Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

Most pollution control boards across India lack transparency, finds study

जब जनता के साथ जानकारी साझा करने की बात आती है तो भारत की अधिकांश प्रदूषण नियंत्रण एजेंसियां ​​बंद हो जाती हैं। सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) के एक नए रेटिंग अध्ययन में पाया गया है कि भारत के कुछ मुट्ठी भर प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड और प्राधिकरण पर्यावरण और शासन की जानकारी को सार्वजनिक डोमेन में पर्याप्त रूप से डाल रहे हैं। पारदर्शिता सूचकांक: सार्वजनिक प्रकटीकरण पर प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों की रेटिंग शीर्षक वाले अध्ययन ने देश भर से 29 राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और छह प्रदूषण नियंत्रण समितियों के डेटा प्रकटीकरण प्रदर्शन का आकलन किया है। इनमें से केवल 17 बोर्डों और समितियों ने 50% या उससे अधिक अंक प्राप्त किए। ये 17 ओडिशा, तेलंगाना, तमिलनाडु, मध्य प्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, गोवा, कर्नाटक, हरियाणा, छत्तीसगढ़, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, केरल, महाराष्ट्र, उत्तराखंड, पंजाब, आंध्र प्रदेश और राजस्थान से हैं। सीएसई के कार्यक्रम निदेशक (औद्योगिक प्रदूषण इकाई) निवित कुमार यादव ने कहा, “राज्य पीसीबी को जल अधिनियम, 1974 के प्रावधानों के तहत कई कार्य सौंपे गए हैं; वायु अधिनियम, 1981; जल उपकर अधिनियम, 1977; और पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 के तहत जारी विभिन्न नियम और अधिसूचनाएं। वायु और जल अधिनियम की धारा 17 (सी) के तहत इन कार्यों में से एक वायु और जल प्रदूषण से संबंधित जानकारी एकत्र करना और प्रसारित करना और इसकी रोकथाम के बारे में भी है, नियंत्रण या कमी। कानून बोर्डों को सार्वजनिक डोमेन में डेटा साझा करने के लिए कहता है। लेकिन व्यवहार में ऐसा बहुत कम होता है।” सीएसई की कार्यक्रम अधिकारी और अध्ययन की लेखिका श्रेया वर्मा इस पद्धति की व्याख्या करती हैं: “इस अध्ययन के लिए, सीएसई ने दो स्रोतों से डेटा एकत्र किया – एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी की वेबसाइट और उनकी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट। अध्ययन ने पिछले चार से पांच वर्षों (2016-21) के दौरान एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी द्वारा साझा की गई जानकारी का मूल्यांकन किया है और 25 संकेतकों का उपयोग किया है जो साझा की गई जानकारी के प्रकार और मात्रा पर व्यापक मूल्यांकन प्रदान करते हैं। अध्ययन में इस्तेमाल किए गए कुछ प्रमुख संकेतकों में बोर्ड द्वारा जारी दिशा-निर्देश/कारण बताओ/बंद करने के नोटिस, जन सुनवाई और ईआईए रिपोर्ट, गैर-प्राप्ति शहरों और प्रदूषित नदी के हिस्सों आदि पर जानकारी की उपलब्धता शामिल है। रिपोर्ट में इस बात पर प्रकाश डाला गया है कि शासन और कामकाज से संबंधित डेटा कागज़-बाध्य रहता है। कामकाज की जानकारी, प्रदूषणकारी उद्योगों के खिलाफ बोर्ड द्वारा की गई कार्रवाई, नई परियोजनाओं पर जन सुनवाई डेटा शायद ही कभी प्रकट होता है या वेबसाइटों पर पहुंचना मुश्किल होता है। उदाहरण के लिए, केवल 12 राज्यों ने अपनी नवीनतम वार्षिक रिपोर्ट अपनी वेबसाइटों पर साझा की है। गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश, सिक्किम, त्रिपुरा और पश्चिम बंगाल ने वर्ष 2019-20 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है, जबकि छत्तीसगढ़, कर्नाटक, महाराष्ट्र, ओडिशा, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश और तमिलनाडु ने वर्ष 2018-19 की वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा की है। 2020 में कोविड-19 की स्थिति को देखते हुए इसे नवीनतम कहा जा सकता है)। निम्नलिखित राज्यों और केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों के 11 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी द्वारा अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट साझा करने में कोई पहल नहीं की गई है – असम, अरुणाचल प्रदेश, बिहार, जम्मू और कश्मीर, झारखंड, मणिपुर, अंडमान और निकोबार, चंडीगढ़, दमन और दीव, दादरा और नगर हवेली, पुडुचेरी और नागालैंड। रिपोर्ट में पाया गया कि गैर-अनुपालन की बात आने पर एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी उद्योगों के लिए सुरक्षात्मक रहे हैं। 