Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

How transparent are our pollution control boards?

A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. TRANSPARENCY INDEX: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure – as the study is titled – has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. These 14 are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. Says Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE: “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in public domain. But this is rarely done in practice.” Shreya Verma, programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study explains the methodology: “For this study, CSE collected data from two sources — websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches etc.” Key findings of the report Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites. For instance, Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; the states of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards –Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand– have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste etc – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96(E) January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. Says Verma: “The study has also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data — for instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different website formats, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports: hence, the information available varies from board to board.” Nivit adds: “Improving transparency is a ‘must’ when it comes to state pollution control boards. Putting in the public domain crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical – it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement.”

Breaking news live: Oppn's approach of 'my way or highway' highly condemnable, says Goyal

A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. The CSE has assessed the data on disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50% or above.

Improving the Performance and Cycle Life of Batteries with Multiphysics Simulation

Tune into this webinar to see how multiphysics simulation can be used to predict the thermal behavior of battery cells and packs as well as to design optimized battery thermal management systems. It is something climate warriors had been saying for a long time. The sense of urgency in cutting down on emissions, which was missing till a few years ago, needs to be further intensified afresh. "There are no “maybes” any more. The threat of climate change is real; dangers are imminent and the future is catastrophic," said Sunita Narain, director, Centre for Science and Environment. "It is now clear that the world may be hurtling towards 1.5°C temperature rise by 2040. Meaning, the guard rail of what is relatively safe could be breached in the next two decades itself. Given that we are already seeing huge wide-scale devastation with current temperature rise of only 1.09°C from the 1880s—industrial revolution times—we need to understand just how dire and urgent this call from science is.'' We need to move from words to action now, and in the context of India –hydrogen roadmap is one such fantastic beginning. In India, we don’t have a value for CO2 Gerd Deusser, Executive Vice President and Head – Energy, Siemens Ltd The industry at large is in agreement that more needs to be done. At a meeting organised by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) earlier this month to discuss the agenda for COP26, heads of companies from a cross section of sectors like chemicals, cement, automobiles, oil and energy, concurred that time was running out. “We need to move from words to action now, and in the context of India –hydrogen roadmap is one such fantastic beginning. In India, we don’t have a value for CO2," said Gerd Deusser, Executive Vice President and Head – Energy, Siemens Ltd. "Similarly like PAT scheme (a regulatory instrument to reduce specific energy consumption) – we need stimulus from the demand side (policy incentives) such that role of technology providers becomes imminent in the economic wide transition.” With its aggressive push towards green mobility and solar energy, India is trying to stick to its side of the bargain but that may not be enough for the world at large and the potential is still there to do more. "Transition to decarbonized fuels--green hydrogen, biofuels, and bio-resources would be crucial for India’s energy needs. This will be a game changer and a huge amount of capital allocation is needed for this,” said R Mukundan, Managing Director, Tata Chemicals Ltd. "By 2030 we need 2.6 trillion dollars. My own estimate broadly is that by 2040 we need more than 6.5 trillion dollars to transform this entire journey and a lot of commitment needs to come from both the public and private sector.” “We need to think about what can be done in a collaborative way for pushing more energy transition, e-mobility, and carbon capture, utilization and storage,” said Mahendra Singhi, MD & CEO, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Shell India CEO Nitin Prasad stressed the urgency and a need of timelines for decarbonization. "There is a number we need to get to for net zero and the only question is how fast do we get there,” he added. The findings are alarming to say the least. Road transport is one major cause for air pollution for both humans and the environment leading to permanent damage. Nimish Trivedi, Co-founder & CEO, Prakriti E-Mobility For the automobile industry, the second largest contributor to carbon emissions worldwide, it brings mixed signals. On one hand, it underlines the importance for zero emission mobility and heightens the need for the transition away from fossil fuels. But it also enhances the challenge for the incumbents. "The findings are alarming to say the least. Road transport is one major cause for air pollution for both humans and the environment leading to permanent damage. The report has raised serious concerns and today we have to make some significant changes quickly on a large scale if our planet is to remain habitable," said Nimish Trivedi, Co-founder & CEO, Prakriti E-Mobility, which runs a fleet of 168 electric cabs in the Delhi NCR region. "While the government has already embarked on the journey and set out some ambitious targets, this report shows that much more must be done, and fast. We have been working in this area for some time now and we look forward to working with the government and industry to make the necessary changes before it is too late.” India is the third highest annual polluter of carbon dioxide in the world (fourth if EU-27 is taken as a group) but the scale of contribution is insignificant and hence, incomparable. Between 1870 and 2019, India’s share of the global CO2 budget was just 3 per cent. China emits nearly four times more while US emits double of India's tally. Even in a business-as-usual scenario, India would still emit less than the US of today, or a third of China at 2030. However, the report suggests India will still face some of the more adverse effects of climate change going forward. Extreme rain patterns, droughts, high heat and humidity, cloudbursts, landslides in the Himalayan region, flooding and cyclones are already becoming commonplace. These will intensify. This should prompt the government to do more than is required from a Paris agreement standpoint and vehicular emissions is one of the easier targets. It may not be good news for companies that continue to sit on the fence. “In 2015, Toyota declared that by 2050, we will have zero carbon emissions in the vehicle manufacturing, the vehicles being sold and the lifecycle of these vehicles. Key factors to steepen the curve for electric vehicle adoption would be affordability linked to mass scale manufacturing in India," said Vikram Gulati, Country Head & Senior Vice-President Toyota India. "To this effect, we believe in mass production and localization." The only silver lining that IPCC offers is that in the case of very low GHG emissions scenario, it is still more likely than not that global surface temperature would decline back to below 1.5°C toward the end of the 21st century. That will take some doing and would need drastic steps but is still in the realm of possibility. "The “net zero” plans of countries will have to be revisited. Countries will have to work even harder to plant more trees to even sequester carbon dioxide, forget adding to the sinks to do more," said Narain of CSE. "The science is also clear. The world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45-50 per cent below the 2010 level by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. In other words, we need transformational action and not some itsy-bitsy stuff of new cars to e-vehicles by 2030, or stopping coal but then moving on to natural gas—which is also fossil fuel. We need hard and drastic action."

