• Down To Earth

From The Newsroom: UP unveils draft of The Uttar Pradesh Population (Control, Stabilisation and Welfare) Bill, 2021

In your evening news update, WHO likely to take a decision on including Covaxin in the emergency use list within four to six weeks; UP unveils draft of The Uttar Pradesh Population (Control, Stabilisation and Welfare) Bill, 2021; BJP dubs Karnataka Congress president D K Shivakumar a “rowdy”, and Kerala reports 40 Zika virus cases. Speaking at a webinar organised by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) today, Swaminathan said, the WHO is reviewing Covaxin as its manufacturer Bharat Biotech is now uploading its entire data on the health body’s portal.

• Down To Earth

Covax, a beautiful solution for vaccine equity, delayed because vaccine manufacturers not prioritising it’

COVID19 has sickened nearly 181 million people, and some four million of them have succumbed to the disease. In a webinar, Soumya Swaminathan, the chief scientist at the World Health Organization stated that even after persistent calls to end ‘vaccine apartheid’ and promote equity in vaccine distribution, rich countries are not doing much. In 2014-16, when the most widespread outbreak of Ebola virus happened in West Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) knew a much bigger pandemic was on its way and it turned out to be the COVID19 pandemic that is at present raging across the world. This was shared by Soumya Swaminathan, WHO’s Chief Scientist during a webinar organised on July 9 by the Down To Earth, an environment fortnightly. “After the Ebola outbreak in 2016, an ‘R&D Blueprint’ was developed [by WHO] and essentially it lays out a research roadmap for diseases which have epidemic/pandemic potential,” Swaminathan said during the webinar. “When the roadmap was developed, we had marked something called a ‘Pathogen X’ which means that we were anticipating a pandemic. And this is now COVID19,” she added. Despite anticipating a pandemic and formulating the research road map for epidemic/pandemic, Swaminathan regretted the ‘vaccine apartheid’ and ‘moral bankruptcy’ of developed countries that have failed to cooperate with the Covax mechanism of vaccine distribution around the world. Explained: COVAX — an international mechanism for equitable vaccine supply. How successful has it been? COVAX, short for ‘COVID19 Vaccines Global Access’, has been evolved by four major agencies that work on public health — WHO, United Nations Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). COVAX supports access to COVID19 vaccines for lower-income economies. The webinar titled, ‘Vaccine For All – The global race between the virus, its variants and the vaccines’, was anchored by Sunita Narain, Director General, Centre for Science and Environment. ‘Vaccine manufacturers not prioritising Covax is frustrating’ COVID-19 has sickened nearly 181 million people, and some four million of them have succumbed to the disease. There is a rush to get vaccinated against the virus and governments are trying to ensure universal vaccination. A total of 7.9 billion people need to be protected – and the speed and scale at which vaccination has to be carried out is unprecedented. However, vaccination has made very slow progress in large parts of the world. Also Read: 50% drop in COVID19 vaccination in India in the past month, shows govt’s Co-WIN data As of July 8, only 5.1 per cent of the Indian population is fully vaccinated against COVID19. Raising an important point, Narain, the webinar’s anchor, questioned the WHO Chief Scientist about the issue of vaccine-boosters vs first vaccinating the entire world population. “Given the sheer inequity in the availability and access to vaccines, should the first task not be to get the vaccines for the vulnerable people in the world… that might push WHO into a more political role but somebody has to take the leadership, somebody will have to bring in the voice of morality as well as reason into the global decision making,” Narain asked Swaminathan. Answering the question, Swaminathan said, “We’ve been very clear, Dr Tedros [Tedros Adhanom, Director General, WHO] has repeatedly used words like ‘vaccine apartheid’, ‘moral bankruptcy’, ‘catastrophic failure’. But individual countries are making their own decisions.” The chief scientist went on to add: “We sometimes feel very frustrated. Covax, which is a beautiful solution for vaccine equity, has been delayed because none of the vaccine manufacturers are prioritising it”. Incidentally, countries like the United States are providing additional immunity against the COVID19 infection by giving booster doses for COVID 19. Meanwhile, a large chunk of the world population in developing countries is yet to receive even the first shot of the vaccine. As of July 8, only 5.1 per cent of the Indian population is fully vaccinated against COVID19. Also Read: Ripple effect of COVID-19’s second wave in India being felt across the globe Last month, on June 2, at the pledging summit for COVAX, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres had said: “Today, ten countries have administered 75% of all COVID-19 vaccines, but, in poor countries, health workers and people with underlying conditions cannot access them. This is not only manifestly unjust, it is also self-defeating”. Disparity in vaccine distribution aggravating the pandemic Echoing the WHO’s emphasis on ‘Nobody is safe until everyone is’, Leena Menghaney , Regional Head (South Asia), Médecins Sans Frontières, said that although the developed countries donated to the Covax, but they tied up the manufacturers to supply the COVID19 vaccines to them on priority. A large chunk of the world population in developing countries is yet to receive even the first shot of the vaccine. “So, on one hand when you [developed countries] were donating money to the Covax, on the other hand you were taking away the ability of the Covax to receive the vaccines that it urgently needed to distribute it to the most vulnerable developing countries,” she said during the webinar. Explained: Why Covaxin is not approved by WHO? Why USFDA rejected its emergency use? Will it affect international travel? Meanwhile, Shabir A Madhi, professor of virology, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa asserted in the webinar that the concept of herd immunity is completely out of the question as it would mean millions of people dying, especially in the low income countries of Africa. Explaining the inequity in terms of COVID19 vaccination across the globe, Vibha Varshney, Associate Editor at the Down To Earth said in the webinar, “The high income countries have managed to vaccinate almost 48 per cent of their population whereas the figures for low income countries are less than one per cent”.

