Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Few state pollution control authorities putting out environmental info in public domain: CSE

Only a few state pollution control authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain, according to an analysis conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). 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 (SPCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCC) from across the country. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Programme Director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, said: “One of the functions under Section 17(C) of the Air Act and the Water Act 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.” According to Shreya Verma, the author of the 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,” the green think tank said. Information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, and public hearing data on new projects are rarely disclosed or remain difficult to access on the websites, the CSE said. 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 latest considering the COVID-19 situation in 2020), the CSE said. 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 Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttarakhand and West Bengal, the CSE said. 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. Data indicating the current pollution levels – air pollutants, waste – the basic indicators of environment health, is missing, the CSE analysis revealed. 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. Fourteen SPCBs/PCCs did not share any information on municipal waste generation; 11 on plastic waste generation; 10 on hazardous waste; and nine on e-waste, the CSE 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 efficiency of these boards and committees,” Nivit said. With a cumulative score of 67, both Odisha and Telangana were ranked first in the transparency index, followed by Tamil Nadu at the second spot which had a cumulative score of 65.5, Madhya Pradesh (64) and West Bengal (62). Delhi was ranked 15th with a cumulative score of 49.5. PTI GVS RHL

Most pollution control boards non-transparent, says CSE study

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 the Centre for Science and Environment 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 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 and 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,” the 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. 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. 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 and an environment ministry directive. 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. 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 policymakers 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

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."

CSE study finds Indian pollution boards not very transparent with data, 67% is top score

CSE study says pollution boards in A&N Islands and Manipur are among the worst performers on transparency, while Telangana & Odisha have registered better performance. New Delhi: Most state pollution boards have taken “minimal initiative” to be transparent with information they collect about environmental pollution and emission data, a study released by the Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found. The study, released Thursday, sought to assess how transparent State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) are with disclosing the information they collect under the Water Act, Air Act, and Environment (Protection) Act. SPCBs and PCCs are the agencies in states and Union Territories that have been entrusted with the prevention and control of pollution. “Barring a few boards which have taken steps to use their website and annual report for information sharing, majority of SPCBS/PCCs have made little effort to build a relationship with all stakeholders by sharing information,” says the study. The study has an index, with states rated on the availability of information on their websites and annual reports. The most transparent State Pollution Board are Odisha and Telangana — with a transparency of 67 per cent. The top performers are Tamil Nadu (65.5 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (64 per cent), West Bengal (62 per cent), Goa (60.6 per cent), Karnataka (60.0 per cent), Haryana (59.9 per cent), Chhattisgarh (59.5 per cent) and Himachal Pradesh (59.5 per cent). The worst performing states and Union territories were Nagaland (19.2 per cent), Chandigarh (15.8 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (13 per cent) Manipur (12.6 per cent) and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (5.5 per cent). Performance parameters Tasked with monitoring pollution levels, the SPCBs and PCCs serve as repositories of information that, the CSE says, should ideally be available to the public. “The rationale of this report is to encourage public disclosure of information and to improve the quality of information shared by SPCBs/PCCs. In order to ensure more transparency in the working of a board, information disclosure has to be improved,” said the report. The report assessed transparency by looking at two parameters from 2016 to 2021 — the availability and assessment of information on the SPCB/PCCs’ websites and annual reports. Annual reports are statutory documents released in the public domain every year, detailing the SPCB/PCCs’ activities. Some of the information the websites are supposed to feature is related to board members, public hearings, laboratories, waste management, action plans for polluted rivers, and the availability of a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), among others. While 34 out of 35 SPCB/PCCs have a website, only Telangana, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Odisha and Kerala provide “significant amounts of information on their websites”, the study noted. Despite a 2017 Supreme Court order requiring SPCB/PCCs to release real-time emission data, the study found that only “19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS data in the public domain — 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.” On a positive note, nearly all SPCB/PCCs had an action plan for polluted rivers. The annual reports of SPCBs/PCCs were sourced from their websites. According to the study, out of 34 SPCBs/PCCs that have websites, 11 had not uploaded their annual reports, while 23 had. “However, it was interesting to find that six of them have uploaded annual reports that are 4-10 years old,” the study observed. Only two states — Haryana and Karnataka — provided information on the compliance status of industries. “One of the reasons for the lack of information could be that there is no definition of compliance,” the report said. Significance and recommendations The report concluded by calling upon SPCBs/PCCs to prepare themselves “for 21st century environmental governance” by working with all “stakeholders.” The CSE report also urged the Central Pollution Control Board to fix a timeline by which all SPCBs and PCCs should upload their latest annual report “without delay”, and keep them on the website for at least 5 years. It further recommended that the data should be “accessible to everyone”, and that all websites should have a uniform design so that navigation is easy and hassle-free with all the necessary information in their designated sections.

