Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Delhi Pollution: रावण जलने के बाद धुआं-धुआं हुई दिल्ली, दशहरे पर बढ़ा इतना प्रदूषण तो दिवाली पर क्या होगा?

नई दिल्ली बैन के बावजूद इस बार दशहरे पर इतनी आतिशबाजी हुई कि प्रदूषण स्तर जो अब तक सामान्य चल रहा था खराब स्तर पर पहुंच गया। सवाल यह है कि आखिर दशहरे पर ही यह हाल है, तो दिवाली पर क्या होगा? साथ ही यह भी कि बैन के बावजूद इतने सारे पटाखे लोगों तक कैसे पहुंच रहे हैं और इसके लिए प्रशासनिक तौर पर क्या कार्रवाई हो रही हैं? आसान नहीं पटाखों पर बैन जानकारों के अनुसार पटाखों पर बैन के बेअसर होने की बात कुछ हद तक सही है। लेकिन इसकी कई वजहें है। दरअसल, हमेशा से दिवाली और आतिशबाजी को एक दूसरे से जोड़कर देखा गया है। ऐसे में, इस बदलाव को अपनाने में लोगों को समय लगेगा। दूसरा अभी जो कोशिशें हो रही हैं, वे बहुत ही कम है। दिवाली पर पटाखों पर बैन एक से दो महीने पहले लगाया जाता है, लेकिन फैक्ट्रियों में पटाखे बनने का काम करीब सात-आठ महीने पहले शुरू हो जाता है और पांच-छह महीने पहले तो थोक पटाखा विक्रेता आर्डर दे देते हैं। फिर एक बार पटाखे दुकानों तक पहुंच गए, तो उन्हें बिकने और जलाने से रोकना मुश्किल हो जाता है। दिल्ली में रविवार को बारिश के आसार, आसमान में छाए रहेंगे बादल 'लोगों को भी शामिल करें' इस बारे में बात करने पर ग्रीन पीस के वरिष्ठ कैंपेनर अविनाश चंचल कहते हैं, 'दशहरा दिवाली पर पटाखे जलाना लोगों की मानसिकता में है। इसे बदलने में समय लगेगा। लेकिन इसके लिए सरकारों व डिपार्टमेंट को लोगों के साथ मिलकर काम करना होगा। बैन लगाते समय वे जब एजेंडा सेट करें, तो आरडब्ल्यूए के प्रतिनिधियों के साथ भी मीटिंग लें। बड़े स्तर पर लोगों को बताया जाना चाहिए कि आखिर पटाखों पर बैन क्यों लग रहा है? कई लोग इसकी वजह धर्म से जोड़ लेते हैं। दूसरा पटाखों पर बैन लगाने के लिए उन पर सख्त कार्रवाई की जरूरत है, जो नहीं दिख रही है। हालत यह है कि आपको अपने पड़ोस की दुकानों पर बेहद आसानी से पटाखे मिल जाते हैं। अगर दशहरे पर यह हाल है, तो दिवाली पर क्या होगा।' Delhi Pollution News: डस्ट पल्यूशन के लिए 72 लोगों पर लगाया गया जुर्माना 'कड़ी कार्रवाई की जरूरत' आईपीयू की यूनिवर्सिटी स्कूल ऑफ एनवायरमेंट मैनेजमेंट के असिस्टेंट प्रोफेसर डॉ. सुमित डूकिया मानते हैं कि पटाखों पर बैन लगाने के लिए काफी सख्ती करने की जरूरत है। बकौल डूकिया, 'बैन लगाने के तुरंत बाद कड़ी कार्रवाई होनी चाहिए। बैन लगाने के बाद स्ट्रेटेजी बनाने का मतलब नहीं है। अब एक हफ्ते तक कोई एक्शन नहीं हुआ और विक्रेताओं व खरीददारों को काफी समय मिल गया कि वे अपने स्टॉक अपने पास रख लें। जिन्हें बेचने थे उन्होंने बेच दिए जिन्हें खरीदने थे उन्होंने खरीद लिए। वहीं लोगों का सहयोग इसके लिए जरूरी है। इसलिए जब तक लोगों से बात नहीं की जाएगी, अपने फैसलों में उन्हें शामिल नहीं किया जाएगा, तब तक परिणाम उतने नहीं मिलेंगे जितने मिलने चाहिए।' Delhi Pollution Report: अक्टूबर के शुरुआती 12 दिनों में प्रदूषण से मिली दिल्ली को राहत, 6 साल में पहली बार अक्टूबर में प्रदूषण सबसे कम 'पहले से लगना चाहिए बैन' वहीं सीएसई की अनुमिता रॉयचौधरी के अनुसार पटाखों पर बैन सरकार और आम लोगों दोनों के सहयोग से ही कारगर हो सकता है। बकौल चौधरी, 'अभी बैन लगाने से पहले ही उसकी बातें शुरू हो जाती हैं। इस दौरान विक्रेता अधिक मुनाफे पर अपना स्टॉक निकाल देते हैं और खरीददार खरीद लेते हैं। लेकिन लोगों को यह बताने की जरूरत है कि आतिशबाजी उनके साथ उनके बच्चों की आने वाली पीढ़ी की सेहत पर असर डाल रही है। यह बात लोगों को धीरे धीरे समझ आएगी। फिर पटाखों के लाइसेंस सख्त किए जाने चाहिए। अवैध पटाखा फैक्ट्रियों के खिलाफ सख्ती होनी चाहिए। यह काम पूरे साल किया जाना चाहिए। लेकिन अभी हम दिवाली से कुछ हफ्ते या महीने पहले ही जागते हैं।' दशहरे पर प्रदूषण में हुआ कितना इजाफा साल दशहरे पर दशहरे के अगले दिन 2021 198 253 2020 349 353 2019 112 173 2018 276 326 2017 198 196

Extreme weather events in India made women, children more vulnerable to modern slavery, flags report