International Youth Day 2021: युवाओं का स्वास्थ्य हो विकास की अवधारणा का केंद्रबिंदु

अंतरराष्ट्रीय युवा दिवस 2021 का विषय है - 'ट्रांसफॉर्मिंग फूड सिस्टम्स: यूथ इनोवेशन फॉर ह्यूमन एंड प्लैनेटरी हेल्थ' यह माना गया है कि खाद्य सिस्टम में बदलाव के लिए किए जा रहे वैश्विक प्रयासों की सफलता युवा लोगों की सार्थक भागीदारी के बिना संभव नहीं है। सुनीता नारायण (लेखिका सतत विकास की हरित अवधारणा की पैरोकार, सीएसई की महानिदेशक हैं) आज (12 अगस्त) अंतरराष्ट्रीय युवा दिवस है। एक ओर विश्व महामारी से अब तक जूझ रहा है तो दूसरी ओर इसे जल्द ही जलवायु परिवर्तन से उपजी समस्याओं का सामना करना पड़ सकता है। जलवायु परिवर्तन पर अंतरसरकारी पैनल (आइपीसीसी) की हाल ही जारी छठी जायजा रिपोर्ट (एआर-6) के पहले भाग में चेताया गया है कि अब 'शायद' की गुंजाइश नहीं रह गई है। वास्तविकता यही है कि जलवायु परिवर्तन के खतरों का सामना जल्द ही करना पड़ सकता है। रिपोर्ट में उसी की पुष्टि की गई है, जो हम पहले से जानते हैं और अपने इर्द-गिर्द देख रहे हैं। लेकिन क्या हम उनकी आहट सुन रहे हैं? क्या इन्हें टालने के लिए हम जरूरी कदम उठा रहे हैं। युवा जलवायु योद्धा ग्रेटा थनबर्ग और उनके समर्थक यही सवाल करते आए हैं - यदि जलवायु परिवर्तन के खतरे सामने आते हैं, जो कि आने ही हैं तो हमारा भविष्य क्या होगा? दरअसल इस धरा के वारिस युवा हमसे यही सवाल कर रहे हैं कि हम उन्हें कैसी विरासत सौंपेंगे? हम क्या कर रहे हैं? अंतरराष्ट्रीय युवा दिवस पर उम्मीद है युवाओं के यही सवाल बाकी लोगों को इस बारे में चेताएंगे। माता-पिता की कंपनियों के बोर्डरूम से लेकर मंत्रियों के कार्यालयों तक यह आवाज पहुंचेगी।</p> दरअसल, अगर हम बच्चों के स्वास्थ्य को प्रगति का पैमाना मान कर चलें तो ही अपनी धरती को बचा सकते हैं। हम भविष्य के कर्णधार, आज के युवाओं को एक भीषण गर्म भट्टीनुमा दुनिया नहीं दे सकते! पर्यावरण विघटन और विषाक्तता उनके जीवन पर दुष्प्रभाव डालते हैं। इसलिए विकास के ब्रह्मांड के केंद्र में उन्हें ही रखना होगा, जहां विकास का पैमाना उनका स्वास्थ्य हो। साफ-सफाई का अभाव बच्चों के स्वास्थ्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डालता है। इसके चलते वे कुपोषण, गंभीर बीमारियों, यहां तक कि मौत के शिकार हो जाते हैं। सेनिटेशन व्यवस्था सुधारनी होगी। अपशिष्ट निस्तारण और पर्यावरण की दृष्टि से पुनर्चक्रण पर विचार करना होगा, केवल शौचालय की संख्या गिनने से काम नहीं चलेगा। प्रदूषण स्तर डायरिया और मलेरिया के आंकड़ों पर नापें। इसके अलावा घरों में स्वच्छ ऊर्जा और शहरों में स्वच्छ हवा की बड़ी समस्या है, जो मुख्यत: बच्चों में बीमारियों का कारण है। इसलिए बच्चों के स्वास्थ्य के पैमाने पर ही स्वच्छ हवा और स्वच्छ ऊर्जा के विकास को मापना ठीक रहेगा। इसके अलावा, निस्संदेह अच्छी और सार्थक शिक्षा जीवन बदल सकती है। ऐसे प्रमाण मौजूद हैं कि एक बालिका को शिक्षित करने से किसी देश की प्रजनन दर और जनसंख्या ग्राफ में बदलाव आने की शुरुआत होती है। शिक्षा से ही उपभोक्ता अधिक जागरूक होते हैं। अगली पीढ़ी अगर ऐसी ही जीवनशैली जारी रखे तो धरती को बचाने की उम्मीद नहीं की जा सकती। ह भी स्पष्ट है कि आजीविका महत्त्वपूर्ण है। मशीनीकरण के दौर में रोजगार की कमी से युवाओं में असुरक्षा की भावना है। ऐसे कौन-से कौशल हैं जो संसार को नया स्वरूप दें, जो जलवायु परिवर्तन संकट का कारण न बने। क्या हमने 'ग्रीन इकोनॉमी' के लिए रोजगार गढ़े हैं? इस सवाल का जवाब न केवल भविष्य निर्माण में सहायक होगा, बल्कि वर्तमान को भी दुरुस्त कर देगा। इस तरह हम इस ग्रह के स्वास्थ्य को हमारे युवाओं के स्वास्थ्य और कल्याण के लिहाज से माप सकेंगे। उम्मीद है हम ग्रेटा और उसके जैसे अन्य युवाओं को भरोसा दिला सकेंगे कि हम नया भविष्य गढऩे की ओर प्रयासरत हैं। कल से नहीं, आज ही से!

