According to analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment and Down To Earth, extreme-event days rose from 88 percent of the pre-monsoon season in 2022 to 99 percent in 2025. The excess rainfall triggered flash floods and landslides. Heavy rain, floods and landslides occurred on 51 of 59 winter days, creating widespread damage before the monsoon season officially began.
A New Delhi-based environmental think tank, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), has warned the European Union (EU) that imposing a carbon tax on developing countries like India will exacerbate climate inequities by shifting the burden of decarbonisation onto the Global South. The EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) came into effect on January 1, taxing selected industrial goods exported to the EU. CBAM is a carbon tax that the EU impose on imported goods to protect the climate and its companies. For countries like India, this has significant implications. Analysis indicates that CBAM could reduce the actual price of Indian steel and aluminium—mainly produced using coal—by 16 to 22%. Such shocks are likely to be mitigated through price compression in order to maintain competitiveness. "By putting a carbon price at the border, the CBAM alters the definition of competitiveness in global trade. However, it also shifts the costs of decarbonisation to developing countries, perpetuating a familiar dynamic where these nations adapt to rules set elsewhere under conditions that structurally disadvantage them," said Sunita Narain, Director General of CSE. Narain added, "Decarbonisation in industry is both necessary and unavoidable. Developing countries must pursue decarbonisation to remain competitive. However, this transition cannot be achieved solely through unilateral measures." Concerns were raised in 2023 when the EU introduced the CBAM, as it does not address historical responsibilities or structural inequalities. The CSE is advocating for equitable global climate action and emphasises the importance of providing real sectoral decarbonisation support, including concessional finance and technology transfer from the EU to developing country partners. "This can help reduce the carbon intensity of manufacturing, ensure a level playing field, and provide funds for Global South countries to invest in low-carbon growth," remarked another expert. Over the past 15 months, CBAM has expanded its scope, evolving into an extensive trade obligation that places increasing demands on exporters for data provision and verification. Recent proposals aim to widen CBAM’s scope to additional sectors, tighten verification requirements, and introduce anti-circumvention provisions, thereby escalating compliance and cost pressures on exporters from the Global South. CSE has suggested that measures should include ensuring that funds from the carbon tax remain within borders, along with the EU providing additional climate finance for decarbonisation. A comprehensive package of measures could include recycling CBAM revenues to developing country partners, supporting the monitoring and reporting of emissions, and granting exemptions for least developed countries.
“AMR is already something to be worried about. And as this study indicates, when we are inhaling microplastics, it is even more concerning as it adds to another pathway to the spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens,” said Rajeshwari Sinha, who leads the AMR programme at the Centre for Science and Environment, an environmental thinktank in Delhi.
लेकिन भारतीय भूवैज्ञानिक सर्वेक्षण (जीएसआई), पर्यावरण, वन एवं जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय (एमओईएफसीसी), नेशनल ग्रीन ट्रिब्यूनल (एनजीटी), सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) और संरक्षण संगठन वी आर अरावली की रिपोर्ट यह स्पष्ट करती हैं कि खनन, अंधाधुंध शहरीकरण, अवैध निर्माण और नीति-स्तर की ढोल ने अरावली को गंभीर पारिस्थितिक संकट के मुहाने पर ला खड़ा किया है। वैज्ञानिक चेतावनी दे रहे हैं कि यदि अब भी निर्णायक हस्तक्षेप नहीं हुआ तो इसके दुष्परिणाम केवल स्थानीय
A 2024 report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on water and wastewater planning in large, dense, unplanned urban settlements –– like Sangam Vihar in New Delhi –– found that current urban water initiatives focus largely on infrastructure-centric metrics, such as the length of pipelines laid and the number of household tap connections, rather than the actual delivery of safe water. A senior technical staff member working with MoHUA said that by not embracing decentralised water and sanitation systems that create smaller and more manageable networks with dedicated supply, the risk of contamination remains systemic rather than episodic. “Subsequent central schemes should incentivise area-based or localised systems, particularly in unplanned informal settlements and peripheral areas,” the official said on anonymity, adding that the ministry should move from infrastructure targets to service level benchmarks as introduced by the World Bank in the early 2000s.