35 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी में से केवल पांच ने निर्देशों की सॉफ्ट कॉपी और अपनी वेबसाइट पर जारी कारण बताओ/बंद करने के नोटिस साझा किए हैं – ये जम्मू-कश्मीर, राजस्थान, तेलंगाना, उत्तराखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल से हैं। केवल पांच बोर्ड – दिल्ली, गोवा, हरियाणा, त्रिपुरा और उत्तराखंड – ने अपनी वेबसाइट पर बोर्ड की बैठकों के कार्यवृत्त साझा किए हैं: एसपीसीबी के लिए हर तीन महीने में कम से कम एक बार मिलना अनिवार्य है। इन बैठकों में बोर्ड के सदस्यों से संबंधित मुद्दों पर चर्चा की जाती है। बोर्ड के कामकाज, कार्य योजनाओं, अनुपालन और निगरानी, ​​और कानूनों के प्रवर्तन में सुधार के लिए नवीन तरीकों को तैयार करने के लिए। केवल पांच एसपीसीबी ने बोर्डों द्वारा किए गए निरीक्षण पर जानकारी साझा की है: हिमाचल प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, ओडिशा, तमिलनाडु और पश्चिम बंगाल के पीसीबी ने अपनी वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में यह जानकारी साझा की है। केवल नौ एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी ने जन सुनवाई पर विस्तृत जानकारी प्रदान की है, जिसमें कार्यकारी सारांश, परियोजना की ईआईए रिपोर्ट का मसौदा और बैठक के कार्यवृत्त शामिल हैं। प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले राज्य कर्नाटक, तेलंगाना, दिल्ली, गुजरात, केरल, पंजाब, राजस्थान, गोवा और मिजोरम हैं। वर्तमान प्रदूषण स्तरों पर सीमित डेटा: वर्तमान प्रदूषण स्तर – वायु प्रदूषक, अपशिष्ट आदि – पर्यावरण स्वास्थ्य के बुनियादी संकेतकों को दर्शाने वाला डेटा गायब है। अधिकांश बोर्ड अपर्याप्त डेटा प्रदर्शित करते हैं, जो कोई रुझान नहीं दर्शाता है। इसके अलावा, आने वाली परियोजनाओं और इलाके की आम जनता की शिकायतों का विवरण भी शायद ही प्रदर्शित किया जाता है। केवल 19 एसपीसीबी/पीसीसी अपने सीईएमएस डेटा प्रदर्शित कर रहे हैं: यह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश (22 फरवरी, 2017) और पर्यावरण मंत्रालय के निर्देश (जीएसआर 96 (ई) 29 जनवरी, 2018) के अनुसार, ऐसा करने के लिए एक वैधानिक दायित्व के बाद भी। जिन राज्यों से ये पीसीबी/पीसीसी आते हैं उनमें आंध्र प्रदेश, असम, बिहार, छत्तीसगढ़, दिल्ली, गोवा, गुजरात, हरियाणा, हिमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू-कश्मीर, झारखंड, केरल, मध्य प्रदेश, मेघालय, ओडिशा, पुडुचेरी, पंजाब, तमिलनाडु और तेलंगाना। इन 19 में से सिर्फ पांच पीसीबी/पीसीसी ऐतिहासिक सीईएमएस डेटा प्रदर्शित करते हैं। ठोस कचरे पर सूचना साझा करने में ढिलाई: 14 एसपीसीबी और पीसीसी नगरपालिका अपशिष्ट उत्पादन पर कोई जानकारी साझा नहीं करते हैं; 11 प्लास्टिक अपशिष्ट उत्पादन पर; 10 खतरनाक कचरे पर; और नौ ई-कचरे पर। “अध्ययन में डेटा प्रदर्शित करने में एकरूपता की कमी भी पाई गई है – उदाहरण के लिए, सभी एसपीसीबी / पीसीसी के सर्वेक्षण में अलग-अलग वेबसाइट प्रारूप हैं, जिससे जानकारी तक पहुंचना काफी मुश्किल हो जाता है। इसी तरह, वार्षिक रिपोर्ट के लिए कोई प्रारूप नहीं है: इसलिए, उपलब्ध जानकारी बोर्ड से बोर्ड में भिन्न होती है,” वर्मा ने कहा। “जब राज्य प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों की बात आती है तो पारदर्शिता में सुधार करना ‘जरूरी’ है। सार्वजनिक डोमेन में महत्वपूर्ण प्रदूषण से संबंधित जानकारी, डेटा और की गई कार्रवाइयों का विवरण महत्वपूर्ण है – यह नीति निर्माताओं को प्रदूषण प्रबंधन के अगले स्तर पर चर्चा करने में मदद कर सकता है, और यह लोगों को इन बोर्डों और समितियों की दक्षता के बारे में आश्वस्त भी कर सकता है। इसलिए, राज्य पीसीबी और एसपीसीसी को डेटा डालने और सार्वजनिक जुड़ाव के लिए अपने आउटरीच की गुणवत्ता में सुधार करके अधिक पारदर्शी बनने के लिए तत्काल ध्यान केंद्रित करना चाहिए,” निवित ने कहा।