इस शताब्दी में फट सकता है बड़ा ज्वालामुखी, बदल सकता है जलवायु चक्र

इंटरगवर्नमेंटल पैनल ऑन क्लाइमेट चेंज की रिपोर्ट जलवायु परिवर्तन के खतरों से आगाह करती है। जिसमें कहा जाता है कि इस सदी के अंत तक एक बड़ा ज्वालामुखी फट जाएगा। विस्फोट एक से तीन वर्षों में विश्व स्तर पर पृथ्वी की सतह के तापमान को कम कर सकता है। साथ ही यह वैश्विक मानसून को प्रभावित करेगा और जलवायु को प्रभावित करने वाले कई कारकों को बदलेगा। रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि अगर इस तरह का विस्फोट होता है तो यह मानवीय गतिविधियों के कारण होने वाले जलवायु परिवर्तन के लिए अस्थायी रूप से जिम्मेदार होगा। इस प्रकार के ज्वालामुखी में राख और धुआं अधिक होता है। जिससे वातावरण ठंडा रहता है।रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक हर 400 साल में तीन बार एक और ज्वालामुखी आता है। तनवा और समालस ज्वालामुखियों की ऊंचाई 14,100 फीट से गिरकर 10,000 फीट हो गई। ज्वालामुखी की राख और धुएँ ने उत्तरी गोलार्द्ध को घेर लिया जिसके कारण सूर्य का प्रकाश पृथ्वी और सतह पर ठीक से नहीं पहुँच पाया और सामान्य तापमान में 3 डिग्री की गिरावट आई। 1816 को ग्रीष्म विहीन वर्ष कहा जाता है। सीएसई डीजी सुनीता नारायण का कहना है। आईपीसीसी की वह रिपोर्ट कहती है कि अब खतरा करीब है.कोरोना की वजह से यह जंग और मुश्किल हो गई है. ग्रीन हाउस गैसों का उत्सर्जन भी बढ़ेगा क्योंकि सभी देशों की अर्थव्यवस्थाएं सामान्य दिशा में आगे बढ़ रही हैं।

अगर अब भी नहीं जगे तो अगले 20 साल बाद जलवायु परिवर्तन से तबाही की संभावना : रिपोर्ट

