जहरीली गैसें घुलती हैं, जो कि स्क्रीन, सांस व आंखों के रोग पैदा करती हैं। सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड इंवायरनमेंट की प्रमुख अनुमिता राय चौधरी के अनुसार प्रदूषण के चलते दिल्ली की हवा में खतरनाक गैसों का स्तर भी लगातार बढ़ रहा है। हवा में ओजोन गैस का स्तर मानकों से अधिक दर्ज किया जा रहा है। वहीं स्मॉग के चलते हवा में कार्बन मोनो ऑक्साइड का स्तर भी मानकों से अधिक बना हुआ है।

Smog Chokes Indian Capital as Air Pollution Levels Soar

The New Delhi government has ordered the closing of all schools for a week and construction sites for four days beginning Monday. ky obscured by thick, gray smog. Monuments and high-rise buildings swallowed by a blanket of haze. People struggling to breathe. In the Indian capital, it is that time of the year again. The city’s air quality index fell into the “very poor” category on Sunday, according to SAFAR, India’s main environmental monitoring agency, and in many areas levels of the deadly particulate matter reached around six times the global safety threshold. NASA satellite imagery also showed most of India’s northern plains covered by thick haze. Among the many Indian cities gasping for breath, New Delhi tops the list every year. The crisis deepens particularly in the winter when the burning of crop residues in neighboring states coincides with cooler temperatures that trap deadly smoke. That smoke travels to New Delhi, leading to a surge in pollution in the city of more than 20 million people and exacerbating what is already a public health crisis. The New Delhi government on Saturday ordered the closing of schools for a week and construction sites for four days beginning Monday. Government offices were also told to shift to work from home for a week to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. The capital’s top elected leader, Arvind Kejriwal, said a complete lockdown of the city was likely but the decision would be taken after consultation with the federal government. India’s pollution problems are not limited to the capital. Emissions from industries with no pollution control technology and coal, which helps produce most of the country’s electricity, have been linked to the bad air quality in other urban areas. India’s energy needs are expected to grow faster in the coming decades than in any other country. A part of that demand is expected to be met by dirty coal power, a key source of carbon emissions that pollute the air. That’s why on Saturday, India asked for a last-minute change to the final agreement at crucial climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, calling for the “phase down” not the “phase out” of coal power. Indian Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav argued against a provision on phasing out coal, saying that developing countries were “entitled to the responsible use of fossil fuels.” Many experts criticized this move. They worry it has weakened the final agreement and could also hamper India’s fight against climate change and worsening air quality. “It is not at all desirable,” said Samrat Sengupta, the program director for climate change and energy at the Centre for Science and Environment think tank. But he also said India needed enough “carbon space” in the atmosphere for its developmental needs to coexist with the global ambition of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times. “Phasing out coal is technically impossible at the moment. None of the scenarios can project India will be having zero dependencies on coal by 2050,” Sengupta said. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the country would aim to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2070 — two decades after the U.S., and at least 10 years later than China. India’s coal reserves have a high ash content that burns inefficiently and results in increased air pollution. But millions of Indians depend on coal to earn their livelihoods. “In our country, this is the only means of livelihood for many. If the foreign countries say we should stop using coal, then what will we eat,” said Hari Ram, a coal trader.

COP26 Failed in Climate Justice, Says CSE

Meanwhile, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has said COP26 did not deliver in the area of climate justice. “Has the Glasgow Climate Pact succeeded in going far enough to keep the world below a 1.5°C temperature rise – necessary to ensure that our world can avoid the worst and catastrophic impacts of a changing climate? The answer is a resounding ‘no’,” said CSE Director General, Sunita Narain. CSE researchers said while COP26 acknowledged that the threat of climate change is real and that urgent actions are needed, it did nothing to raise the commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions; instead, it highlighted the deep distrust between the already rich and the emerging world, and did little to acknowledge that combatting climate change requires cooperation at a scale never seen before. Says Narain, “The Pact’s fundamental and fatal flaw is in the very first page – where it says, rather dismissively, that “it notes the importance for some of the concept of climate justice” (italics are ours). We cannot erase the fact that certain countries – the US, EU-27, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia and joined now by China – have consumed roughly 70 per cent of the carbon budget, the space in the atmosphere that is available to keep the world below the 1.5°C temperature rise. The challenge is that the world has run out carbon budget, but some 70 per cent of the world’s people still need the right to development. As these countries grow, they will add emissions and take the world to catastrophic levels of temperature rise. It is for this reason, climate justice is not an add-on concept for some, but the pre-requisite for an effective and ambitious agreement. This lack of understanding is at the core of the problem.” She adds: “The Glasgow Climate Pact’s only achievement – if you can call it that – is that it acknowledges and reiterates the need for financial support for adaptation – but it does nothing more than this.” In CSE’s COP26 report card it said in “Agenda 1: Climate justice — failed.” CoP26 should have acknowledged historical emissions and not diluted or erased them. Climate justice has to be the bedrock of action. About 70 per cent of the world’s population needs access to carbon space for development; they cannot be told not to develop. CoP26 needed to confront this inequity and ensure that it is addressed while securing low-carbon pathways for the world. It is a mockery of the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) that poor nations with miniscule per capita carbon footprint are asked to constrain their developmental health in trying to abide by the Paris Agreement. CoP26 should have ensured that the burden of emissions reduction was shouldered by the historical polluters who currently play a small role.