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."

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."

Most pollution control boards across India absence transparency, finds research

A greater part of India’s air pollution manage companies remain closed entities when it will come to sharing details with the public. A new score study by Centre for Science and Surroundings (CSE) has found that a mere handful of India’s air pollution manage boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance data intothe public area. The research titled, Transparency Index: Ranking of air pollution handle boards on general public disclosure, has assessed the information disclosure efficiency of 29 condition air pollution control boards and six air pollution command committees from across the region. Of these, only 17 boards and committees scored 50% or previously mentioned. 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 air pollution device) of CSE, sai,: “State PCBs are entrusted with several functions less than the provisions of the Drinking water Act, 1974 Air Act, 1981 Water Cess Act, 1977 and a variety of regulations and notifications issued below the Natural environment (Security) Act, 1986. 1 of these functions beneath Portion 17(C) of the Air and Drinking water Functions is to accumulate and disseminate facts connected to air and h2o pollution and also about its prevention, regulate or abatement. The regulation asks the boards to share the details in public domain. But this is hardly ever finished in apply.” Shreya Verma, programme officer at CSE, and author of the study clarifies the methodology: “For this research, CSE collected information from two resources — internet websites of SPCBs/PCCs and their yearly studies. The analyze has evaluated the data shared by SPCBs/PCCs through the last four tofive yrs (2016-21) and makes use of 25 indicators that present a broader evaluation on the type and amount of data shared. A handful of important indicators made use of in the analyze incorporate the availability of information and facts on direction/display induce/closure notices issued by boards, information and facts on community hearings and EIA reports, non-attainment towns and polluted river stretches and many others.” The report highlighted that governance and operating-linked facts remains paper-bound. Info on performing, steps taken by a board from polluting industries, public listening to details on new projectsetcare not often disclosed or continue to be tricky to entry on the web sites. For occasion, only 12 states have shared their most up-to-date once-a-year stories on their internet sites. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal have shared once-a-year reviews of the 12 months 2019-20 although Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have shared yearly stories of the yr 2018-19 (which could be termed as the most up-to-date considering the Covid-19 predicament in 2020). No initiative has been taken by 11 SPCBs and PCCs of the pursuing states and Union territories in sharing their annual experiences — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry and Nagaland. SPCB and PCCs have been protecting of industries when it arrives to non-compliance, the report observed. Out of 35 SPCBs and PCCs, only five have shared gentle copies of instructions and exhibit induce/closure notices issued on their web sites – 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 conferences on their internet sites: It is necessary for SPCBs to meet up with at least after each a few months.Board users in these meetings are intended to explore issues connected to the functioning of the board, motion strategies, compliance and monitoring, and devising ground breaking methods to strengthen enforcement of guidelines. Only five SPCBs have shared details on inspection conducted by the boards:The PCBs of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have shared this info in their annual reviews. Only 9 SPCBs and PCCs have provided in depth details on community hearings, which features 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. Constrained information on present-day air pollution levels: Data indicating the recent air pollution levels – air pollutants, wasteetc– the fundamental indicators of setting well being,is lacking. Most boards exhibit inadequate facts, indicating no trends. More so, even information on forthcoming jobs and grievances of the standard community of the locality are hardly shown. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs are displaying their CEMS info: This, even immediately after a statutory obligationto do it, as per a Supreme Court docket purchase (February 22, 2017) and an ecosystem ministry directive (GSR 96(E) January 29, 2018).The states from the place these PCBs/PCCs appear 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 5 PCBs/PCCs exhibit historic CEMS information. Laxity in sharing information on strong waste: 14 SPCBs and PCCs do not share any information and facts on municipal waste generation 11 on plastic waste technology 10 on hazardous squander and nine on e-waste. “The research has also found a absence of uniformity in exhibiting details — for occasion, all the SPCBs/PCCssurveyed have unique web-site formats, which will make accessing info very tricky. Similarly, there is no structure for annual experiences: therefore,the information available differs from board to board,” Verma mentioned. “Improving transparency is a ‘must’when it comes to state air pollution regulate boards. Putting in the community area essential air pollution-related data, facts and specifics of actions taken is essential – it can assistance policy-makers consider the conversations to the future level of pollution administration, and it can also reassure the persons about efficiencyof these boards and committees.Point out PCBs and SPCCs, hence, will have to focus urgently to become a lot more transparent by placing out data and improving upon the good quality of their outreach for general public engagement,” Nivit additional.