इस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक ग्लोबल वार्मिंग में बढ़ोतरी की वजह से खूब अधिक बारिश होगी। सूखे की संभावना भी बढ़ेगी। हीटवेव का दंश भी झेलना पड़ेगा। हिमखंड पिघलेंगे। चक्रवाती तूफानों में बढ़ोतरी होगी। समुद्र का तापमान बढ़ेगा और समुद्र के जलस्तर में बढ़ोतरी होगी। पिछले 20 लाख सालों में भी दुनिया उतनी अधिक गर्म नहीं थी जितना वह मौजूदा दौर में है। तापमान में 1 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड की बढ़ोतरी से झकझोर देने वाली बारिश 7 गुना अधिक बढ़ रही है। पिछले 3 हजार सालों में पृथ्वी के समुद्र स्तर में उतनी अधिक बढ़ोतरी कभी नहीं हुई जितनी अब हो रही है। उत्तरी ध्रुव पर मौजूद महासागर की हिम खंडों की ऊंचाई पिछले एक हजार सालों के मुकाबले हाल फिलहाल सबसे कम है। पृथ्वी की जलवायु में हो रहे यह कुछ ऐसे बदलाव हैं जिन्हें फिर से बदलने में हजार साल लग सकते हैं। अगर हम दुनिया की गर्माहट को जरूरी मात्रा में नियंत्रित करने में कामयाब भी होते हैं फिर भी ध्रुवों पर मौजूद हिमखंडो की लगातार हो रही पिघलाहट को रोकने में तकरीबन एक हजार साल लगेगा। समुद्रों का तापमान बढ़ता रहेगा और समुद्रों के जलस्तर में अगले सौ साल तक बढ़ोतरी होती रहेगी। यह सारी बातें संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ के जलवायु परिवर्तन के अध्ययन से जुड़े एक संस्था इंटरगवर्नमेंटल पैनल ऑन क्लाइमेट चेंज की छठवीं रिपोर्ट में प्रकाशित हुई है। साल 1990 के बाद हर सात साल के बाद यह संस्था जलवायु परिवर्तन पर एक विस्तृत रिपोर्ट प्रकाशित करती है। दुनिया भर के वैज्ञानिकों के जलवायु परिवर्तन अध्ययन को इस संस्था द्वारा जांचा परखा जाता है और उसके बाद यह रिपोर्ट प्रकाशित की जाती है। इस बार दुनिया के 195 देशों की 14 हजार वैज्ञानिकों पेपर के अध्ययन के बाद 234 लेखकों ने 3 हजार पन्नों से ज्यादा की यह रिपोर्ट तैयार की है। चूंकि इसमें दुनिया के सभी प्रतिष्ठित वैज्ञानिकों के अध्ययन को जांचा परखा जाता है। यह आरोप लगाने की संभावना कम होती है कि दुनिया के कुछ शक्तिशाली देशों ने मिलकर इस रिपोर्ट को तैयार किया है इसलिए इस रिपोर्ट की विश्वसनीयता ज्यादा होती है। इसी संस्था ने यह निर्धारित किया था कि अगर दुनिया को जलवायु परिवर्तन के भयंकर परिणामों से बचाना है तो इस सदी के अंत तक दुनिया के औसत तापमान की बढ़ोतरी को 19 वी सदी के अंत यानी कि औद्योगिक काल के तापमान के मुकाबले 2 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड से कम रखना होगा। धीरे धीरे दुनिया के वैज्ञानिकों को लगा कि यह लक्ष्य भी ठीक नहीं है। अगर इसके मुताबिक भी चले तब भी दुनिया को जलवायु परिवर्तन के भयंकर परिणाम सहने होंगे। इसलिए साल 2015 के पेरिस सम्मेलन में यह समझौता बना कि इस सदी के अंत तक औसत तापमान में बढ़ोतरी 1.5 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड से अधिक नहीं होनी चाहिए। यह लक्ष्य भी अब छोटा साबित हो रहा है। जारी हुई इस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक जिस गति से कार्बन उत्सर्जन हो रहा है उस गति से 2030 से पहले ही दुनिया के औसत तापमान में 1.5 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड से अधिक की वृद्धि हो जाएगी। यही इस रिपोर्ट की सबसे अधिक चिंताजनक बात है। इस रिपोर्ट से जुड़े वैज्ञानिकों का तो यहां तक कहना है कि बहुत बड़े स्तर पर कार्बन उत्सर्जन रोकने के बाद भी शायद 1.5 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड तक नियंत्रित करने के लक्ष्य को हासिल ना किया जा सके। ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि इस सदी के अंत तक जितना कार्बन उत्सर्जन होना चाहिए उतने कार्बन उत्सर्जन का तकरीबन 86 फ़ीसदी हिस्सा हमने इस सदी के शुरुआती दो दशक में ही उत्सर्जित कर दिया है। इस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक ग्लोबल वार्मिंग में बढ़ोतरी की वजह से खूब अधिक बारिश होगी। सूखे की संभावना भी बढ़ेगी। हीटवेव का दंश भी झेलना पड़ेगा। हिमखंड पिघलेंगे। चक्रवाती तूफानों में बढ़ोतरी होगी। समुद्र का तापमान बढ़ेगा और समुद्र के जलस्तर में बढ़ोतरी होगी। यह नई बात नहीं है। हकीकत तो यह है कि यह सारी दशाएं हम सब महसूस कर रहे हैं। जहां तक बात रही भारत की तो मौजूदा वक्त में ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन के मामले में भारत दुनिया का तीसरा सबसे बड़ा देश है। लेकिन प्रति व्यक्ति ग्रीन हाउस उत्सर्जन के मामले में भारत की स्थिति बहुत अच्छी है। भारत के मुकाबले अमेरिका में प्रति ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन तकरीबन 9 गुना अधिक होता है। यानी जलवायु परिवर्तन से संघर्ष करने के