Down’ but not ‘out’: Growth needs fuel India’s coal addiction

NEW DELHI (AFP) – Even as its capital was blanketed by toxic smog, India led the charge to weaken anti-coal pledges at the COP26 summit, with experts saying it is prioritising its economic growth over the planet’s future. The world’s third-largest emitter teamed up with China to water down language on fossil fuels at the Glasgow conference, forcing a compromise: a climate deal that bound countries to “phase down” but not “phase out” coal use. India’s resistance to more ambitious curbs on dirty energy is driven by its need for cheap fuel to power a booming economy and lift hundreds of millions of its citizens out of entrenched poverty. “We have a huge population which has still not reached a basic minimum standard of living,” climate change expert with the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment Samrat Sengupta told AFP. Coal consumption has nearly doubled in the last decade – only China burns more – and the fuel still powers 70 per cent of India’s electricity grid. The government has dragged its feet on tougher regulations for coal plants and just last year announced a series of commercial mining auctions to boost domestic production. Prime Minister Narendra Modi committed to weaning his country off coal, but told Glasgow delegates India would only aim to be carbon-neutral by 2070 – a decade after China and 20 years after the world’s other big emitters. But without decisive action sooner, experts warn India’s emissions will soar in coming years and scuttle worldwide efforts to rein in global warming. The effects of India’s fossil fuel addiction are already keenly felt, with a shroud of thick grey haze enveloping New Delhi each winter. Coal plant emissions and vehicle exhaust fumes combine with smoke from farm fires to choke the megacity’s 20 million residents. On the same day that COP26 delegates were finalising the global climate accord, Delhi shut its schools for a week to keep children inside. Smog is blamed for more than a million deaths in India annually, and a recent University of Chicago study found that air pollution was likely to reduce life expectancy by more than nine years for four in every 10 Indians. Modi’s government aims to mitigate the problem by scaling up renewables, pledging to make solar power as big a share of the energy mix as coal by the end of the decade. But India lacks the high-tech capacity to meet demand for solar panels and relies heavily on expensive components from abroad. It has tried to spur domestic manufacturing of solar tech by hiking import duties, raising the cost of renewable energy. The 2030 solar goal “is a huge and a very stiff target to meet”, said Sengupta of the Centre for Science and Environment. “It requires a lot of cheap finance and technologies to be made available.” India has long argued that historical polluters such as the United States (US) and Europe are obligated to provide the technical expertise and funding for climate mitigation. Its environment minister told COP26 delegates on Saturday that developing countries were “entitled to the responsible use of fossil fuels”. Bhupender Yadav said nations with little historical responsibility for climate change should not be held to the same standards as the world’s biggest per-capita emitters. “In such a situation, how can anyone expect developing countries to make promises of phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies?” he asked. The weakened COP26 commitment was adopted with deep reluctance by other nations, which were anxious to get the deal over the line after two weeks of marathon negotiations. Other developing nations – including Pacific island countries facing the existential threat of rising sea levels as a result of global warming – bristled at the suggestion that India’s last-minute intervention was done on their behalf. Fiji’s Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum expressed “not just our astonishment, but immense disappointment in the manner in which this has been introduced”.