NEW DELHI: The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), enforced in Delhi-NCR during periods of hazardous air quality, has been found to significantly improve the region’s air quality, according to a study by IITM-Pune and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). GRAP is triggered when the Air Quality Index (AQI) rises to dangerous levels. Its primary aim is to restrict pollution-causing activities, acting as a “mini-lockdown” to protect public health, despite causing some inconvenience to residents and businesses. Experts agree that while GRAP can be inconvenient, its public health benefits are undeniable: Anumita Roychowdhury, CSE: “GRAP prevents further pollution peaks, flattens AQI spikes, and provides early warning for public health.” Dipankar Saha, former CPCB head: “GRAP protects public health; alternative solutions can reduce inconvenience.” Sachin Ghude, IITM-Pune: “Without GRAP, Delhi would have recorded more severe AQI hours; it reduced AQI by up to 49 units.” The Graded Response Action Plan has proven to be an effective tool in mitigating air pollution in Delhi-NCR. While it may disrupt daily routines, its implementation saves lives and reduces the harmful effects of toxic air, underlining the urgent need for continued enforcement and public compliance.
I am a child of the pre-globalisation world. I reminisce about this at length in my book The Rise of the Neo-Locals: A Generational Reversal of Globalisation. In it, I discuss how during my 60-odd years, I have seen the world come full circle — from the time of my childhood when India’s development vision was about self-reliance and investment in domestic manufacturing, to my early youth when the economy began to open up with the advent of World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade, when export-driven globalisation became the gold standard for growth. And now, with the second coming of Donald Trump to the White House, the grand disruption of this trade order is well underway. Tariffs have been weaponised. They are now tools for reconfiguring global trade and foreign policy. The trade order, built on the premise that manufacturing would move to places with lower labour costs and environmental standards, is set to be rejigged. The jury is still out on whether or not this will happen. But Mr Trump seems determined to have his way. He says manufacturing must return to the United States (US) to create local jobs and to regain control over the critical supply chains of medicines and high-tech computing power. Despite years of raking in money from the global trade order, where cheaper goods from foreign countries made it to the US shores, Mr Trump says his country was cheated and ripped off. The question is: What do countries of the South do now? The fact is, while some countries like India have been juggling the global trading order with domestic priorities, many others have raced ahead, building economies on the consumption of others. Now, this order is being disrupted. What price does one need to pay to be a part of this ‘Trump global trading club’? For instance, as a condition for joining this club, Indonesia — home to large numbers of relatively poor people — has agreed to lift the ban on exporting nickel (a rare earth mineral) to the US, abandoning its efforts to localise its own wealth through value-addition. Furthermore, according to Mr Trump’s social media post, Indonesia has agreed to buy fossil fuels — natural gas and petroleum — as well as agricultural commodities from the US. In return, it has received a slashed tariff rate, which it can use to promote exports on products that US consumers want. The reason the US is managing to browbeat its way into these deals is the sheer size of its consuming class. The country — home to only 4 per cent of the world’s population — gorges on household goods. According to data, the US accounts for roughly 30 per cent of global household consumption: It consumes double or more of what it produces and hence, faces a trade deficit. But it is also because of this gargantuan demand that countries are queuing up in submission. They desperately need and want a share of the US market for everything — from coffee to clothes to electronics and more. And this is what the Trump administration is counting on. This scale of consumption of the US is not directly proportional to its economic wealth; it is not necessary that a country would become a US-style gobbler of goods just because it is rich. China, a close second economy and home to 17 per cent of the world’s people, accounts for only 12 per cent of global consumption. Decoding this consumption puzzle is important because this is a determinant of what our future will hold. The fact is that US-style consumption will not work in a carbon- and resource-constrained world. It is often said that if everybody was to live like an American, the world would need several more planets — and that is true. We also cannot discuss our way out of climate change without confronting the consumption-oriented economic model. At the same time, it is also clear that economic growth needs consumption of