OSPCB Tops Transparency List

hubaneswar: Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) has ranked Number One in Public Disclosure in the Country. With 67 Percent Information and Indicators available of Public Domain pf OSPCB, it stood First in the country. Suresh Chandra Mohapatra, Chief Secretary and Chairman of OSPCB is known for his transparent approach and K Murugesan, Member Secretary Odisha Pollution Control Board is all along has tried to make OSPCB an ‘Open Book’. With both Chairman Mr.Mahapatra and Member Secretary Dr. Murugesan striving hard to provide Information and Indicators on Public Domain, naturally OSPCB has stood lock solid under intense scrutiny of CSE, admits a Senior Scientist on Environment. While Odisha Pollution Board stood First, Telengana State Pollution Control Board also stood on equal footing with 67 Percent tag. Tamilnadu State Pollution Control Board stood Second and Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board stood Third among the 31 SPCB and PCCs. Disclosure of information in the public domain is one of the important functions of State Pollution Control Boards to increase public participation and public awareness. There are statutory obligations also for some indicators like Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) data that has to be available in public domain. However even after the Supreme Court order 2017 for making CEMS data public, the status of CEMS information in public domain is dismal in most of the states. Similarly, there are other indicators also which have public importance and needs to be shared in public domain. To assess the level of transparency maintained by SPCBs, Center For Science and Environment (CSE) has conducted a study, and assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and 6 Pollution Control Committees (PCC) in the Country. This Report critically evaluates the information shared by SPCBs and PCCs during the last four-five years (2016–2021) and uses several indicators that provide a broader indication on the type and amount of information shared. This Report provides the status of the information shared by SPCBs and PCCs on their websites and annual reports. And this study aims to improve transparency in sharing information in public domain by SPCB and PCC.

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.