Climate change-induced extreme weather events put women, children and minorities at risk of modern slavery and human trafficking. The phenomenon is on the rise in India, among other countries, warned the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Anti-Slavery International in a recent report. Modern slavery — including debt bondage, bonded labour, early / forced marriage and human trafficking — converge with climate change, particularly climate shocks and climate-related forced displacement and migration, the report said. The report observed what happened in Sundarbans, for instance. The delta region is characterised by intense, recurrent and sudden onset disasters, as well as slow onset ecological degradation making large areas uninhabitable. Rising sea levels, erratic rainfall, increased frequency of cyclones, tidal surges and floods, mean that millions of people across the Sundarbans are unable to work for most of the year. In 2009, Cyclone Aila caused widespread damage to lives and livelihoods. In 2020, during Cyclone Amphan, 400 kilometres of embankment was breached and seawater entered the flood plains resulting in widespread displacement from homes and loss of livelihoods for more than two million people. Such events made locals vulnerable to traffickers and drove them into forced labour, it said. Human trafficking had increased following the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 as well. Severe cyclone and flooding in Sundarbans delta had also reduced the land for agriculture, which is the major source of livelihood. While restrictions were imposed by bordering countries, smugglers and traffickers operating in the affected region targeted widows and men desperate to cross the border to India to find employment. Women were trafficked and often forced into hard labour and prostitution, with some working in sweatshops along the border. People displaced and migrating from rural to urban areas with no resources, skills or social networks at their destination, are targeted by agents and / or traffickers in Dhaka or Kolkata. A case study from Accra in Ghana showed that after drought, the young men and women in northern Ghana were forced to migrate to major cities. The women worked as porters and are at risk of trafficking, sexual exploitation and debt bondage. At the same time, climate change has made children more vulnerable, flagged the IIED report. The report established the close relationship between lack of resources, alternative livelihoods, safety nets and the protection against loss and damage as well as debt and exploitation. Scale of displacement The report has been released a month ahead of the Conference of Parties (CoP26) United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, the United Kingdom. Over 216 million people could be internally displaced by 2050 across six regions due to climate change, according to World Bank estimates. Of these, over 81 per cent will be in Sub-Saharan Africa (86 million), East Asia and the Pacific (49 million) and the South Asian region (40 million). As many as 55 million people were internally displaced within their countries due to extreme weather events in 2020. This is the highest in the last one decade. This would be in addition to the existing 40.3 million people living under slavery in the world. NICEF has repeatedly warned that climate change increases the risk of girls being pushed into unsafe migration / displacement, which can expose them to the risk of modern slavery. Global climate frameworks including the Paris Agreement in 2015 and Cancún Adaptation Framework (CAF) in 2010 have acknowledged climate-induced migration and displacement. “This research too identifies climate change as a risk multiplier that makes people who are already vulnerable due to conflict or inequality more likely to become victims of modern slavery,” said Adéla Mackie, fellow, Anti-Slavery International. Way ahead Climate and development policy-makers urgently need to recognise that millions of people displaced by climate change are being, and will be, exposed to slavery in the coming decades, the IIED report flagged. Policymakers should therefore develop targeted actions, at national and international levels, to address the issue. The global and regional discourse on development and climate policy must consider trafficking and slavery risks due to climate shocks. Several ongoing initiatives — including the Warsaw International Mechanism Task Force on Displacement (WIM TFD), the Sendai Framework, etc — should be coordinated to increase understanding of, and response to, growing risks of climate-induced migration / displacement and exposure to modern slavery.

Delhi's Grap curbs may kick in even if air not poor

The weather will see some improvement in the air quality this week, officials said Curbs like bans on diesel generators and the use of coal-fired ovens, and activities such as routine mechanised sweeping should begin in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) on October 15 irrespective of the air quality at the time, suggested the members of an air quality commission in a meeting on Tuesday, recommending that all ‘poor’ and some ‘very poor’ protocols of the Graded Response Action Plan (Grap) be activated. The recommendations were by a subcommittee of the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi-NCR and adjoining areas (CAQM), according to documents seen by HT. The panel will take a final call on what restrictions and activities to finally activate in a meeting on Thursday. “The subcommittee was of the view that in addition to actions under ‘poor’ to the ‘moderate’ category, some of the actions under the ‘very poor’ category should also commence from October 15, though the air quality index (AQI) is expected to remain in the ‘satisfactory’ to the ‘moderate’ category range in the national capital,” said the CAQM recommendations. Grap is a set of emergency measures approved by the Supreme Court in 2016 that come into effect when the air quality index (AQI) in Delhi and the NCR breach certain thresholds. The first of these is the ‘moderate to poor’ range, when the use of coal and firewood in restaurants and open kitchens is banned, strict checks are carried out to control garbage fires and regular mechanised sweeping is done. These restrictions and pollution-control measures become stricter and more intense as the different thresholds are crossed. The Capital and its adjoining areas are plunged into a health crisis in the days leading to winter as winds bring in toxic smoke from farm fires in neighbouring Haryana and Punjab. Local pollution, such as dust and transport emissions, as well as a dip in the temperature, make the problem worse, often pushing pollution levels to alarming levels. On Tuesday, the 24-hour average air quality index (AQI) was at 171, a marginal improvement from 177 a day ago. An AQI between zero and 50 is considered ‘good’, 51 and 100 ‘satisfactory’, 101 and 200 ‘moderate’, 201 and 300 ‘poor’, 301 and 400 ‘very poor’, and 401 and 500 ‘severe’. Weather officials have predicted some improvement in the air quality this week due to strong winds and rains expected later. The CAQM now monitors air pollution in the national capital and, in the meeting on Tuesday, suggested Grap measures come into force pre-emptively to avert a health hazard. A senior Union environment ministry official said the CAQM subcommittee will take a decision on which measures will finally be enforced. The CAQM’s recommendations to be implemented from October 15 also include the augmentation of bus and Metro services, strict action against open garbage burning and dumping around landfills, ensuring that brick kilns in Delhi and NCR are shut, enforcing regulations in industries and power plants, regular mechanised sweeping, action against visible pollution and drives to check pollution under control (PUC) certificates. Also, the panel suggested that constructions sites must be under scrutiny for dust suppression measures and congestion-prone stretches are manned by traffic police personnel to ensure there are no jams. “Some measures from the ‘very poor’ category have been recommended to come into force from October 15. In the meeting it was decided that considering that the air quality is still in the ‘satisfactory’ to ‘moderate’ zone, there will be a review meeting on the diesel generator set ban and there will also be a meeting with the municipalities. It will be seen how prepared they are to impose the hiked parking fees,” said a senior official, who was part of the meeting. Experts said pre-emptive action was imperative to ensure pollution sources are kept under control throughout the winter season. “We need to do everything necessary to control the local pollution sources. Now the air quality is under control because of favourable conditions, but things will get bad and we need to be prepared,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director (research and advocacy), Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

Why are some Indian states facing power shortages?