goods — this is what the game is about. So, what is the way ahead? There are two parts to solving this consumption puzzle. First, and most importantly, focus on increasing the distribution of wealth within a country so that consumption is not about the wealth of a few, but about the well-being of the majority. The fact is as long as there is money in the hands of the poorest, they will become “consumers” of goods. Second, we need localisation of the economy — in other words, enable local production by the masses, not mass production for the locals (to paraphrase our favourite national hero, Mahatma Gandhi). This should be the foundation of a modern, self-reliant economy. The more we grow from the bottom up, the more resilient our communities will become and withstand climate change shocks. The question now is whether we can build that new green future — one that sustains local production and livelihoods, but not by consuming the planet. This then is the challenge for 2026 and beyond. The author is at the Centre for Science and Environment. sunita@cseindia.org, X: @sunitanar
There are 40 water sprinkling vehicles across the city to hydrate the roads and reduce dust, yet environmental scientists have indicated that this strategy by itself cannot lead to an improvement in air quality. Checking other sources, including smoke-belching vehicles and polluting industries, is as important as preventing resuspension of dust. Even for dust suppression, watering roads is not the only solution, the scientists said. On the first Sunday of the New Year, when thousands were outdoors, the air remained filthy. The air quality bulletin, published by the Central Pollution Control Board at 4pm every day, showed that the air quality was “poor” in Calcutta and Howrah on Sunday. The bulletin states that in a city with multiple monitoring locations, the average value is used to indicate the air quality result. There are seven monitoring stations in Calcutta and five in Howrah. A breakdown of the results revealed that at 2pm on Sunday, three monitoring stations in Calcutta, Bidhannagar, Jadavpur and Victoria reported “poor” air quality. Four stations in Howrah — Belur Math, Dasnagar, Ghusuri and Padmapukur — also reported “poor” air quality. One station in Calcutta, Rabindra Bharati University (BT Road campus), reported “very poor” air quality. The remaining stations reported “moderate” air quality, the best reading on Sunday, which is two levels below the best category in the National Air Quality Index. The state PCB has 18 water sprinkling vehicles working in Calcutta, and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has 22 more vehicles. PCB also runs 12 such vehicles in Howrah. Kalyan Rudra, the chairperson of the state PCB, stated that water sprinkling was done to prevent the resuspension of dust as vehicles moved over roads. “The source apportionment study has shown that dust is the top contributor to the generation of PM 10 and also among the top sources of PM 2.5. We are also funding procurement of electric vehicles,” he said. A KMC official said their water sprinklers ran along arterial roads such as JL Nehru Road, Central Avenue, and around Victoria, among other places. “They are run in two shifts, between 6am and 9am, and again between 8pm and 1am,” said a KMC official. The air quality bulletin showed PM 2.5 was the “prominent pollutant” in both cities on Sunday. Environmental scientists said that among the sources of PM 2.5 in Calcutta, dust was much behind the use of unclean fuel for cooking, pollution from vehicles and industries. Medical professionals and environmental scientists have stated that it is imperative for authorities to focus on regulating sources of PM 2.5, as they pose a more significant health risk. These particulate matters, measuring 2.5 micrometers or smaller, have the capability to infiltrate the lungs and other organs. “The focus has to be on controlling PM 2.5. The contribution of dust towards PM 2.5 is less than other sources. Waste burning, industries that use unclean fuel and tailpipe emissions have to be reduced to boost the air quality,” said Anumita Roy Chowdhury, executive director of New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “The government should create such a public transport system that the number of cars is reduced, and people shift to using public transport. The focus should also be on shifting towards electric vehicles from diesel and petrol-powered vehicles,” she said. Industries that are still using coal and gas to run their processes “should shift to electricity to cut down emissions,” she said. A study by The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), commissioned by the state pollution control board (PCB), to determine the sources of air pollution and their relative share found that cooking through coal or biomass contributed 29 per cent to generation of PM 2.5. Industries contributed 21 per cent and tailpipe emissions from vehicles contributed 20 per cent to the formation of PM 2.5. The contribution of dust to PM 2.5 was 12 per cent, but it was the top contributor (43 per cent) towards the generation of PM 10.