Innovative packaging solutions in view of single use plastic ban

On India’s 73rd Independence Day and even in “Mann ki Baat” on 150th birth anniversary of the father of the nation, the Prime Minister appealed to every citizen of the country to make the country free from single use of plastics and work towards it with full dedication. He urged technocrats to provide smarter solutions for reusing and recycling of plastic. Shop owners were fined to give out plastic carry bags in order to bring more awareness and make people more conscious. According to the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021, India has defined single-use plastic as ‘disposable plastics that are commonly used for packaging and include items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled’. The items which are included in the list are carry bags, food packaging, bottles, straws, containers, cups, and cutlery. India generated an annual waste of 34,69,780 tons of plastic waste in 2018-2019 and 23.83.469 tons in 2017-2018. According to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment, out of the total plastic generated, approximately 60% is contributed by plastic packaging. Plastic can emit hazardous chemicals into the soil, which can eventually seep into groundwater or other nearby water sources, affecting the global ecology. The species that drink the water may suffer catastrophic consequences as a result of this. According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, Government notifies the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021, prohibiting identified single use plastic items by 2022 with effect from July 1, 2022: The manufacturing, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of the following single use plastic commodities, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene, will be prohibited. The India Plastic Challenge – Hackathon 2021 has been organized for students of Higher Educational Institutions and start-ups recognised under the Start-up India Initiative to encourage innovations in the development of alternatives to identified single-use plastic items and digital solutions to plastic waste management. Plastic packaging waste is not listed for being phased out. Rather, it was proposed through the extended producer responsibility (EPR), of the producer, importer, and brand owner (PIBO), that it should be collected and managed in an environmentally sustainable way. From September 30, 2021, thickness of plastic carry bags increased from 50 to 75 microns and to 120 microns with effect from December 31, 2022. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals conducted the assessment by comparing two pillars: the utility index of a specific type of SUP and its environmental impact. To mitigate the problem of accumulating plastic waste in the environment, there is a need to make/develop a substitute for single-use plastic. Best alternatives to plastic packaging are: Glass: Glass is non-biodegradable, but it is inert and can be recycled infinitely. Upcycling of packaged food jars into food storage is the best way to give food packaging a new life. They can also be repurposed to store homemade food or can be decorated and turned into homemade gifts. Consumer good companies which are providing processed foods or beverages have started to explore alternatives for plastic packaging and include glass, tin cans, and tetra packs to mitigate the mounting concerns over plastic waste. Processed food makers such as Cremica have reduced plastic consumption by reducing laminate in packaging. The company has also considered glass as an alternative but will also have to balance cost, which is increased due to glass packaging. Biodegradable Bags: Similarly, the new packaging snack bag developed by PepsiCo is biobased and is 100% compostable and made from plant-based material. 60% fewer greenhouse gases are emitted from the production of material used in theses bags as compared to traditional packaging material. Paper Bottle: Another alternative used by PepsiCo to reduce plastic waste is a paper bottle (Pulpex), which is made from sustainably sourced pulp and is designed in such a manner that it is fully recyclable in standard paper streams and has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Pulpex has been successful in overcoming the challenge of holding liquids in it. ECO-Box: Proctor & Gamble’s (P&G) laundry detergent brand Tide is known for packaging detergent in plastic bottles. However, to reduce plastic waste, P&G collaborated with amazon and came up with ECO boxes to promote waste reduction and environmental conservation. This box has 60% less plastic and 30% less water as compared to the company’s previous plastic packaging. Bioplastic/Compostable Shrink Wrap: It is a bioplastic made up of Mater-Bi, a plantbased resin and can be used as a replacement for single-use shrink wraps for fruits and vegetables mostly found in supermarkets and grocery stores. Palm Leaves: Areca Palm tree is used to produce palm leaf packaging for food such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Arekapak - a functional and aesthetic alternative to conventional packaging is used to produce casserole dishes or lunch boxes. Production of Arekapak takes place locally in India. Apart from being sustainable and biodegradable, palm leaves also impart a unique earthy flavour to the packaged food. Bagasse: It is made from renewable sugarcane and is 100% biodegradable, compostable and a chlorine free alternative compared to styrene alternatives. It is mainly suitable for hot and cold food and can be microwaved or stored in freezers. Today the world produces around 300 million tons of plastic every year which is somewhat equivalent to the weight of the entire human population. Research is still going on to counter plastic pollution and limiting the use of single use plastic as it contributes to over 60% of total plastic pollution. IIT Bombay has developed plastic like films for the packaging industry which are made from edible sugar-based or fat-based biopolymers, non-toxic and gets degraded in about a week or month. Scaling up the manufacturing of biodegradable films has been started by a Chennai based company, and more such innovations with government support and banning the use of plastic will help the world to tackle the issue of plastic pollution.