Pollution control boards are not transparent: CSE report | India News – Times of India

BATHINDA: As putting crucial pollution related information in the public domain is critical, which can help policy-makers to take the pollution management discussions to the next levels but when it comes to sharing such information with the public, the majority of country’s pollution control agencies remain closed entities. A new rating study by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has found that a mere handful of pollution control boards and authorities are adequately putting out environmental and governance information into the public domain. The study ‘Transparency Index: Rating of pollution control boards on public disclosure’ has assessed the data disclosure performance of 29 state pollution control boards (PCBs) and six pollution control committees (PCCs) from across the country. Of these, only 14 boards and committees scored 50 per cent or above. The board of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab from the region are among those scoring over 50 per cent. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution Unit, CSE, says “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 explaining the methodology says, “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” It was found that information on functioning, actions taken by a board against polluting industries, public hearing data on new projects 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. 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. Only five boards including Haryana 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 including Himachal Pradesh have shared information on inspection conducted by the boards. Only nine SPCBs/PCCs including Punjab have provided detailed information on public hearings, which includes the executive summary, draft EIA report of the project, and minutes of the meeting. 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. Only 19 SPCBs/PCCs including three from the region are displaying their Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data. This, even after a statutory obligation to do it, as per a Supreme Court order and an environment ministry directive. 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.

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

New Delhi, Aug 12 (IANS) 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.”

IPCC climate report vindicates our 'Polluter Pays' stand, says govt

The report has estimated that under all growth scenarios, the planet's warming level will touch 1.5 degree Celsius The latest report on climate change vindicates the stand that India has taken since 2015, namely, that the developed world should pay for the damage caused by its industrialisation and not commit poorer countries to similar targets on reducing carbon emissions. Indian officials and ministers believe that the report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle espoused by India. “Developed countries have usurped far more than their fair share of the global carbon budget,” said Bhupender Yadav, Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in a statement. “Reaching Net Zero alone is not enough, as it is the cumulative emissions up to Net Zero that determines the temperature that is reached. This has been amply borne out in the IPCC report.” Released on Monday, the IPCC report blamed historical human behaviour for the current extreme climate - which has already caused some devastating flooding and fires - rather than natural causes. Yadav said this supported India’s view that historical cumulative emissions are the source of the climate crisis that the world faces today. ALSO READ: 45% of EU firms report investments to address climate change: Survey The report has estimated that under all growth scenarios, the planet’s warming level will touch 1.5 degree Celsius. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1 degree Celsius of warming since 1850-1900. Over the next 20 years, the global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degree Celsius above the normal range, said the report authors. In 2015 at the Paris COP21, India committed itself to sourcing 40 per cent of its energy demand from renewable sources as part of its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). It also said it would reduce the emission intensity of its GDP by 33-35 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. Government officials said India is well on its way to meet its INDC targets. “As of 2016, India’s emission intensity to GDP is 24 per cent. We have 14 years to meet the 33-34 per cent intensity and we will meet that. Second, the INDC of our renewable energy capacity has touched 38 per cent (including hydro) and we will touch 40 per cent soon,” said a senior Environment Ministry official. Another added “India need not do much more than what we have already committed”, explaining that India was close to its targets because of several initiatives. ALSO READ: A warning to India “India will add 450 GW of renewable energy target by 2030. We are giving an aggressive push to green hydrogen as a fuel. India has already commenced one of the largest programmes for greening the agriculture power supply through the PM-KUSUM scheme,” said another official. At various junctures, both the Power and Environment ministries have said that India will not declare Net Zero target. Net Zero means that there is balance in the carbon emissions versus the emissions saved. Net negative emissions mean saving is more than emitting. China has announced it will achieve Net Zero before 2060 and the UK has kept 2050 as the target. chart India’s stand is that it is the industrialised world, not developing countries, who should have Net Negative targets and moreover they should finance the green energy targets of India and other developing countries. “The developed world has occupied 80 per cent of the carbon space already. Now you have to give space to others to develop, for instance, 800 million people are still without electricity in Africa. You can’t say you come to net zero – no, sorry. These countries have to develop and that development will need steel, cement etc. You can’t stop them,” said R K Singh, who heads the Power Ministry and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy in April at an event organised by the International Energy Agency. Consequently, for the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow during November, India has no plan to announce any Net Zero target. Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment agreed that India will emit less than the US or China but urged the government to take active steps to avoid a climate crisis. “The government is sanguine about doing more than other countries in terms of comparable action to reduce CO2 emissions. We have no measurable targets to reduce emissions. Our NDC is to reduce not absolute emissions but the emission intensity of our economy,” said Narain. The global crisis was an opportunity for India, she said, to change its development policies to limit climate change. “We need to reinvent the way we do things, from mobility to building houses, to access to affordable energy. For us, action on climate change comes out of self-interest and co-benefits,” she said.