Acute shortages of coal at power plants have triggered a severe energy crisis — which threatens to hit the nation's economic recovery. India has been facing an acute shortage of coal supplies over the past few weeks, with many warning that this could lead to a severe energy crunch and power blackouts across the country. Coal-fired power stations in the South Asian nation had an average of four days' stock at the end of September, the lowest in years. Coal accounts for nearly 70% of India's electricity generation and around three-quarters of the fossil fuel is mined domestically. The next few weeks, or even months, could see severe disruptions of power supply all over the country. Given the grim situation, several state leaders have expressed worries about imminent power outages. The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh state, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to complain about the rising prices on power exchanges, which he said had trebled, to 15 rupees (€0.17, $0.20) per unit of power from mid-September to October 8. The chief minister of the capital, New Delhi, warned on Saturday of a power crisis because of the coal shortage. Some northern Indian states, including Bihar, Rajasthan and Jharkhand, have already been forced to undertake power cuts for up to 14 hours a day. Soaring electricity demand India's federal government, however, has downplayed concerns, insisting that sufficient quantities of coal are available to meet the needs of power plants. "There is no shortage in the daily supply of coal to states and power companies, and it is maintaining its stock of five days. In a month's time, the situation will be back to normal," a senior government official who asked not to be named told DW. Coal Minister Pralhad Joshi said recently that state-run Coal India, which supplies 80% of the nation's coal needs, has 22 days' worth of coal and stressed that the government was increasing supplies. Despite the reassurances, the situation remains serious, observers say. They argue that a combination of factors has resulted in this sharp demand-supply disparity in Asia's third-largest economy. India is the world's second-largest coal producer, with the fourth-largest reserves. But, as the nation's economy rebounds following a devastating coronavirus wave, power demand has surged rapidly. The country is largely dependent on its 135 major coal-fired power plants for electricity generation. But the soaring electricity demand has meant that Coal India's supplies are no longer sufficient. Coal prices soared to record peak Monsoon rains have flooded coal mines and disrupted transport networks, aggravating the supply problems. "With the monsoon season stretching out this year, there has been a considerable delay in coal supplies returning to normal levels. Economic activity was impacted during the second wave of the pandemic earlier this year — hence, coal stocks were not accumulated to the level required," Samrat Sengupta, of the Centre for Science and Environment, a New Delhi-based think tank, told DW. The shortages have led to a sharp rise in prices for coal buyers, including power stations, with prices in India jumping by as much as 300% since January. "What's more, there has also been a sharp increase in the price of imported coal, owing to a rise in global demand. China is also grappling with an energy crunch," Sengupta said. At the same time, international coal prices have soared to a record peak because of the supply-demand mismatchcaused by soaring demand from not just India, but also China and other countries. In a move that could push up the already high global prices, India's government has asked power producers to import up to 10% of their coal needs and has warned states that their power supplies would be curbed if they were found selling electricity on power exchanges to cash in on surging prices. Underinvestment in coal production Anne Josey of the Pune-based Prayas (Energy Group), a research organization working on energy policy, blames poor planning on the part of the government for the problem. "The working-capital crunch faced by power-generating companies, especially state-owned firms, which are seldom paid on time by cash-strapped distribution companies, has also contributed to this crisis," Josey told DW. M K Venu, a prominent economic analyst, has a similar view of government responsibility. "Instead of investing money to boost coal production, much of Coal India's surplus cash reserves went to the government to meet the growing fiscal deficit," Venu told DW. "The Modi government needs to explain how this underinvestment happened, contrary to policy objectives," Venu said. "Even the private sector delayed coal production as the government also took its eye off the ball and did not give follow-up clearances for exploiting new coal blocks," Venu added. "Thus, the Modi government has created a new mess in the coal sector, and by extension, in the supply of thermal power." The rising energy prices now pose a major risk to economic recovery in India, where consumers will soon likely have to pay a higher price for expensive electricity. Nevertheless, the crisis also offers an opportunity, Sengupta said, noting that it has highlighted the country's need to develop more renewable energy sources, given that power demand is likely to continue increasing. "This well could be a turning point and a time to renew efforts for clean energy and not give in to the fossil fuel lobby further," Sengupta said.

Tripura Best In Northeast On Disclosure Of Information On Pollution

The Tripura State Pollution Control Board has the best performance ranking among State Pollution Control Boards in the northeastern region of India, according to a report published by the Centre for Science & Environment, New Delhi. The performances of all the State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees in the country were rated based on public disclosure of information of various regulatory activities under the Water Act 1974, and Air Act 1981 in the report. Thirty-one boards/committees were evaluated based on essential information disclosed on their websites. Speaking with Northeast Today, Prof. B.K. Agarwala, Chairman, Tripura State Pollution Control Board said that the Tripura State Pollution Control Board ranked 17th position and this was higher than all other boards in North East India. Meghalaya, Assam, Sikkim, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur State Pollution Control Boards ranked 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28, and 29 positions, respectively (www. cseindia.org).

Delhi leads NCR in clean-fuel switch

All identified industries in the capital have switched to cleaner fuels or PNG, but the neighbouring states are yet to shift to cleaner fuels completely. Experts said the use of non-cleaner fuels in the authorised or illegal industries in the region can affect Delhi’s air quality. New Delhi: All identified industries in the capital have switched to cleaner fuels or PNG, but the neighbouring states are yet to shift to cleaner fuels completely. Experts said the use of non-cleaner fuels in the authorised or illegal industries in the region can affect Delhi’s air quality. According to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), Delhi has now completely switched over to PNG or cleaner fuels for all of its 1,635 identified industries. However, NCR is lagging behind as Haryana has shifted 408 industrial units to cleaner fuels from 1,469 identified units. In Uttar Pradesh, of 2,273 identified ones, 1,167 have switched to cleaner fuels. In Rajasthan, 124 industrial units out of 436 identified industries have shifted to PNG. According to a source apportionment carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) in 2018, industries' contribution to PM2.5 in Delhi was 3% and in NCR was 24%. Similarly, the share of industries to PM10 was 2% in Delhi but 28% in NCR. Anumita Roy Chowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said the agencies should ensure that the banned fuels are not used in authorised or illegal industrial units. “As the use of non-cleaner fuels in the industries can cause air pollution, the agencies should enforce the ban and focus on surveillance of industrial units. A transparent inventory should be prepared on the usage of fuels in industries, including small-scale industries.” To mitigate industrial pollution and minimise the use of coal in the industries, CAQM has advised the government of Haryana, UP, and Rajasthan to prepare an action plan for shifting of industries to cleaner fuels in the NCR districts, where gas infrastructure is already available. The action plan is also being pursued to bring in PNG infrastructure to industrial areas where gas is not available. Strict vigil on the use of unapproved fuels by enforcement agencies are some of the important measures. Delhi government has also asked the neighbouring states to use cleaner fuels in the industries. Environment minister Gopal Rai said, “All industrial units in Delhi are operated on PNG. We appealed that industrial units operating in NCR be operated on PNG so that increasing pollution can be reduced. This target has been given to other states, but due to loose monitoring and inefficient transferring of work between units, we have requested them to hurriedly work on this to curb industrial pollution.”

Delhi leads NCR cities in clean-fuel switch

EW DELHI: All identified industries in the capital have switched to cleaner fuels or PNG, but the neighbouring states are yet to shift to cleaner fuels completely. Experts said the use of non-cleaner fuels in the authorised or illegal industries in the region can affect Delhi’s air quality.Track the pollution level in your city According to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), Delhi has now completely switched over to PNG or cleaner fuels for all of its 1,635 identified industries. However, NCR is lagging behind as Haryana has shifted 408 industrial units to cleaner fuels from 1,469 identified units. In Uttar Pradesh, of 2,273 identified ones, 1,167 have switched to cleaner fuels. In Rajasthan, 124 industrial units out of 436 identified industries have shifted to PNG. According to a source apportionment carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) in 2018, industries' contribution to PM2.5 in Delhi was 3% and in NCR was 24%. Similarly, the share of industries to PM10 was 2% in Delhi but 28% in NCR. Anumita Roy Chowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said the agencies should ensure that the banned fuels are not used in authorised or illegal industrial units. “As the use of non-cleaner fuels in the industries can cause air pollution, the agencies should enforce the ban and focus on surveillance of industrial units. A transparent inventory should be prepared on the usage of fuels in industries, including small-scale industries.” To mitigate industrial pollution and minimise the use of coal in the industries, CAQM has advised the government of Haryana, UP, and Rajasthan to prepare an action plan for shifting of industries to cleaner fuels in the NCR districts, where gas infrastructure is already available. The action plan is also being pursued to bring in PNG infrastructure to industrial areas where gas is not available. Strict vigil on the use of unapproved fuels by enforcement agencies are some of the important measures. Delhi government has also asked the neighbouring states to use cleaner fuels in the industries. Environment minister Gopal Rai said, “All industrial units in Delhi are operated on PNG. We appealed that industrial units operating in NCR be operated on PNG so that increasing pollution can be reduced. This target has been given to other states, but due to loose monitoring and inefficient transferring of work between units, we have requested them to hurriedly work on this to curb industrial pollution.” An official of Delhi Pollution Control Committee said, “We have started a drive to ensure that no industry uses non-cleaner fuels and pollutes the air through emissions from industries. We recently served notice to two units, and our drive against non-cleaner fuel in the industries will continue till February.”