Glasgow Disappointed, But It Inched the World Forward on Climate

The UN climate agreement reached in Glasgow fell far short of what scientists say is needed, angering activists and many delegates. But the pact achieved progress, agreeing to toughen emissions targets by next year and to compensate developing nations for “loss and damage.” The movie version of the final hours of the UN climate conference in Glasgow is surely already in storyboard. As India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav prepares to use his veto power to force the removal of a call to accelerate the “phase out” of coal burning from the Glasgow Climate Pact, the scene cuts to what is going on in his country, where people are choking in a Delhi smog, as city authorities in the world’s most polluted capital shut schools “so that children don’t have to breathe polluted air.” Fade back to Yadav in a conference-hall huddle with China’s climate envoy Xie Zhenhua, whose influence over other delegations allowed the Indians to engineer their coup. And from there back to an announcement in Beijing earlier in the week by China’s National Development and Reform Commission that the country’s coal output had just reached the highest daily figure ever — almost 12 million tons — as the nation stoked boilers to revive its economy from the pandemic downturn. In a dramatic conference maneuver, the world’s two largest coal-burning nations had insisted that the Glasgow delegates replace “phase out” coal with “phase down.” This change, which watered down a central element of the agreement that negotiators thought had been settled, introduced a bitter note to the end of the conference. Of course, conference declarations are just bits of paper. They don’t themselves change anything. Governments and investors do that. And many delegates headed home heartened by a series of gains from their two weeks of deliberations. Almost unnoticed, the conference moved the goalposts for climate action, says Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Leeds and long-time author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “1.5 degrees Celsius rather than ‘well below 2 degrees’ [the wording in the Paris Agreement] is clearly recognised as the main aim,” he said. While the world is a long way off from limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, the pact at least recognized that fact. And, while the world is a long way from being on track to meet that aspiration, the pact text at least recognized that fact. Nations agreed they should up their game in time for the next meeting, in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, this time next year. They agreed by then to “revisit and strengthen the 2030 [emissions] targets in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs)” and to make sure those targets are consistent with the pledges made by many of them to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century. By the time they meet in Egypt, governments should also have met their decade-old target for providing $100 billion annually in climate finance for developing nations and begun a “dialogue” to create a UN facility to manage a separate fund making payments of recompense for loss and damage caused by climate change. This was a second issue that, along with the proposed coal phaseout, came close to derailing the conference in its final hours. But on this, China held its fire. NEVER MISS AN ARTICLE Subscribe to the E360 Newsletter for weekly updates delivered to your inbox. Sign Up. Activists in Glasgow were divided between those pleased to applaud the advances made and those angry at what was left undone. Even some senior international figures were appalled. The result was “a failure of leadership and a failure of diplomacy,” said The Elders, a grouping chaired by former Irish President Mary Robinson that also includes former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. Scientists were similarly split in their public reactions. The outcome was “a big step forward,” said Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia, co-author of the authoritative Global Carbon Budget published in the first week. “We are still on the road to hell, but Glasgow has at least created an exit lane,” said David Reay of the University of Edinburgh. Jeffrey Kargel, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, cautioned that, with or without an end to coal burning, we are likely to be victims of time lags in the world’s climate system. “There is some pent-up warming that is yet to take place … locked in due to the heat capacity of the oceans,” he told Yale Environment 360. “I am pessimistic that a 1.5-degree threshold will hold.” Glasgow was the 26th UN Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change. Many question the value of these great annual events, with their huge carbon footprints as thousands of delegates descend on some apparently arbitrary city to deliver much less than they promised on the most pressing issue of our time. Some argue that the complex bureaucracy and requirement for consensus agreements among the almost 200 nations present slow down the necessary action, rather than speeding it up. The hijack of the language on coal would be a case in point. The alternative was also on display in Glasgow. Most of the two weeks, as we reported here, were dominated by public pledges made by ad hoc groups of nations that were not tied to the UN process. Glasgow was just a convenient place to announce them. These coalitions of the willing — ranging in size from a dozen or so to more than 100 — promised to cut methane emissions, end deforestation, banish coal, end exploration for new oil and gas, switch auto production to electric and other low-carbon vehicles, and develop new technologies for low-carbon steel and concrete to decarbonize construction. Big emitters such as the United States and China joined some, but not others. Similarly adrift from the UN climate process were last Wednesday’s U.S.-China joint statement on taking climate action and the series of the announcements just before the conference that most of the world’s leading nations would no longer fund fossil fuel plants outside their own borders. India and China may have misjudged the reaction when they unleashed their last-minute choke hold on the agreement. The likely impact of many of these unilateral pledges on emissions is hard to assess. Some are vaguely or ambiguously expressed; and others, including the much-discussed U.S. commitment on methane, are already at least partly accounted for in existing nationally declared contributions (NDCs), the formal declarations given to the UN by nations on their plans for cutting emissions. Still, these unilateral pledges may turn out to have made more difference to the global climate outlook than anything submitted to the UN system during the conference. Despite this proliferation of independent initiatives, those watching the conference’s final hours — and prevented by mask from lip-reading the wheeler-dealing huddles on the conference floor — could not doubt that these events matter. They apply pressure on recalcitrant