लिहाज से भारत से ज्यादा अमेरिका जैसे विकसित देशों की जिम्मेदारी अधिक बनती है। फिर भी हकीकत की बात यह है कि जब जलवायु में बदलाव होगा तो इसकी मार दुनिया के सभी देशों को सहना पड़ेगा। उन देशों को अधिक सहना पड़ेगा जिनके जमीन का जुड़ाव समुद्रों से भी है। इसलिए यह रिपोर्ट कहती है कि भारत की समुद्री तटरेखा तकरीबन 7500 किलोमीटर से अधिक है। इसलिए बढ़ते हुए समुद्री जल स्तर से भारत को बहुत अधिक नुकसान भी सहना पड़ेगा। भारत पर आधारित इस रिपोर्ट का एक हिस्सा कहता है कि चेन्नई, कोच्चि, कोलकाता, मुंबई, सूरत विशाखापत्तनम जैसे शहर भारत के प्रमुख बंदरगाह हैं. यहां तकरीबन 28 लाख लोगों की आबादी रहती है। अगर समुद्र के जलस्तर में 50 सेंटीमीटर की भी बढ़ोतरी हुई तो यह शहर बाढ़ से डूब जाएंगे। संयुक्त राष्ट्र के महासचिव एंटोनियो गुटेरेस का इस रिपोर्ट पर बयान मडिया में छपा है। महासचिव कहते हैं कि साल 2013 में जब यह रिपोर्ट छपी थी तब वैज्ञानिक जलवायु परिवर्तन के कारणों के तौर पर पूरी तरह से मानव जनित कारणों को जिम्मेदार ठहराने से हिचक रहे थे। लेकिन इस रिपोर्ट में वैज्ञानिकों ने माना है जलवायु में हो रहे बदलाव के लिए पूरी तरह से मानव जनित कारण ही जिम्मेदार हैं। मौजूदा वक्त में दुनिया का औसत तापमान औद्योगिक काल के मुकाबले 1.2 सेंटीग्रेड पहले ही बढ़ चुका है। इसलिए अगर 1.5 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड से कम तापमान रखना है तो इसके लिए असंभव लगने वाले कोशिशों को अमल में लाना होगा। दुनिया के विकसित देशों के संगठन जैसे कि G 20 और ऑर्गेनाइजेशन आफ इकोनामिक डेवलपमेंट काउंसिल को अधिक जिम्मेदारी लेनी होगी। यह योजना बनानी होगी की दुनिया के अधिकतर देशों की कोयले और जीवाश्म ईंधनों पर निर्भरता कम हो। सौर और वायु ऊर्जा जैसे नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा के स्रोतों पर निर्भरता बढ़े। सुनीता नारायण देश की जानी मानी पत्रकार हैं जो जलवायु जैसे मुद्दे पर लंबे समय से एक कार्यकर्ता की तरह काम करते आ रही हैं। डाउन टू अर्थ पत्रिका में वे लिखती हैं कि समुद्र भूमि और जंगल यह तीनों मिलकर जलवायु के सफाई तंत्र के तौर पर काम करते हैं। ग्रीन हाउस गैस का उत्सर्जन सोंकने का काम करते है। पेड़ों की इसमें महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका होती है। लेकिन पेड़ बड़ी मात्रा में कटे हैं। इसलिए रिपोर्ट बताती है कि आने वाले समय में हम इस पर भरोसा नहीं कर सकते कि यह तीनों मिलकर ग्रीनहाउस गैस के उत्सर्जन को उसी तरह से सोकेंगे जिस तरह से वह सोकते आ रहे है। इनकी सोकने की क्षमता पहले ही अपने शीर्ष पर पहुंच चुकी है। इसलिए शून्य उत्सर्जन वाली पहल पर भी फिर से सोचने की जरूरत है। खतरे की घंटी ऐसी है कि अमेरिका, यूरोपीय संघ और चीन जैसे देशों को अधिक जिम्मेदारी से काम करना होगा।यह कौन नहीं जानता कि जलवायु परिवर्तन में बड़़ा हिस्सा कुछ मुटठी भर देशों का है। अमेरिका और चीन मिलकर दुनिया के कुल सालाना उत्जर्सन का आधा हिस्सा वहन करते हैं। अगर हम 1870 से 2019 के बीच उत्सर्जन को देखें तो इसमें अमेरिका और यूरोपीय संघ का योगदान 27 फीसद और ब्रिटेन, जापान और चीन का योगदान 60 फीसदी मिलता है। दूसरी ओर कार्बन डाइऑक्साइड को नियंत्रित करने के लिए इन देशों का बजट उस सीमा तक नहीं है, जितना उनका उत्सर्जन है। इसलिए इस बड़े अंतर को समझना जरूरी है, तभी हम यह जान पाएंगे कि वास्तव में हमें करना क्या है। पर्यावरण जलवायु के मसले पर लिखने वाले वरिष्ठ पत्रकार हृदयेश जोशी की माने तो अगर तापमान बढ़ोतरी का यही रवैया चलता रहा तो इस सदी के अंदर तक औसत तापमान में तापमान में 3 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड से अधिक की बढ़ोतरी हो सकती है। (पूर्व औद्योगिक काल के मुकाबले) 1 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड बढ़ोतरी ढेर सारी खतरा पैदा करती है तो 3 डिग्री सेंटीग्रेड तो बहुत बड़ी तबाही ला सकती है। जहां तक भारत की बात है तो हिंदू कुश के ग्लेशियर का इलाका खतरे की श्रेणी में है। इसी पर भारत की नदियों की निर्भरता है। अगर यह खतरे में हुआ तो मामला खाद्यान्न संकट तक पहुंच सकता है। भारत की 50 फ़ीसदी से अधिक की खेती बारिश पर निर्भर है। भारत में 10,000 से अधिक छोटे-बड़े ग्लेशियर हैं। 7500 किलोमीटर की समुद्री तट रेखा है। यानी भारत जलवायु परिवर्तन के लिहाज से बहुत अधिक संवेदनशील क्षेत्र है। समुद्रों का तापमान बढ़ेगा और जब जमीन और समुद्र के तापमान के बीच फासला बढ़ेगा तो चक्रवाती तूफानों की संख्या बढ़ेगी। इसकी तीव्रता बढ़ेगी। मौसम में असंतुलन बढ़ेगा। इसकी सबसे बड़ी मार भारत की आबादी सहेगी जो सबसे अधिक गरीब है, जिसकी संख्या भारत में 25 करोड़ से अधिक है।