Every winter, Delhi’s air pollution crisis returns with grim predictability. Schools shut, hospitals issue advisories, flights are delayed, and public anger briefly peaks. The debate that follows is equally familiar: stubble burning versus vehicles, construction dust versus coal plants, individual behaviour versus government failure. Yet despite years of discussion and data, the air remains toxic. This persistence points to two deeper truths: a lack of public clarity about the issue, and a failure of public systems—planning, governance, and institutional capacity—unfolding in plain sight. At the same time, several civic efforts are working to address these gaps. One point is often missing from the public narrative: air pollution is not a behavioural anomaly or a technological gap that can be solved through private fixes. It is the cumulative outcome of fragmented urban planning, weak enforcement, and misplaced priorities over decades. Delhi’s air quality is poor not just in winter but throughout the year. Seasonal meteorology worsens the crisis, but the sources are structural and continuous. Motorised transport, dominated by private vehicles, accounts for nearly half of particulate pollution. Construction and road dust contribute roughly another third. Coal-based thermal power plants operating on the city’s periphery add significantly to emissions, with many violating sulphur dioxide norms. Household emissions, small industries, and biomass burning further compound the burden. Stubble burning, often portrayed as the primary villain, contributes a variable share—between 4 per cent and 20 per cent depending on wind conditions—and only for a limited four- to six-week window. Yet public discourse disproportionately fixates on it, allowing harder conversations about urban mobility, land use, and industrial regulation to be postponed. This misalignment between causes and responses becomes stark when public funding is examined. India’s National Clean Air Programme allocated about? 19,711 crores over six years for 131 cities—roughly ?25 crores per city per year. A large portion of this funding remains unspent. Of what is spent, much goes toward short-term measures such as water spraying on roads, which offers visual relief but little evidence-based impact. The deeper constraint is institutional capacity. Pollution control boards remain understaffed, underpowered, and financially constrained, with limited enforcement authority. Urban planning institutions lack legal teeth. Transport, environment, housing, and land-use decisions continue to operate in silos. Without empowered institutions, even well-intentioned policies remain aspirational. Policy incoherence compounds the problem. Restrictions on construction in ecologically sensitive zones coexist with permissions for large-scale development. Older vehicle bans are inconsistently enforced, even as the policy narrative increasingly centres on electric vehicles. While EVs are important, they do not address a fundamental truth: replacing one private vehicle with another does not solve congestion, emissions, or exposure. Cities with cleaner air have not merely electrified cars; they have reduced dependence on them. International experience shows that another path is possible. Cities that have successfully tackled air pollution treated it as a governance challenge rather than an environmental add-on. Beijing invested heavily and consistently, relocated polluting industries, enforced emission norms, and built integrated public transport systems. The lesson is not replication, but coherence and follow-through. A more effective response in India requires clear sequencing of action. In the short term, priorities must include immediate reduction of exposure: strict enforcement of construction-site compliance, penalties for non-compliant vehicles and industries, and demand-side measures such as congestion pricing and rationalised parking fees. Revenues should be ring-fenced to strengthen public transport and last-mile connectivity. In the medium to long term, air quality improvement depends on reducing private vehicle dependence. This requires sustained investment in reliable public transport, safe walking and cycling infrastructure, and the creation of low-emission zones around schools, hospitals, and dense activity centres. Industrial and thermal power plants that cannot meet emission standards must be relocated beyond urban peripheries. At the institutional level, pollution control boards must be adequately staffed, funded, and empowered. City-level planning authorities need legal authority, and state and national institutions must be strengthened to enforce environmental and mobility norms. A regional unified metropolitan transport authority across all modes can align planning, pricing, and operations. Transparent, real-time air quality data should guide both policy and accountability.Delhi’s air pollution crisis is neither inevitable nor insoluble. It is the outcome of choices—and can be reversed by better ones. Experts such as Sunita Narain, Arunabha Ghosh, Vimlendu Jha, Amit Bhatt, and Jyoti Pande Lavakare have articulated both the problems and solutions for years. Treating clean air as a national priority, strengthening public institutions, and committing to sustained reform can turn today’s crisis into an opportunity to build healthier, more resilient cities. Parul Sharma is an urban planner and founder of Urbanatomy Lab and City Scanner; views are personal