nations. India and China may have misjudged the reaction in the final plenary session when they unleashed their last-minute choke hold on the pact. The anger did not come just from rich developed nations already phasing out their coal. A succession of developing-world nations that the two superpowers would normally count as their allies also joined in. They included Pacific Island states such as Fiji, and Caribbean nations such as Antigua and Barbuda, who thought the lifeline for coal might consign their nations to the history books. In interviews after the close, conference President Alok Sharma said “China and India will have to explain themselves and what they did to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world.” That could prove uncomfortable. They may be wary of attempting the same trick in future. But others said the 11th hour maneuver would not halt the inevitable demise of coal. “The last-minute watering down is unfortunate, but is unlikely to slow down a strong momentum past coal, a dirty fuel of an earlier era,” said environmental economist Nicholas Stern, of the London School of Economics. That momentum will be strengthened if another landmark conference decision, which called on nations to end “inefficient” subsidies for other fossil fuels, is adhered to. UN agreements operate through rule books, where every word has to be agreed by every nation. This is why, six years after the Paris Agreement, the Glasgow conference still had to resolve two important parts of the Paris rule book. Both reached a conclusion. Rules were agreed on transparency — the details of how countries report their NDC pledges — and on what became known as Article 6 — how countries can collaborate on meeting their targets, including through carbon trading. ALSO ON YALE E360 Why the world’s rich nations must pay for climate damage. Read more. The latter has proved controversial. Environmental groups disagree strongly about carbon markets, under which schemes to reduce emissions can generate carbon credits for purchase by countries or companies who want to “offset” their emissions. Some say the trade can provide the necessary finance for nature-based solutions, emphasized in the Glasgow Climate Pact’s declaration of “the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases.” These nature-based solutions could help the world to net-zero emissions. Others see carbon markets as little more than an accounting trick, open to fraud and designed to allow fossil fuel companies and their customers to stay addicted to carbon-based fuels. If Brazil cracks down on deforestation to gain carbon credits, ranchers may just cross the border and ravage Paraguay. The route to unlocking private cash lies in allowing the booming market in “voluntary” offsets set up by corporations seeking to “green” their businesses to also be used to help countries deliver on their national emissions pledges. The new rules allow governments to buy carbon credits generated by “voluntary” projects, such as forest protection or installing solar panels, and use them to offset emissions they declare to the UN in their NDCs. Some call this double-counting, if the companies also continue to claim those same offsets reduce their emissions. Other say that doesn’t matter, so long as two countries don’t claim the same carbon offset at the UN. There is a big appetite for this loosening of offsetting rules. Brazil wants to claim credits for restoring 12 million hectares of former forests by 2030 — an area almost the size of England — even as deforestation continues elsewhere in the country. In Glasgow, Brazil’s representative hailed the agreement as providing the private finance to achieve this. Australia wants to buy carbon credits generated in other countries to offset continued fossil fuel emissions. The problem is that the voluntary market has a bad reputation for probity and accountability. Forest and other projects that generate carbon credits should be able to show that, without the intervention, there would be more carbon dioxide in the air. But this requires a counterfactual narrative that can be hard to prove. Would the forest really have been chopped down without the conservation project, for instance? And if deforestation was genuinely prevented within the project area, did the clearing of forest just happen somewhere nearby? Would a forest company or NGO have planted a woodland even if there had been no credits to sell? There have been widespread claims that cheap credits in the voluntary markets sold to polluting companies such as oil giants or airlines do nothing for the climate. So allowing the credits to be used as part of national emissions pledges at the UN rings alarm bells. The hope is that the Article 6 deal, which includes a central hub for approving trading, will raise standards rather than unleash carbon fraud. There is hope among some carbon-credit practitioners that the agreement in Glasgow will achieve that. The text in the Glasgow pact allows “voluntary carbon markets that also supports emissions reductions in countries hosting carbon market activities,” says Kelley Kizzier, a vice-president at the Environmental Defense Fund. By doing so, the agreement has cleared “a path to get private capital flowing to developing countries,” and would create a “robust, transparent and accountable carbon market to promote more and faster climate ambition.” Others are more cautious. “The worst and biggest loopholes were closed, but there is still scope for countries and companies to game the system,” according to Mark Maslin of University College London. Charlotte Streck of Climate Focus, a Germany-based international consultancy involved in climate finance, says it will be hard to prevent deforestation crossing borders. If Brazil cracks down on domestic deforestation to gain carbon credits, ranchers may just ravage neighboring Paraguay. One concern is that the rush to turn forests into tradeable carbon will damage the rights of those who live there. Controversially, the Glasgow deal allows carbon credits created under a largely discredited carbon-trading system developed under the Kyoto Protocol to continue being traded under the new regime, provided they are no more than eight years old. Guy Turner, of the consultancy Trove Research, reckons that more than 60 percent of these old credits had, at best, questionable climate benefits. He believes their inclusion will be a cash “windfall” for holders of such credits, which could be used to offset some 500 million ton of emissions. Another concern is that a rush to turn forests into tradeable carbon will damage the rights of those who live in and depend on them. Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and the Environment in India, which campaigns on such issues, was pleased that “human rights have been mentioned in the text,” with an independent body to address grievances. But she was upset that Indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consent to allowing others to use natural resources on their land, which is enshrined in other UN law, had not been extended in the Glasgow deal to cover the value of their carbon.