Most pollution control boards non-transparent: Centre for Science and Environment

A majority of India`s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public with a mere handful of India`s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. For calculating the Transparency Index and rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure - as the study is titled - the CSE assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. These are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. "Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites," CSE said in a release here. "State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in public domain. But this is rarely done in practice," said programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Key findings of the report: Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports -- Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. The CSE study also found that the SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites - these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards - Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand - have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which include the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram, the study said. "For this study, CSE collected data from two sources -- websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches etc," programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study Shreya Verma said. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels - air pollutants, waste etc - the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96E January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. "We also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data. For instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different formats for their websites, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports, hence, the information available varies from board to board," Verma said. Asserting that "improving transparency is a `must` when it comes to state pollution control boards," Nivit added, "Putting in the public domain the crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical - it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement."

Most pollution control boards non-transparent: CSE

“Governance and functioning-related data remain paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions were taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing date on new projects, etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites,” CSE said in a release here. A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public with a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. For calculating the Transparency Index and rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure – as the study is titled – the CSE assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50 percent or above. These are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan. “Governance and functioning-related data remain paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions were taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing date on new projects, etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites,” CSE said in a release here. “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in the public domain. But this is rarely done in practice,” said programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Key findings of the report: Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20; Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs/PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, and Nagaland. The CSE study also found that the SPCB/PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance: Out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. Only five boards – Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura, and Uttarakhand – have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on an inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which include the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa, and Mizoram, the study said. “For this study, CSE collected data from two sources — websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment of the type and amount of information shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches, etc,” programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study Shreya Verma said. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste, etc – the basic indicators of environmental health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96E January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. “We also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data. For instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different formats for their websites, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports, hence, the information available varies from board to board,” Verma said. Asserting that “improving transparency is a ‘must’ when it comes to state pollution control boards,” Nivit added, “Putting in the public domain the crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical – it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement.”

Maharashtra among 17 pollution control boards scoring 50% + rating for transparency - Read key findings of study here

New Delhi: Most of India's pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public finds a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. A mere handful of India's pollution control boards and authorities adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, For calculating the Transparency Index and rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure - as the study is titled - the CSE assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. These are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. "Governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound: Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects etc are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites," CSE said in a release here. "State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in public domain. But this is rarely done in practice," said programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, Nivit Kumar Yadav. Key findings of the report: Only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20 Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland in sharing their annual reports. The CSE study also found that 0ut of 35 SPCBs/PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites for non-compliance by industries - these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards - Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand - have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards: The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which include the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram, the study said. ALSO READ People residing in highly polluted areas of Maharashtra prone to COVID-19 infection: Study "For this study, CSE collected data from two sources -- websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four to five years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches etc," programme officer, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, and author of the study Shreya Verma said. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels - air pollutants, waste etc - the basic indicators of environment health, is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data, which is mandatory as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96E January 29, 2018). The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. "We also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data. For instance, all the SPCBs/PCCs surveyed have different formats for their websites, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports, hence, the information available varies from board to board," Verma said. Asserting that "improving transparency is a 'must' when it comes to state pollution control boards," Nivit added, "Putting in the public domain the crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical - it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiency of these boards and committees. SPCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement.

The Hindu Explains | Landslips in Himachal Pradesh raise concerns if they are part of a larger climate shift

Erosion and geological forces make the region particularly prone to natural disaster Story so far: A bus accident killed at least 10 people following a landslide in Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh (HP) on Wednesday. It was the second landslip this month, raising concerns if they are part of a larger climate shift. How vulnerable is Himachal Pradesh? The mountainous terrain of Himachal Pradesh means that erosion and geological forces will always be at work making the region particularly prone to natural disaster. Between July and the first week of August, the State has experienced four major natural disasters in the last month and over the last three months at least 200 have lost their lives to natural disasters, according to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment. In 2012, the State environment division had prepared a State Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan as part of the National Climate Change Action Plan. “Deforestation, landslips, land degradation, desertification and Glacier Lake Outbursts Floods (GLOF) are some of the common but critical environmental issues in the Himalayan regions. The major challenges currently faced by the Himalayan environment are the escalation of such issues through atmospheric as well as man-made interferences,” the report noted. “Himachal Pradesh, though a small Himalayan State, is nevertheless playing a very crucial role in sustaining the livelihoods of downstream areas. The conservation, sustenance of these ecologically fragile regions is the biggest challenge being faced at the moment which can get further aggravated due to financial constraints and limited resources.” Is climate change to blame for the landslides? Attributing single events to climate change is hard because the latter refers to a broader shift in the average weather over a region. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) while pointing out that a global rise of 1.5 C (from pre-Industrial times) was inevitable in the next two decades, it also references studies that show rising temperatures would lead to increased glacier melt as well as snowlines (the portion of mountain tops that are perennially snowy) rising higher. This ties into forecasts of extreme events being on the rise — that is longer, more intense bouts of droughts as well as short, intense spells of rain. This implies that activities such as road-building, heavy-concrete constructions at higher elevation are all at increased risk at being beseiged by natural disasters and will have knock-off effects on people and their habitations. Have impacts of climate change manifested in Himachal Pradesh? The environment report has already noted such effects. The temperature in the NW Himalayan Region has risen by 1.6°C in the last century. The warming rate of Shimla was higher during 1991-2002 as compared to earlier decades. About 17% decrease in rainfall in Shimla was observed from 1996 onwards. The decreasing trend in seasonal snowfall in Shimla has been very conspicuous since 1990 and it was lowest in 2009. Monsoon discharge in Beas River has shown a significant decrease. Winter discharge in River Chenab too has shown a significant increase. Satluj is showing an increasing trend in winter and spring discharge. The quality of apples, a major crop, has been affected and cultivation has shifted upwards. Areas that traditionally grew apples are being diverted to vegetables due to rising temperature. Incidence of pest and disease had also increased.