From 58% to 17% market share: Why Indians don’t like diesel cars anymore

When diesel was Rs 20-25/litre cheaper than petrol in 2012-13, cars running on it accounted for 58% of the market. Now, people buy less polluting options, and experts welcome it. New Delhi: Less than a decade ago, there were as many diesel cars on Indian roads as petrol cars. In fact according to data from the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), diesel passenger vehicles (PVs) had a 58 per cent market share in the fiscal 2012-13, the highest proportion ever. The cheaper cost of diesel compared to petrol made consumers disregard the fact that the former causes more pollution than the latter. At the time, on average, diesel used to cost about Rs 20-25 less per litre than petrol. But now, with that difference down to Rs 7-9 per litre, according to an analysis of government data, the market share of diesel PVs has dropped to just 17 per cent in the fiscal year ending March 2021, SIAM data shows. This has had an unintended but desirable consequence — that consumers are opting for cleaner options like petrol, compressed natural gas (CNG), and electric and hybrid cars. The fall of diesel PVs’ market share occurred after the Narendra Modi government deregulated fuel prices and ended subsidies, soon after coming to power in 2014. The move was contrary to policy making through the previous two decades, as the government sought to prompt consumers to shift to cleaner alternatives and to reduce its own financial burden. The impact of those policy calls is now visible. According to experts, as India moves to a better emission standards regime over the next few years, this trend is here to stay. Policy battle against diesel India has fought a long battle against diesel vehicles, which started about three decades ago. In the 1990s, following years of industrialisation, national capital Delhi had become one of the most polluted cities in the world. The situation was so grave that a doctor could judge a person as a dweller of the city just by looking at their “blackish lungs”, environmental advocacy magazine Down To Earth reported in 1996. In the middle of that decade, following a PIL by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court took drastic steps to curb pollution, and the axe fell on public transportation running on diesel first. Following the SC order issued on 28 July 1998, all Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) buses that were running on diesel were converted to CNG. By December 2002, diesel buses had disappeared from the city. Autorickshaws too had been upgraded to CNG. In 2016, the top court announced that only CNG taxis would run in Delhi, making an exception for diesel taxis running with an All India permit. Deregulation and its impact Until 2014, diesel was subsidised for several reasons — it was used by farmers to run tubewells, by industries to run machines, and freight and heavy commercial vehicles for transport. The benefit of the subsidies was also enjoyed by private vehicle owners, who, according to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, formed about 13.1 per cent of the total diesel consumers by 2012-13. However, after the Modi government came to power, it ended subsidies and left the pricing of fuel to the markets. This proved to be a major jolt to diesel prices, which have been racing up and are now within touching distance of petrol. Diesel prices in Mumbai crossed the Rs 100 per litre mark Saturday, touching Rs 100.66 Sunday, while petrol was at Rs 110.12. The life of diesel cars on Indian roads was also curtailed in 2015 by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which barred diesel cars older than 10 years from plying in the national capital. The latest National Scrapping Policy launched this year also aims to eliminate old and unfit vehicles from plying on India’s roads. With effect from 2020, all new cars also had to comply with Bharat Stage VI emission standards, increasing the gap between the production cost of diesel and petrol cars, disturbing the economics for the makers. India’s biggest car manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki, quit diesel manufacturing in 2020-21. Most companies in India have stopped releasing smaller diesel cars.

Jagran Explainer: What is 'parali' and why its burning leads to air pollution in Delhi-NCR in winters

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had put a ban on the burning of stubble as it causes damage to the environment. NGT in its 2018 ruling ordered to impose a fine of Rs 2,500 and Rs 5,000 for stubble burning. With winters approaching, the issue of smog choking the national capital has risen once again. Every year the landscape of Delhi and other northern regions of the country like Harayana and Punjab turn apocalyptic due to the practice of stubble burning- which is also called 'parali' in Hindi. The burning of stubble or parali has been identified as one of the major reasons behind the environmental hazards in these areas. That is why the National Green Tribunal has put a ban on the burning of stubble. However, farmers continue to do so to clear their fields for the next sowing season. Here's everything you need to know about what is parali and why its burning is harmful and what are the alternatives: What is stubble or parali? Stubble or parali is the remaining part that is left over after harvesting the crop. When the paddy crops fully ripen, only the upper portion is harvested and the lower portion is left behind. This leftover part of the crop has no utility for the farmers. That is why farmers burn this dry stubble around October-November- which is the onset of winters- to clear the field for the next sowing season. Why is stubble burning harmful? The burning of stubble or parali releases gases like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide which results in severe air pollution. It also has an adverse effect on human health. For example, the burning of stubble can cause health problems like skin and eye irritation, severe neurological cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchitis, lung capacity loss, emphysema, cancer, etc. Apart from the health hazards, stubble burning also affects the soil quality of the fields. It destroys the important nutrients in the soil. Therefore, it is not beneficiary for the farmers as well. What is National Green Tribunal's ruling on this? The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had put a ban on the burning of stubble as it causes damage to the environment. NGT in its 2018 ruling ordered to impose a fine of Rs 2,500 if the straw is burnt on 2 to 5 acres of land and a fine of Rs 5,000 if stubble is burnt on an area of more than 5 acres. The Tribunal has also suggested giving incentives to those farmers who do not burn stubble. The court has suggested providing CRM (Crop Residue Management) machines to farmers so that the crop residue can be converted into organic fertilizer by setting up decentralized composting. What are the alternatives? According to Anumita Roychowdhury, head of Clean Air Programme at the Centre for Science and Environment, there are three main solutions to stubble burning: in-situ treatment of stubble, ex-situ treatment, and changing cropping pattern. The last one is the deeper and more fundamental solution. For in-situ management, the government is currently giving equipment to farmers to mix the stubble back into the soil.