Parking Rate: क्या आप दिल्ली में पब्लिक ट्रांसपोर्ट की बजाए अपनी निजी गाड़ी का इस्तेमाल करते हैं? बढ़ सकते हैं पार्किंग रेट

Delhi Air Pollution Action Plan : दिल्ली में हवा की गुणवत्ता बिगड़ने के कारण और ग्रेडेड रिस्पांस एक्शन प्लान में पार्किंग दरों को बढ़ाने का सुझाव दिया गया है. एमसीडी को फैसला करना है. Delhi Pollution and Parking Rate: दिल्ली में बढ़े हुए प्रदूषण के कारण ग्रेडेड रिस्पांस एक्शन प्लान में पार्किंग दरों को बढ़ाने का सुझाव दिया गया है. फिलहाल एमसीडी अधिकारियों का कहना है कि मामला विचाराधीन है. वहीं सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट के एक विश्लेषण के अनुसार, प्रदूषण के स्थानीय स्रोतों के मामले में दिल्ली के पीएम 2.5 के स्तर में वाहनों के उत्सर्जन का योगदान सबसे अधिक है. ऐसे में अगर पार्किंग के रेट्स बढ़ाए जाते हैं तो लोग महंगे पार्किंग रेट की वजह से गाड़ियां कम निकालेंगे और प्रदूषण को नियंत्रित करने में मदद मिलेगी. पार्किंग दरों में बढ़ोतरी पर, दक्षिण एमसीडी के एक अधिकारी ने इंडियन एक्सप्रेस अखबार से कहा कि, "इसे अभी तक लागू नहीं किया गया है और इस पर विचार किया जा रहा है. इसे 2017 में लागू किया गया था लेकिन इसका रिस्पांस अच्छा नहीं रहा था. हमने तत्कालीन पर्यावरण प्रदूषण (रोकथाम और नियंत्रण) प्राधिकरण को भी सूचित किया था, तब परिणाम संतोषजनक नहीं थे." 2017 में प्रदूषण बढ़ने के दौरान, साउथ सिविक बॉडी ने पार्किंग की संशोधित दरें 80 रुपये प्रति घंटे कर दी थीं. अधिकारी ने कहा कि ग्रेटर कैलाश 1 और 2 जैसे बाजार क्षेत्रों में, लोगों ने बढ़ी हुई दरों से बचने के लिए अपने वाहन मुख्य सड़कों और गलियों में पार्क करना शुरू कर दिया था. साथ ही जिन्हें अपनी कारों को बाहर निकालना पड़ता है, वे इसकी बिना परवाह किए निकालते हैं और पैसे बचाने के लिए वे सड़कों पर पार्किंग जैसे अन्य विकल्पों की तलाश करते थे. यह प्रणाली तभी काम करेगी जब सड़कों पर खड़े वाहनों को हटाने की उपाय बेहतर हों. फिलहाल अधिकारी ने कहा कि वे इस मामले पर आगे चर्चा करेंगे. फिलहाल दिल्ली में प्रदूषण का स्तर बेहद खराब स्थिति में है और सुप्रीम कोर्ट इस मसले पर केंद्र और दिल्ली, दोनों सरकारों को फटकार लगा चुकी है.