A new global climate policy aimed at reducing carbon pollution could make it harder for developing countries to compete in international trade, according to Sunita Narain, a leading climate and environment expert from India. Sunita Narain is the Director General of the Centre for Science and Environment, a research organisation based in New Delhi. She is reacting to the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, known as CBAM, which commenced on 1 January 2026. CBAM is a policy that places a carbon price on goods entering Europe. This means that products like steel, cement, aluminium, and fertiliser will face extra charges if they are produced using high levels of carbon pollution. In simple terms, Europe is saying that if a product causes a lot of pollution during production, it should pay more money before entering the European market. According to Narain, this policy is changing the rules of global trade. “By putting a carbon price at the border, CBAM changes how competitiveness is defined in global trade,” she said. In the past, countries competed mainly based on price, quality, and efficiency. Now, how clean a product is during production also determines whether it can compete in the global market. However, Narain warned that this new system places an unfair burden on poorer countries. “But what it also does is shift the decarbonisation costs to developing countries,” she said. Decarbonisation means reducing the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, and cutting carbon emissions. Under CBAM, developing countries are expected to clean up their industries quickly, even though they often lack money, technology, and infrastructure. She said this continues a long-standing global pattern. “Thus extends a familiar dynamic where developing countries adapt to rules set elsewhere, under conditions that structurally disadvantage them,” Narain said. In simple terms, she means that rich countries often create global rules, and poorer countries are forced to follow them, even when those rules make development more difficult. Narain made it clear that reducing pollution is important and unavoidable. “Decarbonisation in industry is both necessary and unavoidable,” she said. She acknowledged that developing countries cannot ignore climate change if they want to stay relevant in the global economy. “Developing countries will need to pursue decarbonisation to remain competitive,” she added. However, she stressed that the transition must be fair and inclusive. “This transition cannot be driven through unilateral measures alone." CSE’s proposed solution To respond to CBAM, CSE has recommended that countries like India collect a carbon tax locally on exports. According to the think tank, this money should stay within the country and be used to clean up domestic industries, while still meeting Europe’s carbon pricing rules. CSE believes this approach would help countries invest in cleaner production instead of paying penalties abroad. Programme Manager of the Climate Change Unit at CSE, Avantika Goswami, said global climate action must be fair. “To promote truly equitable global climate action, the provision of real sectoral decarbonisation support in the form of concessional finance and technology transfer from the EU to developing country partners is crucial,” she said. She explained that such support would help reduce pollution from manufacturing, create a level playing field, and allow countries in the Global South to invest in low-carbon growth. Warnings from past research CSE raised these concerns in its 2024 study titled Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): The Global South's response to a changing trade regime in the era of climate change. The study warned that CBAM fails to address historical responsibility for climate change and ignores deep inequalities in the global trading system. Over the past 15 months, CBAM has expanded rapidly. Its scope has widened, and exporters now face stricter demands for emissions data, verification, and compliance. New proposals to include more sectors, tighten verification rules, and prevent companies from bypassing the system are increasing costs for exporters from developing countries. While technical requirements have increased, CSE says the political direction of CBAM is being shaped mainly by internal pressures within the EU. Discussions on exemptions and simplifications, according to CSE, are focused more on protecting European industries than easing the burden on partner countries. “This reflects a prioritisation of internal competitiveness,” Goswami said, adding that this has reinforced the view of CBAM as “a protectionist measure rather than a climate tool.” In international discussions, many developing countries have warned that climate-related trade measures like CBAM could raise the overall cost of climate action, weaken global cooperation, and push climate responsibilities onto countries with lower historical emissions and weaker financial capacity. CSE suggests additional measures to reduce the impact. These include keeping carbon tax funds within exporting countries, providing extra EU climate finance, recycling CBAM revenues back to developing nations, supporting emissions monitoring systems, and granting exemptions to least developed countries. However, CSE warns that these steps may only offer short-term relief. In the long term, experts say real financial support must be the priority. CSE argues that global institutions must urgently address deep inequalities in trade, finance, and industrial systems. Without this, developing countries risk being left behind as the world moves towards green industrialisation. According to the experts, a fair transition should allow developing countries to clean up existing industries and also take part in new green industries, without sacrificing growth or development.
Leonardo DiCaprio also has a 2016 documentary, Before the Flood, about climate activism, where political activist Sunita Narain called him out on his actions directly: Your consumption is really going to put a hole in the planet… The fact is that we need to put the issue of lifestyle and consumption at the center of climate negotiations.