Sharing the pain at Glasgow

Sanjeev Ahluwalia Ahead of the upcoming COP26 Summit, India needs to redefine its transition path for achieving net zero emissions, and reconsider its dependency on coal In the run up to the COP26 Summit in Glasgow on 31st October, enthusiasm bubbles over. This is as it should be. Preserving the world as we know it requires cutting back on the 34 giga tons (2018) of annual CO2 emissions, 37 percent of which is by the 16 percent of the global population in high-income economies. To be sure, income inequality is near universal. Empowered elites, beneficiaries of the “dual economy” syndrome, particularly in developing economies, enjoy “rich world” lifestyles and cannot evade their responsibilities. Pervasive inequality is the rationale for “common” global responsibilities for reversing climate change. But the aspect of “differentiated” responsibilities is just as important, for two reasons. First, it supports differentiating between the higher institutional and fiscal capacity in the rich world to change patterns of fossil energy consumption via technology versus low capacity in the developing world. Second, it reflects “climate justice”, by urging those who have benefited from the near exhaustion of the carbon emissions envelope, to reverse emissions and grow the available emissions envelop. The salience of “differentiated responsibilities” was visible in Kyoto, 1997. But by Paris 2015, it had morphed into a “free for all” in which we all agreed to go our own ways, with the relatively light, individual responsibility of diligently sharing publicly what we were doing to green our economies—a bit like how divorcing partners treat their past responsibilities. Over the past six years, the United Nations (UN) system, green activists, concerned citizens, and select industry groups kept alive the need to take more substantive action—an imperative confirmed by the working group for the sixth IPCC Report. Preparing for Glasgow—the 26th Conference of Parties—the UN advocates that all countries commit to reducing global emissions to 45 percent below 2010 level by 2030, to meet the requirements for limiting temperature rise to 1.5oC and to work towards net zero emissions by 2050. Preparing for Glasgow—the 26th Conference of Parties—the UN advocates that all countries commit to reducing global emissions to 45 percent below 2010 level by 2030, to meet the requirements for limiting temperature rise to 1.5oC and to work towards net zero emissions by 2050. Three issues confront India at Glasgow. First, should we announce a net zero target date and, if yes, what should it be? Second, should we commit to a defined transition path to reach net zero? Third, and related to the second, should we announce a date for peaking of emissions— code for abandoning coal as our primary energy source and our most abundant domestic fossil energy source? Quo Vadis Net Zero China and Indonesia have set the pace for the developing world by committing to net zero by 2060. India should use this date as a marker for its own commitment. With less than one-third of China’s per capita emissions (2019), India is surely justified in looking beyond 2060. There is a 20-year lag between Chinese economic growth and ours. India’s per capita GDP of US $1,961 (constant 2010 $) in 2020 was achieved by China in 2001. China’s spectacular double digit growth rates over lengthy periods are based on its unique “characteristics” that privilege economic growth over equity, human rights or rule of law, which runs against-the-grain for democracies, including India. Our highest annual average growth over a period of two decades was at 6.5 percent (constant terms) during 1993-2012. This was after a liberalised, open economy architecture was inaugurated. It will take us till 2040, even at an accelerated growth rate of 8 percent per year, to get to China’s per capita GDP of US $8,405 (constant 2010) in 2020. Subsequently, applying the four-decade long transition period adopted by China, we could notionally target net zero by 2080. Indian exceptionalism The question can well be asked if Indonesia—a large, lower middle-income country with a population of 273 million and per capita CO2 emissions that is 19 percent higher than India in 2018—can target 2060 for net zero, why not India? Indonesia’s dependence on coal for electricity generation at 30 percent is similar to 28 percent for India and 20 percent for China. However, there are three reasons why India is different. First, Indonesia’s per capita GDP (2010 constant) at US $4,312 in 2020, is more than twice of India’s and is nearly half of China’s. Development needs weigh less heavily on them than on India. Second, neither Indonesia nor China are solely reliant on coal as the primary, domestic fossil energy resource. Unlike India, both Indonesia and China have significant domestic reserves of oil—2.5X and 5.6X respectively on per capita basis versus India, and similarly of gas—at 4.7X and 6.1X respectively, of India. Are well-meaning, long-terms targets, like net zero, useful? Long-term planning horizons consistent with technological obsolescence rarely go beyond 20 years. In new renewables, obsolescence strikes even earlier, in five to ten years, as older capital assets become cost uncompetitive. India’s veteran climate activist, Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment, advocates a decision horizon of not more than 10 years, to focus attention at Glasgow on an implementable strategy to reduce emissions in the medium term and firm up short-term plans for green investment, supported by cheap finance for the long-term transition. An equitable transition How best can the common responsibility, defined in the sixth IPCC report as reducing CO2 emissions by 45 percent over 2010 levels by 2030, be shared differentially across countries? A good way to think of “responsibilities” is to group countries by income, which is a proxy for fiscal and technological capacity, to fix the problem. Per capita emission of CO2 is a good metric for measuring achievement of reduction targets—since emissions relate closely to Anthropocene (human) activity. Refer to Table 1 below. Interestingly, low-income countries—with population share of 8 percent (2019) and per capita income of US $821 (Atlas Method)—reduced their share of CO2 emissions by 25 percent over 2010-2018 as larger countries exited this group. Over 1998-2018, their emissions increased by 7 percent. High-income countries— with population share of 16 percent and per capita income of US $46,036—reduced emissions over 2010-2018 by 5 percent and over 1998-2018 by 2 percent. Emissions grew in upper- and lower-middle income countries over both time periods but differentially—less in upper-middle and more in lower-middle economies. The counter factual lesson derived from this differential experience is that economic growth is good for reducing emissions possibly, because it enhances domestic capacity to access better technology and heightens citizen expectations. Emissions grew in upper- and lower-middle income countries over both time periods but differentially—less in upper-middle and more in lower-middle economies. The counter factual lesson derived from this differential experience is that economic growth is good for reducing emissions possibly, because it enhances domestic capacity to access better technology and heightens citizen expectations. This was the logic behind the unredeemed pledge at Paris to transfer US $100 billion per year to developing economies for abating climate impact. Higher conditional transfers directly help the recipients. But by enhancing the poor world’s domestic fiscal ability to mitigate climate impact, they reduce the mitigation burden on donors. Table 1 shows why low- or lower-middle-income countries like India, are unable to contribute immediately to emissions reduction. The economic burden is growth retarding, even if distributed per their share in global GDP. Consequently, reduction targets would be double, or more, of the targeted 45 percent for the richest countries. An alternative is to agree a common cap on per capita emissions with differential target dates and disincentives, as a self-regulating, dynamic mechanism to invest in green growth. India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to reduce energy intensity of the economy by 33 to 35 percent over 2005 levels by 2030 is derived from acceptable constraints for green, future growth. It should be tweaked to reflect the new base of 2010. The coal conundrum Limiting future CO2 emissions in India—principally netting out the gross emissions from a quadrupling of GDP by 2040—will depend on substituting coal for meeting incremental electricity demand. Till 2040, the options are natural gas or nuclear power. Both have varying security and cost-related consequence. Hydrogen, blended with natural gas, is an option post 2040, once Green H2 becomes commercially viable. India is not alone in this conundrum. It ranks third after China and the US as users of coal for electricity generation. Indonesia is the tenth largest (See Table 2 below). On a per capita basis, coal generation capacity in China, United States, South Africa, and South Korea is more than 4X; Germany 3X; Japan 2X and Poland 5X of India. Coal continues to be widely used and not just in the poor world. For India, given its dependence on coal for electricity generation, emissions will continue to increase at least till 2040-2050, after which a three-decade long trend of declining emissions can start ending with net zero emissions by 2080. At Glasgow An asymmetric schedule for reducing CO2 emissions, makes for a fair transition strategy across income groups of economies. Recent technology in fuels (Green H2), carbon capture and storage, gigawatt scale battery storage to overcome the intermittency constraint in wind and solar power and supply ancillary services to the grid, metallurgical innovations to improve the efficiency of production, and use of commercial energy—all need open-source, collaborative, research and development across country silos and between financiers, buyers, and sellers. For India, the Quad opens new venues to deepen climate-related technological networks. Glasgow should focus on agreeing on mechanisms for equitable, quantifiable, differentiated responsibility for reducing emissions, whilst promoting faster economic growth in the bottom five income deciles—technology and the scale effects of global supply chains are already doing the rest.