• Climate Change and Green Economy

Delayed monsoon jeopardises India’s economic revival

Crops planted weeks ago are withering as farmers wait anxiously for the rains Delayed monsoon rains are threatening India’s vast agricultural sector and endangering the recovery of an economy reeling from the coronavirus pandemic. Farmers in fertile northern and central states such as Punjab, Haryana and parts of Madhya Pradesh are waiting anxiously for rain after the monsoon’s ascent up the Indian subcontinent stalled. “The crops are like on a hospital ventilator due to the lack of monsoon,” said Kedar Sirohi, a leader of the Aam Kisan Union, or the Common Farmers’ Union, in Madhya Pradesh. He said farmers in his state, where irrigation facilities are limited, had planted their soya, cotton, sorghum and pulse crops almost three weeks ago but their seedlings were withering. “We need good rain within four or five days, or we will lose 30 to 40 per cent of our production,” he added. Half of India’s population of 1.4bn depends on agriculture, making the monsoon vital not only to their livelihoods but also to the wider economy. Initial predictions of a good rainy season, which runs from June to September, were a rare bright spot in a country suffering a calamitous second wave of the pandemic. After the economy contracted 7.3 per cent in 2020, the IMF projected in April that it would expand 12.5 per cent this year. But forecasts have been pared back sharply since the recent Covid surge. While parts of the country have received adequate or even heavy rainfall, swaths of central and northern India have remained dry. Punjab, one of the country’s largest producers of rice and other staples, has received little to no rain. India’s meteorological department expects rains in those regions to fall soon. But Giriraj Amarnath, a researcher for the International Water Management Institute, said further delays would result in lower crop yields. “This will certainly have an effect on the economy,” he said. “Production, pricing and export of those crops . . . will ripple from there through the value chain.” The monsoon supplies more than two-thirds of India’s rain. Less than 40 per cent of India’s agricultural land was irrigated as of 2015, the latest figures available, according to the World Bank, leaving the rest dependent exclusively on rain. “It’s an anxious time for farmers,” admitted Ajay Vir Jakhar, chair of the Bharat Krishak Samaj, or Indian Farmers Forum. He estimated that the monsoon was running a week to 10 days late. “Irrigation water cannot fully compensate for rainwater,” he said, adding that farmers would probably plant fewer crops. “You need the moisture in the soil and in the air. It’s a whole ecosystem. When the water drops from the sky, it helps plants differently than when the water is given from the ground.” Scientists warn that climate change is destabilising the monsoon, with severe consequences for the hundreds of millions of people that depend on it. Indian government research shows that extreme events such as heavy rain and flooding, as well as droughts, are increasing. This makes south Asia “extremely vulnerable compared to other parts of the world”, said Avantika Goswami at non-profit the Centre for Science and Environment. A good monsoon season last year was vital in India surviving the historic economic contraction that followed a strict multi-month lockdown. A bountiful harvest provided employment to returning migrants who had lost their jobs in cities and stoked consumption of everything from motorcycles to consumer goods.