UN Body’s Climate Change Report Flags Code Red Warning: What Does It Mean?

The report, “Climate Change 2021”, from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns of ‘code red’ for humanity. The IPCC, in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), estimates that under all growth scenarios, the planet’s warming level will reach 1.5 degree Celsius. The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1 degree Celsius of warming since 1850-1900. Over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degree Celsius above normal range, it says. UN Secretary-General António Guterres was the one to describe the report as “a code red for humanity.” Also Read; Juhi Chawla Breaks Her Silence On 5G Lawsuit According to the report, major climate occurrences such as heatwaves, droughts, floods and thinning of glaciers are now indisputably linked to human behaviour, not natural causes. “It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed,” said IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Valérie Masson-Delmotte. “Yet, the new report also reflects major advances in the science of attribution – understanding the role of climate change in intensifying specific weather and climate events such as extreme heat waves and heavy rainfall events.” 195 countries had adopted the agreement to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius at the last climate conference in Paris back in 2015. The 1.5 degrees Celsius hike would mean increased and more intense heat waves, longer summers and shorter winters. Ultimately, this would impact the water cycle, and thereby the rains, glaciers melting and sea levels. There is also alarming news for India in the report. The surface of the Indian Ocean has warmed faster than the global average, said the report with “very high confidence”. Coastal areas of the Indian sub-continent stand at the risk of climate-related mishaps with rising water levels. Rising carbon dioxide levels have also increased the acidification of oceans, globally. The report adds, again with “high confidence”, that warming has occurred in the Himalayas (along with the Swiss Alps and the Central Andes) and has increased with altitude. Such elevation-dependent warming could lead to faster changes in the snowline, the glacier equilibrium-line altitude and the snow/rain transition height, it says. “Given that India is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, we must recognise that even geographically faraway climatic changes can have consequences for our monsoons and intensity of extreme events,” said Arunabha Ghosh, CEO, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW). Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science & Environment, said, “Technically, India is the third-highest annual carbon dioxide polluter in the world. But the scale of our contribution is so insignificant that it cannot be compared.” However, she added, it’s in the best interest of India to take steps to combat climate change – “at speed and at scale.” IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai added, “Stabilising the climate will require strong, rapid and sustained reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net-zero CO2 emissions. Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate.” Ghosh said, “Our focus should be on building climate-resilient physical and digital infrastructure along with inculcating social and behavioural changes in citizens and communities.”

2 डिग्री के पार न होने पाए पृथ्वी का तापमान, नहीं तो बन सकती है प्रलय जैसी स्थिति |

आज FYI का टॉपिक है बहुत दिलचस्प। जलवायु परिवर्तन पर आने वाली हर रिपोर्ट केवल एक ही बात कहती है - ‘2 डिग्री के पार ना होने पाए’ आख़िर क्या है ये 2 डिग्री जलवायु परिवर्तन सीमा? क्या हो जायेगा अगर पृथ्वी का तापमान गया 2 डिग्री के पार? साहिबा ख़ान ने बात की अवंतिका गोस्वामी से जो Centre for Science and Environment में Climate Change प्रोग्राम की Deputy Programme Manager हैं। अवंतिका ने हमारे हर सवाल का सरल भाषा में जवाब दिया है। IPCC की नई रिपोर्ट आयी है जिसमें वैज्ञानिकों ने सभी देशों को उनके carbon-emission कम करने के लिए कहा है। भारत जो दुनिया में carbon-emission में तीसरे स्थान पर है, उसे भी कहा गया है कि 2050 तक ये शून्य होने चाहिए। हालांकि भारत का इस पर दो टूक जवाब कुछ और ही है। क्या कहा भारत ने, कैसे कम होंगे ये carbon-emission और क्या बचा पाएंगे हम अपनी पृथ्वी को: जानिये आज के FYI में