Most pollution control boards across India lack transparency, finds study

Pollution control boards of Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal were found to be the most transparent among 35 such organisations studied. A majority of India’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it comes to sharing information with the public. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information intothe public domain. The study titled, Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure, has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees from across the country. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or above. These 17 are from Odisha, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director (industrial pollution unit) of CSE, sai,: “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Section 17(C) of the Air and Water Acts is to collect and disseminate information related to air and water pollution and also about its prevention, control or abatement. The law asks the boards to share the data in public domain. But this is rarely done in practice.” Shreya Verma, programme officer at CSE, and author of the study explains the methodology: “For this study, CSE collected data from two sources -- websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their annual reports. The study has evaluated the information shared by SPCBs/PCCs during the last four tofive years (2016-21) and uses 25 indicators that provide a broader assessment on the type and amount of information shared. A few key indicators used in the study include the availability of information on direction/show cause/closure notices issued by boards, information on public hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment cities and polluted river stretches etc.” The report highlighted that governance and functioning-related data remains paper-bound. Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projectsetcare rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites. For instance, only 12 states have shared their latest annual reports on their websites. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared annual reports of the year 2019-20 while Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared annual reports of the year 2018-19 (which could be termed as the latest considering the Covid-19 situation in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs and PCCs of the following states and Union territories in sharing their annual reports — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB and PCCs have been protective of industries when it comes to non-compliance, the report found. Out of 35 SPCBs and PCCs, only five have shared soft copies of directions and show cause/closure notices issued on their websites – these are from J&K, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Only five boards — Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand — have shared minutes of their board meetings on their websites: It is mandatory for SPCBs to meet at least once every three months.Board members in these meetings are supposed to discuss issues related to the functioning of the board, action plans, compliance and monitoring, and devising innovative methods to improve enforcement of laws. Only five SPCBs have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards:The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this information in their annual reports. Only nine SPCBs and PCCs have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. The states represented are Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram. Limited data on current pollution levels: Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, wasteetc– the basic indicators of environment health,is missing. Most boards display inadequate data, indicating no trends. More so, even details on upcoming projects and grievances of the general public of the locality are hardly displayed. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data: This, even after a statutory obligationto do it, as per a Supreme Court order (February 22, 2017) and an environment ministry directive (GSR 96(E) January 29, 2018).The states from where these PCBs/PCCs come are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. Of these 19, just five PCBs/PCCs display historical CEMS data. Laxity in sharing information on solid waste: 14 SPCBs and PCCs do not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste. “The study has also found a lack of uniformity in displaying data -- for instance, all the SPCBs/PCCssurveyed have different website formats, which makes accessing information quite difficult. Similarly, there is no format for annual reports: hence,the information available varies from board to board," Verma said. “Improving transparency is a ‘must’when it comes to state pollution control boards. Putting in the public domain crucial pollution-related information, data and details of actions taken is critical – it can help policy-makers take the discussions to the next level of pollution management, and it can also reassure the people about efficiencyof these boards and committees.State PCBs and SPCCs, therefore, must focus urgently to become more transparent by putting out data and improving the quality of their outreach for public engagement," Nivit added.

कुछ ही राज्य प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण पर्यावरणीय सूचना सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध करा रहे हैं:सीएसई

सेंटर फॉर साइंस ऐंड इन्वाइरन्मेंट (सीएसई) द्वारा किये गये एक विश्लेषण के मुताबिक सिर्फ कुछ ही राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण प्राधिकरण पर्याप्त रूप में पर्यावरणीय एवं शासन सूचना सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध करा रहे हैं। ‘पारदर्शिता सूचकांक: सार्वजनिक खुलासे पर प्रदूषण नियंत्रिण बोर्डों की रेटिंग’’शीर्षक वाले अध्ययन में 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और देश भर की छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों द्वारा आंकड़ों के खुलासे के कार्य का आंकलन किया गया है। सीएसई की औद्योगिक प्रदूषण इकाई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा, ‘‘वायु अधिनियम की धारा 17 (सी) और जल अधिनियम के तहत एक प्रावधान वायु एवं जल प्रदूषण के बारे में सूचना एकत्र करना और उनका प्रसार करना तथा इसकी (प्रदूषण की) रोकथाम व नियंत्रण करना है। लेकिन यह कभी-कभार किया जाता है।’’ अध्ययन की लेखिका श्रेया वर्मा के मुताबिक सीएसई ने दो स्रोतों से आंकड़े एकत्र किये---राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों/प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों की वेबसाइटों से तथा उनकी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट से। अध्ययन के तहत पिछले चार-पांच वर्षों (2016-2021) के दौरान इन बोर्डों या समितियों द्वारा साझा की गई सूचना का मूल्यांकन किया गया और 25 संकेतकों का उपयोग किया गया, जो साझा की गई सूचना के प्रकार एवं मात्रा का व्यापक आकलन उपलब्ध कराते हैं। हरित थिंक टैंक ने कहा कि सिर्फ 12 राज्यों ने अपनी वेबसाइटों पर नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और पश्चिम बंगाल ने 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु ने 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। अध्ययन के मुताबिक सिर्फ पांच बोर्डों--दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड--ने अपनी बोर्ड बैठकों का विवरण वेबसाइटों पर साझा किया है। जबकि राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड की बैठक प्रति तीन महीने में कम से कम एक बार करना अनिवार्य है। सीएसई के विश्लेषण में खुलासा हुआ है कि मौजूदा प्रदूषण स्तर का संकेत देने वाले आंकड़े गायब हैं। अध्ययन में कहा गया है कि ज्यादातर बोर्ड ने अपर्याप्त आंकड़े प्रदर्शित किये हैं।