नजरिया : भारत को अपने विकास की कहानी दोबारा लिखने की जरूरत

वैश्विक राजनीति में अर्थतंत्र और पारिस्थितिकी तंत्र का टकराव। इस कहानी का आधार हो सबकी जरूरत, न कि केवल कुछ ही लोगों की। उसमें पर्यावरण संरक्षण की बात हो, क्योंकि यही जीवन के अस्तित्व का आधार है। इसमें चयन के विकल्प की गुंजाइश न हो, यह आवश्यक है। अब वक्त भी बदल गया है और विश्व भी। सुनीता नारायण (सतत विकास की हरित अवधारणा की पैरोकार, सीएसई की महानिदेशक) करीब 30 साल पहले जब भारत ने आर्थिक सुधारों की घोषणा की थी तो यह भली-भांति जानता था कि आर्थिक विकास का पर्यावरण पर प्रतिकूल असर पड़ेगा। विकास के लिए प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का दोहन बढ़ेगा और जल व वायु प्रदूषित होंगे। यह तथ्य इसलिए भी विदित था क्योंकि उदारवाद और मुक्त व्यापार के जरिए आर्थिक विकास की विचारधारा लाने वाले विश्व के संपन्न राष्ट्रों को समझ आ गया था कि उनकी समृद्धि का एक ही रास्ता है कि वे सर्वाधिक प्रदूषणकारी व श्रम आधारित उद्योगों को नए उभरते देशों को निर्यात कर दें। देश के पर्यावरण को पहला झटका तब लगा जब 1990 के दशक के मध्य में दिल्ली की हवा खराब हो गई, उसमें कालिख छा गई। इसका कारण था मोटरीकरण को बढ़ावा।</p> अगले दो दशक में हमारी धरती, जल, वायु और भोजन, सब कुछ विषाक्त हो गया। तब जाकर हमें अहसास हुआ कि इससे हमारी सेहत को कितना नुकसान पहुंचा है। यह आर्थिक विकास का दुखद पहलू था। इसीलिए विकास और पर्यावरण के बीच संतुलन बिठाने का मुद्दा बार-बार उठता रहता है। यह संकल्प हर बार त्रुटिपूर्ण रह जाता है क्योंकि निर्णय लेने वाले सार्वजनिक संस्थान लगातार कमजोर और अक्षम होते जा रहे हैं।</p> इन तीस सालों में हमने यह भी सीखा है कि विकास तभी स्थायी रूप से जारी रह सकता है, जब तक कि इसकी लागत वहन की जा सके और सारे घटक शामिल हों। हम जानते हैं कि सबको स्वच्छता के साधन वहन की जाने वाली कीमतों पर मुहैया कराए बिना नदियों को साफ रखना मुश्किल है। नीला आसमान और सहज सांस लेना तभी संभव है जब हम आने-जाने के लिए खुद चलें, न कि वाहनों का इस्तेमाल करें।</p> पेड़ों और पानी जैसे प्राकृतिक संसाधनों में निवेश कर ही हम ऐसा लचीलापन पा सकेंगे जो जलवायु जोखिमों से भरे इस विश्व में जरूरी है। भारत को अपने विकास की कहानी दोबारा लिखने की जरूरत है। इस कहानी का आधार हो सबकी जरूरत, न कि केवल कुछ ही लोगों की। उसमें पर्यावरण संरक्षण की बात हो, क्योंकि यही जीवन के अस्तित्व का आधार है। इसमें चयन के विकल्प की गुंजाइश न हो, यह आवश्यक है। अब वक्त भी बदल गया है और विश्व भी। दुनिया मुक्त व्यापार और उदारीकरण से मुंह फेर संरक्षणवादी हो चली है। मुक्त वैश्विक व्यापार के वादे ने वैश्विक समीकरण बदल दिए हैं।</p> चीन के उत्थान का श्रेय विश्व व्यापार संगठन (डब्ल्यूटीओ) में इसके प्रवेश को दिया जा सकता है। विश्व व्यापार संगठन में प्रवेश पाने के बाद चीन ने अप्रत्याशित तरक्की की है। इसके बाद ही चीन ने व्यापार में बाकी देशों को पछाड़ दिया। सफलता के लिए उसके पास तुरुप का पत्ता ('ट्रम्प' कार्ड) रहा - सस्ता श्रम, सस्ता ऋण और इस दौरान बिना किसी पाबंदी को मानते हुए पर्यावरण सुरक्षा के कोई मानदंड न अपनाना। इस होड़ में चीन ने बाकी सभी देशों को पछाड़ दिया है। विश्व व्यापार को जिन पश्चिमी अर्थव्यवस्थाओं ने पहले आगे बढ़ाया, वे अब इस पर संयम बरतना चाहते हैं।</p> इसे और अधिक स्पष्ट रूप से समझते हैं। विश्व पर प्रभुत्व की लड़ाई में आज चीन अमरीका के सामने खड़ा है। इससे भारत सहित बाकी विश्व में पर्यावरण सुरक्षा और जलवायु परिवर्तन जैसी जटिलताएं उत्पन्न होंगी। बिना इधर-उधर की बात किए सही मुद्दे पर आते हैं। स्पष्ट तथ्य यह है कि आज ऐसा देश विश्व नेता है, जिसके आर्थिक विकास का मॉडल अलग ही है। इसका संविधान एक ही बात कहता है - हर वह काम करो, जो भी किया जाना है। इसके स्वच्छन्द राष्ट्राध्यक्ष का राष्ट्रीय एजेंडा यही है। इसका मकसद है निर्माण, व्यापार और वैश्विक वाणिज्य के जरिए विश्व में आर्थिक ताकत का लोहा मनवाना। अगर इसका मतलब है ज्यादा ग्रीनहाउस गैसों का उत्सर्जन और ज्यादा प्रदूषण, तो यह खेल अभी लंबा चलेगा।</p> कहने की जरूरत नहीं कि चीन पश्चिमी देशों का खेल खेलना नहीं सीखा, बल्कि बखूबी सीख गया है। स्वच्छ बिजली और ऊर्जा नवीनीकरण पर यह सही आवाज उठाता है। साथ ही इसने ऐसे कार्य किए हैं जिससे उद्योगों के ग्रीनहाउस गैसों के उत्सर्जन कम किए जा सकें। जैसे सौर ऊर्जा के उपयोग से लेकर इलेक्ट्रिक वाहन बनाना आदि। इसने 2060 तक शून्य उत्सर्जन का लक्ष्य रखा है। साथ ही अपनी अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए यह कोयले पर ही भरोसा करता आया है और इसी का उपयोग करना जारी रखे हुए है। निस्संदेह अब यह देश इतना ताकतवर हो गया है कि इसके लिए यह कहना भी मुश्किल है कि यह दुनिया को बरगला रहा है।</p> परन्तु बात सिर्फ चीन की नहीं है और न ही पर्यावरण के प्रति उसके रवैये और जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने के उसके तौर-तरीकों की। असल बात है - चीन और अमरीका के बीच प्रतिस्पर्धा की। इसके चलते दुनिया के देश आपस में होड़ करेंगे और दोनों में से किसी एक की तरफदारी करेंगे। समस्या यह है कि सभी पक्ष जानते हैं कि प्रभुत्व की लड़ाई जीतने के लिए आर्थिक ताकत अत्यधिक महत्त्वपूर्ण है। ज्यादा निर्माण, ज्यादा उत्पादन होने से उपभोग बढ़ेगा, व्यापार व वाणिज्य भी बढ़ेगा। पुरानी परम्परा जारी रखने का यह नया पैमाना होगा। इस प्रकार सुरक्षित जल, स्वच्छता और निकासी का 'ब्राउन एजेंडा' वापस लाया जा सकेगा। आज भारत ही नहीं, समूचा विश्व जलवायु परिवर्तन और पारिस्थितिकीय सुरक्षा की बात कर रहा है। पिछले तीस वर्षों से विश्व पर्यावरण और जलवायु परिवर्तन विषय पर लगातार थोथी बातें करके ऊब गया है।</p> बीते तीस वर्षों को छोड़, आने वाले तीस वर्षों की बात की जाए तो अब शाब्दिक चतुराई नहीं चलेगी, प्रकृति के साथ उत्पात मचा है। इसे रोकने के उपाय करना वक्त के साथ दौड़ लगाने जैसा है और वक्त हमारे साथ नहीं है।</p>