प्रदूषण की रोकथाम पर राजनीति की छाया

दिल्ली में हर साल सर्दियों में वायु प्रदूषण का स्तर बढ़ जाता है लेकिन इसकी रोकथाम के लिए स्थायी कदम नदारद हैं. प्रदूषण जैसे विषय पर भी राजनीति हावी है और सरकारें अपनी अपनी राजनीतिक रोटियां सेकने में व्यस्त हैं. 13 नवंबर को जब सुप्रीम कोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन वी रमना ने कहा कि वो अपने घर के अंदर भी सांस नहीं ले पा रहे हैं तब दिल्ली में प्रदूषण का स्तर पहली बार खतरनाक रूप से नीचे नहीं गिरा था. अक्टूबर-नवंबर में ऐसा हर साल होता है. लेकिन इसके बावजूद न दिल्ली सरकार हर साल इस स्थिति को दोहराने से रोक पा रही है और न केंद्र सरकार. यहां तक कि प्रदूषण के कारणों को लेकर भी दोनों सरकारों का नजरिया अलग है. प्रदूषण का असली कारण क्या यह बात एक बार फिर खुल कर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 15 नवंबर को सामने आई जब केंद्र सरकार ने अदालत को बताया कि दिल्ली के प्रदूषण के लिए शहर के अंदर के कारण ज्यादा जिम्मेदार हैं और पड़ोसी राज्यों में जलाई जाने वाली फसल की पराली के धुएं के असर का सिर्फ 10 प्रतिशत योगदान है. दिल्ली सरकार इस बात से सहमत नहीं है और वो लगातार प्रदूषण में पराली के धुएं के योगदान को 30-40 प्रतिशत तक बताती है. बल्कि अदालत के दरवाजे खटखटाने वाले याचिकाकर्ताओं में से एक के वकील विकास सिंह ने भी कहा कि केंद्र ने इससे पहले अपनी ही एक बैठक में कहा था कि पराली के धुएं का 35 प्रतिशत योगदान है. केंद्र सरकार इससे पहले भी पराली जलाने के योगदान को 10 प्रतिशत से भी कम बता चुकी है, लेकिन दिल्ली सरकार का कहना है कि एक ही एफिडेविट में केंद्र सरकार ने चार प्रतिशत और 35-40 प्रतिशत दोनों आंकड़े दिए हैं. इसका मतलब आज तक यह भी स्पष्ट नहीं हो पाया है कि दिल्ली में प्रदूषण के मुख्य कारण क्या हैं. ऐसे में प्रदूषण के रोकथाम की एक कारगर नीति कैसे बन पाएगी? साल भर प्रदूषण पर नहीं जाता ध्यान अलग अलग संस्थानों के अध्ययनों में भी यह विरोधाभास नजर आता है. दिल्ली स्थित थिंक टैंक सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) का कहना है कि इस साल पराली के धुएं का दिल्ली के प्रदूषण में 12 प्रतिशत योगदान रहा है. हां, दिवाली की तीन दिनों बाद यानी सात नवंबर को यह बढ़ कर 48 प्रतिशत हो गया था. सीएसई के मुताबिक 2020 में इसका पूरे साल का औसत था 17 प्रतिशत, 2019 में 14 प्रतिशत और 2018 में 16 प्रतिशत. एक और संस्था द एनर्जी एंड रिसोर्सेज इंस्टिट्यूट (टेरी) के मुताबिक पराली का योगदान सिर्फ छह प्रतिशत है. इसका मतलब आज तक स्पष्ट रूप से यह भी साबित नहीं हो पाया है कि दिल्ली के प्रदूषण के लिए कौन कौन से कारण कितने जिम्मेदार हैं. यह पता लगाना समाधान ढूंढने की पहली सीढ़ी है और अगर सरकार अभी पहली सीढ़ी ही नहीं चढ़ पाई है तो समझ लेना चाहिए कि मंजिल अभी दूर है.