प्रदूषण डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली फिसड्डी

प्रदूषण डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली फिसड्डी साबित हुई है। विज्ञान एवं पर्यावरण केन्द्र (सीएसई) द्वारा तैयार ट्रांसपेरेंसी इंडेक्स में ‘दिल्ली प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समिति टॉप 10 में जगह नहीं बना सकी है। इस इंडेक्स में पहला स्थान ओडीशा और तेलंगाना राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समिति को मिला है। लोगों को प्रदूषण के प्रति जागरूक करने और प्रदूषण पर रोकथाम के लिए प्रदूषण डाटा को सार्वजनिक करना अहम माना जाता है। इस संबंध में अलग-अलग निर्देश भी दिए गए हैं। लेकिन, प्रदूषण की स्थिति, अलग-अलग संस्थाओं पर की गई कार्रवाई आदि को लेकर डाटा को सार्वजनिक करने में राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों में हिचक देखने को मिल रही है। ओडीशा-तेलंगाना को पहला स्थान : सीएसई ने देश भर के 35 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और समितियों को 25 अलग-अलग मानकों पर कसा है। इसी के आधार पर बोर्ड और समितियों द्वारा सूचना को सार्वजनिक करने को लेकर ट्रांसपेरेसी इंडेक्स तैयार किया गया है। इस इंडेक्स में 67 फीसदी अंक हासिल करने के साथ ओडीशा और तेलंगाना राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड ने पहला स्थान हासिल किया है। इंडेक्स में सिर्फ 14 बोर्ड या समितियां ऐसी हैं जो 50 फीसदी अंक हासिल करने में सफल रही हैं। इसमें ओडीशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, गोआ, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, महाराष्ट्र, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश व राजस्थान शामिल हैं। नई दिल्ली से और दिल्ली दंगों की आड़ में पड़ोसी ने निभाई गई पुरानी रंजिश, आरोपी एक व्यक्ति को उसके पड़ोसी ने फंसाया : पुलिस दिल्ली दंगों में आरोपी व्यक्ति को फंसाने के लिए पड़ोसी ने चली थी ये चाल बदमाशों ने चार साल के मासूम के सामने रेता मां का गला, दो दिन पहले ड्रग्स तस्कर के खिलाफ दी थी शिकायत दिल्ली: बदमाशों ने चार साल के मासूम के सामने रेता मां का गला दिल्ली: कोविड नियमों की अनदेखी पर कड़ी कार्रवाई, दो दिनों के लिए बंद हुईं सरोजनी नगर मार्केट की 46 दुकानें दिल्ली: दो दिनों के लिए बंद हुईं सरोजनी नगर मार्केट की 46 दुकानें चार साल के बच्चे ने पड़ोसी के घर के बाहर किया पेशाब तो नाबालिग ने ले ली मां की जान घर के बाहर 4 साल के बच्चे ने किया पेशाब, तो पड़ोसी ने ले ली मां की जान 15वें स्थान पर दिल्ली प्रदूषण को लेकर डाटा सार्वजनिक करने में दिल्ली को खराब रैकिंग हासिल हुई है। यह 49.5 अंकों के साथ 15वें स्थान पर है। संस्था ने बोर्ड और समितियों द्वारा जारी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट, मानकों का उल्लंघन करने वाले उद्योगों पर कार्रवाई, बैठकों के मिनट्स सार्वजनिक करने, निरीक्षणों आदि के आधार पर यह इंडेक्स तैयार किया है। पारदर्शिता को बढ़ावा देने की सलाह सीएसई के औद्योगिक प्रदूषण ईकाई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा कि प्रदूषण डाटा को लेकर पारदर्शिता को बढ़ावा दिया जाना चाहिए। प्रदूषण संबंधी सूचनाओं और कार्रवाईयों को सार्वजनिक करने से इस संबंध में नीति निर्धारण में भी आसानी होती है और लोगों के बीच जागरुकता भी बढ़ेगी।

Most pollution control boards non-transparent: CSE

A majority of India's pollution control agencies remain closed entities when it came to sharing information with the public with a mere handful of India's pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, a new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found on Thursday. State PCBs are entrusted with several functions under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; Water Cess Act, 1977; and various rules and notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. One of these functions under Se-> View it--> https://www.newkerala.com/news/2021/114921.htm