‘The way net zero target is being formulated is unfair’

Sunita Narain, an expert on climate negotiations who has been tracking the talks since 1992 and director general of Centre for Science and Environment, said developed countries are trying to dilute the principle of equity by pushing developing countries like India to announce a target of net zero emissions by 2050. With less than a month left until the Glasgow climate change conference (COP 26), there is debate on what India’s stand should be at the climate negotiations. Sunita Narain, an expert on climate negotiations who has been tracking the talks since 1992 and director general of Centre for Science and Environment, said developed countries are trying to dilute the principle of equity by pushing developing countries like India to announce a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Whereas the rich countries, with far greater historical responsibility, should deliver on a net zero target way earlier at least by 2030 allowing carbon space for poor countries to grow. India should speak up against this, she said in an interview to HT. Edited Excerpts: What are your expectations from COP 26 in Glasgow? My expectation is that COP 26 will be bold, courageous, and just. I am using those words very carefully because this COP is happening at a time when we know two things. One, we know the threat of climate change is real and we are seeing its impacts not only in the developing but also in the rich world. We know that we are only at the beginning of devastation. Currently, global temperature rise has only been around 1.09 degree C since 1870 onwards, but all indications are that temperatures will continue to rise. As will be the kind of devastation we are beginning to see from wildfires, cyclones to extreme rain events. Interdependence is critical. When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in 1992 and it was agreed that there would be a principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) built into the convention, I don’t think countries of the north understood the importance of it. They did it because it was needed to bring the developing world on board. It was a concession that was made. Today when the world meets at Glasgow and what Covid-19 has sharpened further is that we live in an interdependent world. It requires cooperation from all. If the rich polluted in the past, the poor will pollute in future. There is only one fixed planetary space because climate change is about the amount of emissions we pump into the atmosphere. We are talking about a budget. When COP meets, it is important that we keep these two in mind. If it’s ambitious without being fair, it will not succeed and vice versa. What will be the key issues at COP 26? There are two levels of issues at COP now: those outside the COP and those inside the paperwork. Those outside shape public discourse. First is net zero. It’s not in the COP papers but it is an issue out there. CSE’s (Centre for Science and Environment) position has been that the way net zero target is being formulated is intrinsically unfair. Because the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is very clear. It says the world must reach net zero in 2050 and the world should cut emissions by half by 2030. This means the rich world cutting emissions to half by 2030 so that the world can be net zero by 2050. But by putting out this grand goal of net zero by 2050, the rich world is only appropriating more carbon space. It again smacks of efforts to erase, dilute the principle of climate justice and equity which we have seen during past COPs. Net zero is one in which there will be a lot of pressure on a country like India to give its commitment. My own view is that we should be very clear that net zero is very important. The world should move to net zero by 2050, which means the rich world should move to net zero in 2030 and then the entire world moves to net zero by 2050. The other formulation is what the Chinese have put out is you move to net zero in 2050 and we do it in 2060. In which case a country like India would move to net zero in 2070 and most of Africa would move in 2080. That would mean the world would be even more unsafe in terms of temperature rise and emissions. We need to put this on the table and explain to citizens the context of the north. In the negotiations, there is a divide between the north and the south. The way the global media reports, it is clear that it sticks to this divide. The voice of southern media needs to be loud and perspectives of our governments need to be understood. Will there be pressure to phase out coal? Coal is a very polluting substance. We need to do electrification of our economy from gas, renewable or cleaner coal power plants. We want to move coal from small boilers and industries. That’s our national perspective and should drive internal policy. As far as coal globally is concerned, let’s be very clear that we do want the northern countries to get out of fossil fuels. Now with winter approaching, we are beginning to see many of the coal plants coming back into operation because gas prices have gone up. They (developed countries) need to walk the talk. The rich need to close all their coal plants and then start talking to rest of the world. China has issued a grand statement saying they will not fund coal-based power plants in Africa but they have not talked about closing down their own. China is one country that will occupy 30% of the carbon budget between 2020 and 2030. Remember that we have a limited carbon budget now. China needs to be de-hyphenated from India. China cannot anymore be a member of the G 77 and take cover under the developing countries. There is no comparison of India and China and that should be recognised at the COP. What will be the official issues at COP 26? They will be looking at plans for 2030 and how countries will meet them. China has not given any targets. It has given an emissions intensity target. The US has given a 50% reduction and EU, UK etc have committed to reduce but they need to explain how they are actually going to do it. Or are they linking it to the next thing on the agenda which is the market-based mechanism. Given the fact that the Paris Agreement says that every country will have to take emission reduction targets, the fact is that a market-based mechanism of carbon credits cannot be based on poor countries selling off the cheapest option to the richest countries. If at all the market-based mechanism should be transformational. It should have the most expensive options in the emerging countries to be paid for through the market mechanism. But the developed world is still looking for a cheap option. That’s got to be contested. Finance will be a big issue. The $100 billion fund (developed countries promised to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 for developing countries) is not adding up and is imaginary which is why it needs to be discussed. If you look at NDCs of most countries in Africa, they are conditional to finance and technology transfer. Finance will be very critical. Loss and damage (compensation for disasters and loss) issue will also be important. There has been an effort in the past to dilute principles of liability and paying up for damage. What should be India’s stand at COP 26? India’s stand has to be twofold: very strong in terms of putting out the issues of equity and justice at the global level. By focusing on equitable allocation of available carbon space, India will be working towards an effective agreement. India is not being a denier or naysayer. In fact, it has been asking for equity. In the past, the entire effort from 1992 all the way up to Paris was to erase, negate and dilute the principle of equity. Finally, in Paris they (developed countries) managed to erase the concept of historical responsibility from the text. But it will not go away. There is a huge inequitable distribution of carbon space. India will collaborate if there is a principle of fairness. Second thing is to be a climate leader to say that we understand the impact of climate change and the need to build a resilient economy. However, for us, climate change action is about building a low carbon growth economy, which is good for us. The primary driver of a low carbon economy is our internal compulsions of pollution, circular economy, mobility and thermal comfort for all. We will continue to act because it is in our best interest.