2025 has emerged as a stark climate alarm for India, with the country recording its eighth warmest year on record and the warmest winter in 124 years, according to the India Meteorological Department (IMD). Rather than just scorching days, it was the rising minimum (night-time) temperatures that prolonged heat stress and triggered extreme weather events across winter, pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons. Unprecedented warmth in February, heavy pre-monsoon downpours and deadly monsoon floods alike were fueled by this persistent overnight warmth, amplifying heat stress, floods and landslides across regions. The abnormal rainfall patterns and warmer nights intensified climate hazards, making extreme rain the deadliest climate risk of the year. These trends reflect the deepening impacts of human-driven climate change and expose the failure of meaningful climate action. Read on to understand how policy and corporate inertia are deepening the crisis. Source: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/climate-change/2025-marked-by-rising-night-time-temperatures-and-extreme-rainfall-across-seasons-in-india
According to Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) “Despite being a city with more than one million, Delhi did not receive air pollution funding under..
NEW DELHI: As the European Union’s carbon border tax comes into effect from January 1, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a New Delhi-based think tank, Saturday warned that the move would shift the decarbonisation costs on to developing countries including India. It said decarbonisation is critically important, but should not be pushed through unilateral measures like Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) which is expected to generate 1.5 billion euros annually for EU nations by 2028 at the cost of the Global South. CBAM — carbon border tax — is a tool to put a price through imposing border tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive goods (emission generated during production), like iron & steel, aluminium, cement and fertilisers, that are entering the 27 EU nations. It will put a tariff burden on such products of developing countries and impact their trade. Noting its implication for India, the CSE’s analysis shows that CBAM could impose substantial cost pressures on steel and aluminium exports to the EU and it could face a price burden of around 25% — a shock that exporters are likely to absorb through price compression in order to remain competitive. This is the reason India and many other countries, including China and South Africa, have been resisting it for long. “By putting a carbon price at the border, CBAM changes how competitiveness is defined in global trade. But what it also does is shift the decarbonisation costs to developing countries, thus extending a familiar dynamic where developing countries adapt to rules set elsewhere, under conditions that structurally disadvantage them,” said Sunita Narain, director general, CSE. “Decarbonisation in industry is both necessary and unavoidable. Developing countries will need to pursue decarbonisation to remain competitive. However, this transition can’t be driven through unilateral steps alone,” she said. Since the entire amount collected as carbon border tax would go to the EU nations (75% to EU budget and 25% to national budget) without actually helping out other countries’ decarbonisation efforts, the CSE has recommended that developed countries like India should collect a carbon tax domestically at point of exports, so that the funds can be directed towards decarbonisation of domestic industry, whilst also meeting the CBAM’s carbon pricing criteria. “This can help reduce the carbon intensity of manufacturing. It will also ensure a level playing field and also provide funds for countries of the Global South to invest in low carbon growth,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager (climate change), CSE. A CSE’s product-wise analysis of CBAM-covered sectors and their corresponding exports from India shows that the country’s CBAM-covered goods’ exports to the EU comprised nearly 10% of its total goods exports to the EU in the year 2022-23. By value, this was about 0.2% of India’s GDP in that financial year. These exports comprise about one-fourth (25.7%) of India’s total goods exports to the world for the CBAM-covered sectors, which is not insignificant for the industries operating in these sectors. These are iron and steel, aluminium, fertilizers and cement. Currently, hydrogen and electricity are not exported from India to the EU. Flagging adverse impact of the carbon border tax, developing countries, including India, China and South Africa, have highlighted at several multilateral fora that the climate-linked trade measures such as CBAM risk increasing the overall cost of climate action, fragmenting multilateral cooperation, and shifting mitigation burdens onto countries with lower historical emissions and weaker capacities. The developing countries have also questioned the compatibility of CBAM with WTO rules. The issue was also flagged big time at the UN climate conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil in Nov last year.
The EU is rolling out its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on January 1, 2024, and it could make things tough for countries like India. Importers will have to pay extra for the carbon emissions in products like steel and aluminum—possibly raising export costs by up to 25%, according to an estimate from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
प्रदूषण का असर लंबे समय तक है रहता सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) की क्लीन एयर प्रोग्राम मैनेजर शांभवी शुक्ला के अनुसार प्रदूषण केवल सीधे धुएं तक सीमित नहीं है। वाहनों और उद्योगों से निकलने वाली गैसें वातावरण में रासायनिक प्रतिक्रिया कर सेकेंडरी कणों का निर्माण करती हैं, जो अधिक महीन होते हैं और लंबे समय तक हवा में बने रहते हैं। इसी वजह से प्रदूषण का असर लंबे समय तक बना रहता है।