Climate change: IPCC warns India of extreme heat waves, droughts

India will likely face irreversible impacts of climate change, with increasing heat waves, droughts and erratic rainfall events in the coming years if no mitigation measures are put in place, experts warn. India will suffer more frequent and intense heat waves, extreme rainfall events and erratic monsoons, as well as more cyclonic activity, among other weather-related calamities, in the coming decades, a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned on Monday. The report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, is the first part of IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) — its latest evaluation of the state of Earth's climate and the impact on the planet and various life forms. "Heat extremes have increased while cold extremes have decreased, and these trends will continue over the coming decades," the report said regarding the Indian subcontinent. Experts say India, and South Asia in general, is particularly vulnerable to climate change. "The threat of climate change is real — dangers are imminent and the future is catastrophic. This message from the IPCC report confirms what we already know and can see in the world around us," said Sunita Narain, an environmentalist and director of the Delhi-based Center for Science and Environment. "From wildfires because of extreme heat and moisture loss to devastating floods because of extreme rain events, and tropical cyclones because of the changing temperatures between the sea and land surface, it should worry us," Narain said. Climate changes affecting India hard Climate change has already hit India hard, causing huge economic and social losses in recent years. This year, for instance, India has witnessed severe floods, cloudbursts and landslides in several states across the country, causing death and destruction. "This year's monsoon was more erratic with the rainfall intensity increasing in short durations causing damage to property and human life," Ravi Shankar Najundiah, director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, told DW. Experts say heavy rain events have increased threefold since 1950, but total precipitation has declined and at least a billion people in the South Asian country currently face severe water scarcity for at least one month annually. And heat waves have become more common and severe, with many cities reporting temperatures above 48 degrees Celsius (118.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in 2020. In a study published by The Lancet Planetary Health journal last month, researchers concluded that nearly 740,000 excess deaths in India annually could be attributed to abnormal hot and cold temperatures related to climate change. Meanwhile, weather-related calamities and crises are slowing the pace of poverty reduction and increasing inequality nationwide. Furthermore, should the average global temperature rise by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F), the resulting decline in agricultural productivity, rise in sea levels and negative health outcomes are projected to cost India about 3% of its GDP, according to a report published last month by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) think tank. "Given that India is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, we must recognize that even geographically faraway climatic changes can have consequences for our monsoons and intensity of extreme events," Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, said in a statement. "Our focus should be on building climate-resilient physical and digital infrastructure along with inculcating social and behavioural changes in citizens and communities." 'Headed towards further climate disaster' Experts say Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government should act swiftly and put in place necessary measures to tackle climate-related challenges. Chandra Bhushan, CEO of International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology, said the situation would only worsen if the Indian government did not act faster and decisively. "This is a warning for our economy and human life. Things that were predicted to happen far later in the future are now expected to happen much sooner, including intense heat waves, monsoon disruptions, cloud bursts and extreme rain," Bhushan told DW. Sumaira Abdulali, environmentalist and founder of the NGO Awaaz Foundation, has a similar view. "In theory, the problems of climate change are unmistakable and well acknowledged, but in practice, in the face of development imperatives, we have not learned any lessons at all despite all types of climate-related catastrophic events," the expert told DW. "We seem clearly headed towards further climate disaster."