An Evidence-based Inquiry into the Endosulfan Tragedy in Kasaragod, Kerala

A review of the literature on the toxicology of endosulfan and assessment of the various pesticide-regulating agencies worldwide, as well as a statistical analysis of the medical camp data and primary data of the 2015 Kerala Disability Census, is carried out to elucidate possible evidence for higher prevalence of disabilities and disorders in the endosulfan-sprayed areas in Kasaragod, Kerala. The enquiry does not indicate a higher prevalence of the health problems in the endosulfan-sprayed areas in Kasaragod, compared to the unsprayed areas in the place and elsewhere in Kerala. It is known that aerial spraying of endosulfan in the cashew estates of Kasaragod, Kerala, over a period of 20 years, caused severe health hazards and deaths. Many consider the endosulfan tragedy as equivalent to the Bhopal gas tragedy. The Calicut Medical College and the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad have conducted epidemiological studies in the affected area and the results are available in the public domain. The Kerala State Department of Health and Family Welfare classified 6,728 persons with different types of diseases as “endosulfan generated,” and 779 deaths were recorded as due to endosulfan poisoning (GoK 2019). The 6,728 persons who are included in the endosulfan victims’ list are being provided with a monthly pension, lump sum financial assistance to the tune of `2 lakh to `5 lakh, free ration, financial aid for all medical treatments, moratorium on loan repayments, free houses, etc. Hitherto, `281 crore has been spent for the welfare and rehabilitation of the victims of the endosulfan tragedy by the Government of Kerala (GoK), in addition to `220 crore by the National Bank for Agriculture Rural and Development (NABARD). The rehabilitation package ordered by the Supreme Court will be implemented at an additional cost of `220 crore. However, a large section of the media, public and the intellectuals believe that the pesticide might afflict future generations and the compensation offered is insufficient, and hence, they support strikes for higher compensation by the victims’ groups. One of the reasons that this pesticide molecule was declared as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) in Stockholm in April 2011 was the campaign by the various stakeholders against the backdrop of the health issues seen in Kasaragod. Many non-governmental organisations, such as the Pesticide Action Network, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in New Delhi, and Thanal (2009) in Thiruvananthapuram played a crucial role in the anti-endosulfan campaign globally. The Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP 2008) reported the health and environmental effects in Kasaragod, stating: he village of Kasaragod in Kerala, India, experienced sustained exposure to endosulfan as a result of 20 years of aerial spraying of a nearby cashew nut plantation. Endosulfan was the only pesticide used. Twelve streams used by the villagers originated in the plantation and were subsequently found to have contaminated sediment and water throughout the year (outside the spray season), as a result of endosulfan’s persistence in soil and the soil being carried to the streams by storm runoff. Residues were still detected in the water and pond sediments 1.5 years after spraying ceased. One sample contained endosulfan at 391 times the maximum permissible level. The villagers were also directly exposed to spray drift. Numerous congenital, reproductive, long term neurological and other symptoms were experienced. One hundred and ninety seven cases were documented from just 123 households. Chronic morbidity was 70% higher than the norm.

Industry and a livable planet: Paris Climate Agreement | United Nations

United Nations published this video item, entitled “Industry and a livable planet: Paris Climate Agreement | United Nations” – below is their description. Here’s our dilemma: we need industry to make the things we need, like cars, buses, tractors and computers. But we also need a clean, livable planet. Leading Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain says we can have both, by using the right sources of energy and cutting back on waste. This is the fifth in the UN’s video explainer series Within Our Grasp.

COVID-19 added over $290 billion to the global cost of TB deaths: study

South Asia incurred the highest losses due to TB deaths in 2020 Disruptions caused by the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic added $290.3 billion (Rs 21.4 lakh crore) to the global cost of tuberculosis (TB) deaths, found a new study. The economic loss due to these deaths was $17·5 trillion in 2020, with south Asia incurring the highest share ($7.1 trillion), according to the report published in the Lancet journal. Most of the overall cost of TB is borne by south Asia and east Asia and Pacific regions, the researchers claimed. The researchers calculated the full-income losses and mean life expectancy losses per person, at birth and at age 35 years, from 2020 to 2050 in 120 countries. The United Nations has set a target of 90 per cent reduction in TB deaths from 2015 levels by 2030. As many as 23.8 million tuberculosis deaths and $13·1 trillion in economic losses can be avoided if this Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is met, found the study. As many as 18·1 million tuberculosis deaths and $10.2 trillion economic losses can be avoided if the SDG is achieved by 2045, the report showed. Mean life expectancy losses per person, both at birth and at age 35 are the highest in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the study. In 2018, the 1.4 million deaths due to all forms of tuberculosis in 120 countries resulted in $580.1 billion in full-income losses. The highest losses ($200.8 billion) were concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2019, about 10 million people developed TB and 1.4 million died, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Tuberculosis Report 2020. Inaction will result in an annual cost of $3 trillion and 5.7 million tuberculosis deaths, the study found. The cost of inaction is the highest in South Asia, including or excluding people living with HIV. The cost of inaction for people living with HIV ($427 billion) is the highest in sub-Saharan Africa and nearly six times that of the next highest region, East Asia and Pacific ($74.2 billion). The analysis was done keeping in mind three scenarios: First, a steady 2 per cent annual decrease in deaths, referred to as the business-as-usual scenario, if the SDG is met by 2030 and by 2045, continuing in the same trajectory till 2050. In the business-as-usual scenario, if tuberculosis deaths continue to decline at 2 per cent annually until 2050, 31.8 million deaths can occur from 2020–2050, the researchers estimated. This is the first study to estimate full-income losses due to tuberculosis mortality in 120 countries and to extend these estimates to assess the economic consequences of not meeting the SDG tuberculosis mortality target by 2030, the researchers claimed.