Lack of understanding of climate justice was the problem at Glasgow, says Sunita Narain

The 26th Conference of Parties (CoP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow ended on a disappointing note with the developed world refusing to cut down their own emissions while putting pressure on India to stop using coal, restricting India’s developmental goals. The bitter negotiations created a fissure between the developed and developing blocks, making things complicated for future negotiations. Sunita Narain, the director of Centre for Science and Environment, assesses the CoP26 in an interview with DH's Kalyan Ray. Excerpts: What’s your assessment of CoP26? Has the Glasgow Climate Pact succeeded in going far enough to keep the world below a 1.5C temperature rise necessary to ensure that our world can avoid the worst and catastrophic impacts of a changing climate? The answer is a resounding ‘no’. The Pact’s fundamental and fatal flaw is in the very first page — where it says, rather dismissively, that “it notes the importance for some of the concepts of climate justice”. We cannot erase the fact that certain countries — the US, EU-27, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia and now joined by China — have consumed roughly 70 per cent of the carbon budget, the space in the atmosphere that is available to keep the world below the 1.5C temperature rise. The challenge is that the world has run out of carbon budget, but some 70 per cent of the world’s people still need the right to develop. As these countries grow, they will add emissions and take the world to catastrophic levels of temperature rise. It is for this reason, climate justice is not an add-on concept for some, but the prerequisite for an effective and ambitious agreement. This lack of understanding is at the core of the problem. Do you think Glasgow has made some progress to whatever was promised in Paris? I find that the CoP discussions have become so ossified that they just seem to talk to each other without a sense of the crisis and reality around them. The developed world’s promise of climate funding didn’t materialise so far — what do you have to say? The Paris Agreement says rich nations must transfer US $100 billion annually through 2025 to developing and poor countries. But the flow of real money is still illusionary; only Germany, Norway and Sweden are paying their share. The final text acknowledges the needs of developing countries for climate finance, and sets out a process to deliver on those needs. The agreed text commits developed countries to double the collective share of adaptation finance within the $100 billion annual target for 2021-2025, and to reach the $100 billion goal as soon as possible. But developed countries resisted defining climate finance, and adding specific language that would communicate an increased contribution over and above the US $100 billion. What’s your assessment of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement at Glasgow? It's a very bold and ambitious announcement. India didn’t have to take on a commitment on emission reduction — the one billion tonne reduction between now and 2030. Also we have put out a road map for renewable energy and non-fossil fuel energy. It's a clear indication that we want to transform our energy system, limit coal and expand cleaner sources. The net-zero target is 50 years away, but the PM announced four short term targets to be reached by 2030. Are these achievable realistically? The intent is there, but to achieve, we have to be serious about limiting our coal. The energy required for our growth will have to come from cleaner sources. There is no doubt renewable energy is still much more expensive. Currently 80 per cent of India’s electricity is coal based, but we are projecting that with the growth of the energy options, we will limit coal use to 50-60 per cent. Which means that the doubling of energy that is going to happen between now and 2030, will have to happen on alternate sources. The strategy has to be such that we get clean and affordable energy. We have to be serious and determined in managing the Discoms and production of cleaner electricity. We will have to get rid of our old plants and modernise the current fleet. We will have to move the vehicles to electric and public transport. It requires a kind of obsession and game plan. We can think out of the box today as we haven’t built all our energy sources. This is not an option to the rest of the world. Out of the four targets that the PM had set, which one is the most challenging: The most challenging would be energy transformation. That’s the key to everything. All over the world, it's the energy that is the cause of global warming. If you transform your energy system, your manufacturing becomes cleaner. What are the other industrial sectors that need to change? Bulk of India’s emission comes from the power sector along with steel, cement, aluminium and fertiliser. The number of industries in each of these sectors is limited. Aluminum has four players, cement has ten players, but they all require a system. That’s where the government will have to say, here is the plan going forward, there are the things that you will do at your cost, these are the things that we will do and these are things we will raise a bill abroad. But we need a clear plan to go ahead. Do we have adequate resources to transform these sectors? The first thing is to make a plan on how we get there, what kind of resources are needed, what’s the pathway to get to cleaner energy and industrial sectors and what would it cost. We need to demand from the western countries not only the low hanging fruits, but also the more cost for transformation in more expensive projects, which we can’t afford. The bottom line, however, is that we need to come up with a plan.