• Director General Office

MNRE organizes webinar on “Women in Renewable Energy & Sustainability”

We are either going to have a future where women lead the way to make peace with the Earth, or we’re not going to have a human future at all”– Vandana Shiva The global contributions in the field of environment and sustainability is replete with examples of great women, who have worked relentlessly in the service of mother Nature. A webinar was organized by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE), in collaboration with the International Solar Alliance (ISA) on “Women in Renewable Energy & Sustainability,” on Wednesday night. The webinar, organized to encourage women to be at the forefront in leading positions in the Renewable Energy sector was addressed by Indu Shekhar Chaturvedi, Secretary, MNRE. The keynote address was delivered by Dr. Ajay Mathur, Director General, International Solar Alliance and Ms. Susan Ferguson, UN Women’s Country representative for India. Theme of the webinar: The webinar featured two panel discussions. The theme for the first panel was “Women Leadership in Renewables: Envisioning a New World.” The first panel saw the participation of Deputy Director General of International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Gauri Singh, the Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Mahua Acharya, the CEO of EESL Convergence, Sullajja Firodia Motwani, and Dr. Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of Council on Energy, Environment & Water (CEEW). The theme for the second panel was “Women Entrepreneurs in RE: A gateway to innovation and economic growth.” The panellists for the second round of discussion included the Secretary General of Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), Reema Nanavaty, Meagan Fallone from the Barefoot college, CEO of Frontier Markets, Cecile Martin Phipps, Director Communication and Strategy from ISA, Suhela Khan, UN-Women and CEO of Skill Council for Green Jobs, Praveen Saxena. The webinar was attended by audiences from around the world to open a consequential dialogue towards bringing more women to the forefront to lead positions in the Renewable Energy sector as well as making entrepreneurial opportunities available to them. The webinar was a part of India’s global advocacy efforts in the role of a Global Theme Champion for the UN High Level Dialogue on Energy which is set to take place in September 2021. India’s women environmentalists: There’s no dearth of names, when we talk of the contributions of women environmentalists in nurturing India’s natural resources. Here’s a look at some of these revolutionary women: 1.) Sugathakumari An Indian poet and activist, Sugathakumari has been leading environmental and feminist movements in Kerala. Her father’s social activism and nationalistic fervour deeply inspired her. She is the founder secretary of the Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi, an organisation that works for the protection of nature. She also works for the protection and care of destitute women and the mentally ill. 2.) Vandana Shiva A Delhi based environmentalist and eco feminist, Vandana Shiva is well known for her proletarian efforts to protect forests, organize women’s networks, and conserve local biodiversity. A physicist and philosopher of science, she has authored books such as Monocultures of the Mind, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development, Biopiracy and Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis. She was identified as an environmental ‘hero’ by the Time Magazine, in 2003. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993, considered equivalent to the Nobel Prize. 3.) Sunita Narain Currently the Director General of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and publisher of the fortnightly magazine ‘Down To Earth’, Sunita Narain began her work in 1980s. After the loss of tigers in Sariska, Sunita chaired the Tiger Task Force for conservation in 2005. She is a member of the Prime Minister’s Council for Climate Change and National Ganga River Basin Authority. In 2005, 2008 and 2009, she featured on the world’s 100 public intellectuals list, by US journal Foreign Policy. She has been conferred the Padma Shri. Her research interests are global democracy (emphasizing on climate change) and local democracy (forest resource management and water related issues).