Stricter emissions rules will hit car sales, says Maruti Suzuki chairman

Automakers last week urged the government to defer tougher emissions standards India’s biggest automaker has warned that strict European-style emissions rules due to start next year will force up car prices, dealing another blow to an industry that was in a slump even before the pandemic hit. “Demand will fall further, and instead of any growth there will be a decline in the industry,” Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Chairman R.C. Bhargava said in an interview. “The industry view is that it’s already suffering a decline because of Covid, and on top of that we add further to the cost of vehicles because of new regulations.” Automakers last week urged the government to defer tougher emissions standards, which are due to be implemented in two stages in April 2022 and then in 2023. The changes will require carmakers to cut emissions about 13% to 113 grams a kilometer. The emissions curbs are critical for India’s push to tackle some of the world’s worst air pollution, which costs the country 8.5% of its gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. By 2025, India will have up to 20 million old vehicles nearing the end of their lives, causing huge environmental damage, according to the Centre for Science and Environment. However, the changes come at a tough time for the auto industry, which was just beginning to to recover from its worst-ever slowdown before the Covid outbreak again dented demand. Passenger vehicle sales fell 2% and overall production declined 14% in the year ended March 2021, according to the latest figures from the Society of India Automobile Manufacturers. Automakers are also grappling with a semiconductor shortage and higher raw material costs as commodity prices surge. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which makes sports utility vehicles, will increase prices if commodity prices climb further, Chief Executive Officer Anish Shah said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Wednesday. Any increase in car prices could deter India’s price-sensitive drivers. Just 5% of cars sold are priced above 1.5 million rupees ($20,000). The nation’s per capita income of only $2,000 a year puts cleaner, but more expensive, electric cars beyond the reach of most consumers, Bhargava said. It will be difficult for automakers to pour resources into the new technology considering the industry invested as much as 900 billion rupees to transition to current emission standards, which set out a 68% reduction in nitrous oxide gases. Maruti doesn’t make any electric vehicles because of their cost and the country’s sparse charging infrastructure. Hybrid models, improved technology for cars running on compressed natural gas and more efficient gasoline cars will be enough for Maruti to meet the new requirements, Bhargava said. While the industry has asked for a deferment of one or two years, Bhargava said the new emissions rules should not be implemented until demand for cars recovers. The new standards will potentially reduce car penetration to 2% in India, where ownership currently stands at 30 per 1,000 people, he said. That compares to 816 per 1,000 people in the U.S. and 207 per 1,000 in China. “A decline in the auto industry not only hurts carmakers, it hurts the entire economy,” Bhargava said. “If growth doesn’t take place then it will be counterproductive to do this. What is the use of getting European standards into India if people aren’t able to buy the cars? That is why the industry is saying please defer the new regulations so the price increase doesn’t come at this time which is a bad time.”

India’s stricter emissions rules will hit car sales: Maruti

The emissions curbs are critical for India’s push to tackle some of the world’s worst air pollution, which costs the country 8.5% of its gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. By 2025, India will have up to 20 million old vehicles nearing the end of their lives, causing huge environmental damage, according to the Centre for Science and Environment. Read more at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/indias-stricter-emissions-rules-will-hit-car-sales-maruti/articleshow/85239583.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

European-style strict emissions rules in India will force up car prices: Maruti Suzuki

Strict European-style emissions rules will force up car prices, warns Indian carmaker Maruti Suzuki. This will give another blow to the automobile industry. Since the year 2000, India has been adopting European emission and fuel regulations for four-wheeled light-duty and for heavy-duty vehicles as well. RC Bhargava, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Chairman, said the impact of the new rules will be felt as demand will fall further and there will be a noted decline in the industry. “The industry view is that it’s already suffering a decline because of COVID, and on top of that, we add further to the cost of vehicles because of new regulations.” Last week, the automakers urged the government to defer tougher emissions standards, which are due to be implemented in two stages in April 2022 and then in 2023. The new rules will require carmakers to cut emissions about 13% to 113 grams a kilometer. This is part of India’s push to tackle the world’s worst air pollution. According to the Centre for Science and Environment, by 2025, India will have up to 20 million old vehicles nearing the end of their lives, causing huge environmental damage. Analysts say the changes will not be easy as it comes at a tough time when the auto industry is trying to make a comeback from its worst-ever slowdown driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. Latest figures from the Society of India Automobile Manufacturers show that passenger vehicle sales fell 2% and overall production declined 14% in the year ended March 2021. Bhargava said any increase in car prices could deter India’s price-sensitive drivers. “Just 5% of cars sold are priced above Rs 1.5 million. The nation’s per capita income of only Rs 2,000 per year puts cleaner, but more expensive, electric cars beyond the reach of most consumers,” he said. “It will be difficult for automakers to pour resources into the new technology considering the industry invested as much as Rs 900 billion to transition to current emission standards, which set out a 68% reduction in nitrous oxide gases.” Also Read: PMMY sanctioned 68% of loans to women entrepreneurs in 6 years The executive highlighted that Maruti doesn’t make any electric vehicles because of their cost and the country’s sparse charging infrastructure. “Hybrid models, improved technology for cars running on compressed natural gas and more efficient gasoline cars will be enough for Maruti to meet the new requirements.” Bhargava said a decline in the auto industry not only hurts carmakers, but the entire economy. “If growth doesn’t take place that it will be counterproductive to do this. What is the use of getting European standards into India if people aren’t able to buy the cars?” Bhargava said this is the reason the industry wants the new regulations to be deferred so that there is no counter price increase.