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.”

Odisha State Pollution Control Board Ranked Number One in CSE India’s Transparency Index Report

Bhubaneswar: The Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has occupied the top most position in the Transparency Index Report released by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The OSPCB has been adjudged number one in Public Disclosure in the country. The report evaluated information shared by 29 state PCBs and 6 pollution control committees to public in the last five years. With 67 per cent information and indicators available in the OSPCB’s public domain, it has has been the number one. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of the State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has congratulated the OSPCB for the feat.

OSPCB tops transparency list

The Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has ranked number one in Public Disclosure in the country.With 67 per cent information and indicators available in the OSPCB’s public domain, it has stood first. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board has also stood on equal footing with a 67-per cent tag. The Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board has stood second and the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board third among the 31 SPCBs. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of the State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness.

Few state pollution authorities making environmental information publicly available: CSE

New Delhi. According to an analysis by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), only a few state pollution control authorities are making sufficient environmental and governance information publicly available. The study, titled ‘Transparency Index: Rating of Pollution Control Boards on Public Disclosures’, assessed data disclosure performance by 29 state pollution control boards and six pollution control committees across the country. Nivit Kumar Yadav, Program Director, Industrial Pollution Unit of CSE said, “A provision under Section 17(c) of the Air Act and the Water Act to collect and disseminate information about air and water pollution and its ) prevention and control. But it is done occasionally. According to study author Shreya Verma, CSE collected data from two sources-websites of state pollution control boards/pollution control committees and their annual reports. The study assessed the information shared by these boards or committees over the past four-five years (2016-2021) and used 25 indicators, which provide a comprehensive assessment of the type and amount of information shared. Huh. The green think tank said that only 12 states shared the latest annual reports on their websites. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared their annual reports for 2019-20. Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared their annual reports for 2018-19. According to the study, only five boards—Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Tripura and Uttarakhand—have shared the details of their board meetings on their websites. Whereas it is mandatory to have a meeting of the State Pollution Control Board at least once every three months. The CSE analysis has revealed that the data indicating the current pollution level is missing. The study said that most of the boards have displayed insufficient figures.

సీఎస్‌ఈ పారదర్శక సూచీలో తెలంగాణకు మొదటి ర్యాంకు

న్యూఢిల్లీ, ఆగస్టు 12: కాలుష్య నియంత్రణకు ఏయే చర్యలు చేపడుతున్నారో ఎప్పటికప్పుడు ప్రజలు వెల్లడించే విషయంలో తెలంగాణ కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ బోర్డు దేశంలోనే మొదటి స్థానంలో నిలిచింది. సెంటర్‌ ఫర్‌ సైన్స్‌ అండ్‌ ఇన్విరాన్‌మెంట్‌(సీఎస్‌ఈ) విడుదల చేసిన పారదర్శక సూచీ(ట్రాన్స్‌పరెన్సీ ఇండెక్స్‌)లో 67 స్కోరుతో మొదటి ర్యాంకు సాధించింది. దేశంలో 29 రాష్ర్టాల కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ బోర్డులు, ఆరు కాలుష్య నియంత్రణ కమిటీలు ఉన్నాయి. కాలుష్య నియంత్రణకు ఇవి చేపట్టే కార్యక్రమాలను, నిర్ణయాలను తమ వెబ్‌సైట్లు, ప్రకటనలు, వార్షిక నివేదికల ద్వారా ఎప్పటికప్పుడు ప్రజలకు తెలియజేయాలి. అయితే చాలా రాష్ర్టాలు దీన్ని పాటించడం లేదని సీఎస్‌ఈ పేర్కొన్నది. సమాచార వెల్లడిలో గడిచిన ఐదేండ్లలో వివిధ బోర్డుల పనితీరుపై 25 అంశాల ఆధారంగా అధ్యయనం చేసి ర్యాంకులను కేటాయించింది. తెలంగాణతో పాటు ఒడిశా కూడా 67 స్కోరుతో సంయుక్తంగా మొదటిస్థానంలో ఉండగా, 65.5 స్కోరుతో తమిళనాడు రెండో స్థానంలో ఉంది.

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।