• Water Programme

TIL: What We Know About COVID Transmission Through Faeces

Knowing whether Covid-19 can be transmitted through faeces or through virus-laden particles released via sewage is important for India where many still defecate in the open and most sewage is released untreated. Delhi: Faeces of Covid-19 patients contain the virus, sometimes even days after the person tests negative on a Covid-19 swab test. But researchers have been unable to confirm whether the virus could transmit through faeces. We look at the research and explain what this means for sanitation, especially in India where 72% of sewage is left untreated and 72,368 million liters of sewage is generated per day. What the research says Researchers, supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Institute of Virology, tracked a family of four in Pune, Maharashtra, after they tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on an RT-PCR test, according to a preprint of the study from June 2021. The first person to test positive, known as the 'index case', was a 37-year-old healthcare worker who worked in the Covid-19 ward of a hospital. Researchers say he spread the infection to his family: his wife, 34, and their two children, aged 8 years and 6 years, who tested positive for Covid-19 a few days after him. The health worker had serious symptoms that lasted the longest, his wife had moderate symptoms, while the children had very mild symptoms. Researchers tested their stools after their admission to hospital and then on days 14, 21, 32, 40, 48 and 55 from the onset of symptoms, and found the presence of SARS-CoV-2 until at least day 21 in stool samples, even for the children who had mild symptoms. They were excreting the virus even after they had tested negative on pharyngeal swabs and this "suggested the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the faecal-oral route", which means that the disease could spread via pathogens in faecal matter of one person that are ingested by another person, the researchers said. Urine samples, collected on admission and 14 days later, were negative throughout but this could mean that "improved methods of testing of urine samples are warranted", the researchers wrote. In December 2020, scientists at India's National Chemical Laboratory undertook similar research, along with officials from the Pune Municipal Corporation. They found traces of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples collected from different parts of Pune. Researchers also studied nine Covid-19 patients across three families, 193 other residents, and 24 staff in an apartment building in Guangzhou, China in December 2020. They concluded that the virus could have spread among these families through drainage pipes through faecal-aerosol transmission, which means that small virus-laden particles are released into the air from faeces, which can infect other people. "On the basis of circumstantial evidence, fecal-aerosol transmission may have caused the community outbreak of COVID-19 in this high-rise building," the authors wrote, without confirming that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted through the faeces. "If SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected on water or sewage, infectivity cannot be ruled out," according to a review of literature published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, in June 2021. But so far there have been no confirmed cases of people contracting Covid-19 via this route and little is known about whether aerosols contaminated with the virus can also be released during sewage treatment, the review said. "We know that it is very important that people have access to clean water in the first place to wash away the Covid-19 virus. But more research is needed to understand what happens with the wastewater from there," said Sushmita Sengupta, programme manager for the Delhi-based based Centre for Science and Environment. Why is this important for controlling Covid-19 in India? Knowing whether Covid-19 is only present or is both present and transmitted through faeces of infected patients is important for two reasons: tracking and mapping Covid-19 in a city and for preventing its further spread. In urban India, only 28% of the 72,368 million litres of sewage generated per day is treated, before it is discharged, often into rivers and other water bodies, putting people at risk of infection if the disease can be transmitted through faeces. Further, in 2018, nearly 38% of households in Uttar Pradesh, 33% in Bihar and 22.5% in Madhya Pradesh did not have latrines, we reported in June 2020. If Covid-19 could be transmitted through the faecal-oral, open defecation could add to the risk of the disease spreading. One of the aims of the 2020 study of sewage water in Pune was to find if "testing wastewater could serve as a cost-effective early warning system" to help officials keep track of the disease, even at an early stage and even among asymptomatic people, the authors wrote. "Epidemiology from wastewater has been useful in the past in surveillance and monitoring for polio, rotavirus," said Mahesh Dharne, principal scientist at the National Chemical Laboratory. For instance, testing sewage for poliovirus is four to five times more sensitive in detecting outbreaks than monitoring communities, found a study from 2018. As a majority of Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic, they may be missed in testing and diagnosis and tracing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in wastewater could serve as an early indicator for the disease, Dharne explained. "This kind of research into waste water can be useful as a tool to map out areas in a city where the virus may be present in wastewater. Right now we are still trying to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virus better. We should keep applying whatever tools we can develop," Sengupta said.

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

Hyderabad sees 69% increase in key pollutant nitrogen dioxide in last one year

HYDERABAD: Hyderabad saw a substantial increase of 69% in the level of the key pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) between April 2020 and April 2021, a new report by Greenpeace India said on Wednesday. Greenpeace India made satellite observations in the eight most populous Indian cities to assess the NO2 levels over the past one year. The report has attributed the hike to city’s reliance on fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas and due to increased economic activity once the lockdown was lifted last year. NO2 is a dangerous air pollutant and exposure to it severely impacts people’s lungs, blood circulatory systems and brain. The report titled ‘Behind the Smokescreen’ revealed that despite lockdown 2.0, NO2 levels in Hyderabad have increased significantly. The city recorded the fourth highest rise in NO2 pollution levels in eight state capitals, after Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai. In Delhi, NO2 was higher by 125%, Chennai by 94%, Mumbai by 52%, Bengaluru by 90 %, Kolkata by 11%, Jaipur by 47 % and Lucknow by 32 % “The air quality levels are alarming. Motor vehicles and industries based on fossil fuel consumption are major drivers of NO2 pollution. People saw clean skies and breathed fresh air during the nationwide lockdown though it was an unintended consequence of the pandemic. Recovery from the pandemic must not come at the expense of a return to previous levels of air pollution,” said Avinash Chanchal, senior climate campaigner, Greenpeace India. In addition to vehicular emission, experts attribute the rise in NO2 levels to high usage of fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas. Increased economic activity is still largely coupled with toxic air pollution. “Part of this difference is attributable to changing weather conditions. After removing the effect of weather, there is still an increase of 38% which is attributed to an increase in emissions,” read the report. Earlier this year, the Centre for Science and Environment indicated that Telangana is among the top three states in the country, producing and procuring unclean coal-based power that is severely impacting the environment. As per the report, 73% of the power produced and procured by Telangana is unclean. “NO2 is much more dangerous than carbon dioxide. Neither the Central government nor the state governments have taken enough efforts to mitigate this issue. On one hand, they want to reduce the emissions but don’t want to stop using coal,” said Purushottam Reddy, well-known environmentalist. “While Telangana government promotes Haritha Haram, it’s attempt to extensively produce thermal power using coal only shows its dichotomy towards conserving the environment,” he added.

• Water Programme

7-member panel set up to monitor restoration of Delhi's water bodies

“We are continuously forcing the city’s land-owning agencies to take action and scientific plans for the restoration of water bodies. NEW DELHI: The Wetland Authority of the Delhi government has set up a seven-member technical committee, which will approve restoration plans and monitor efforts thereafter being undertaken by the different land-owning agencies to revitalise water bodies in the city. The agency has also formed a grievance committee, for which an order was issued last week, as per the Wetlands (Conservation and management) rules to look into complaints lodged by the general public and make recommendations for their redressal. K S Jayachandran, member secretary of the Wetland Authority of Delhi, said besides supervising restoration efforts, the committee would review brief documents and plans for the renewal of the water bodies so that they could be notified and conserved. “We are continuously forcing the city’s land-owning agencies to take action and scientific plans for the restoration of water bodies. We also need to review those plans by the concerned agencies because they are inexperienced and technically incompetent,” said Jayachandran, who is also special secretary of the environment and forests department. There are over 1,000 water bodies in the national capital under the jurisdiction of 20 different land-owning agencies such as the Delhi Development Authority, Public Work Department, and Central Public Work Department. “After the review, approval will be accorded to the action plan and brief documents prepared by the agencies. All the restoration efforts by the agency will be monitored. Based on the brief documents and scientific or ecological plans, we will prioritise the wetland which will be notified by the government. As it will become a legal body, nobody will be able to encroach on it,” said Jayachandran. Madhu Verma, chief economist at World Resources Institute in Delhi, has been appointed as the chairperson of the technical committee. Prof J K Garg, senior fellow (TERI University), Suresh Rohilla, senior director (Centre for Science and Environment), Man Singh, project director at Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Ritesh Kumar, director, Wetlands International South Asia and Pranay Lal of PM-STIAC are its members.

• Down To Earth

धरती की जलन शांत हो सकती है, अगर...

पर्यावरण दिवस आकर गुज़र गया और अपने पीछे यह तकलीफदेह चर्चा छोड़ गया कि कोरोना के प्रकोप से पृथ्वी के पर्यावरण ने पिछले साल जो चैन की सांस ली थी, वह इस साल नदारद है। हवाई में स्थित मौना-की ऑब्जर्वेट्री यूं तो ब्रह्मांड के ब्यौरे जुटाती रहती है लेकिन उसका एक काम हमारे वायुमंडल में हो रहे बदलावों का जायजा लेने का भी है। उसी ने जून के पहले हफ्ते में अपना यह प्रेक्षण जारी किया कि मई 2021 में जितनी कार्बन डायॉक्साइड हमारी हवा में मौजूद थी, उतनी बीते 41 लाख वर्षों में कभी नहीं रही। इस गैस का जितना बैर हमारे फेफड़ों से है, उससे कहीं ज्यादा धरती के भविष्य से है। एक ग्रीनहाउस गैस के रूप में ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग के लिए सबसे बड़ी जिम्मेदारी इसी की है। खासकर भारत पर ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग का कैसा असर हुआ है, इसका प्रामाणिक अध्ययन सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट ने पिछले हफ्ते प्रकाशित किया है, और वह काफी चिंताजनक है। इस सिलसिले में अकेली अच्छी बात यही है कि इस सदी के दो शुरुआती दशकों में ऐसी कई तकनीकें उभरी हैं, और दिनोंदिन सस्ती भी होती गई हैं, जिनके बल पर ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग को पीछे धकेला जा सकता है। खासकर अमेरिका में जोसफ बाइडन की सरकार आने के बाद से इन तकनीकों को आर्थिक बल मिला है और पर्यावरण के मामले में दुनिया का नजरिया आशावादी हुआ है। ऐसी सबसे बड़ी सहायता हवा से सीधे कार्बन डायॉक्साइड सोख लेने वाली टेक्नॉलजी को मिली है। इस दिशा में सक्रिय ज्यादातर कंपनियां वैज्ञानिकों और इंजीनियरों के शुरू किए गए स्टार्ट-अप्स हैं। उन्हें एक टन कार्बन डायॉक्साइड के अवशोषण पर टैक्स क्रेडिट के रूप में 50 डॉलर और इस अवशोषित गैस का कोई सकारात्मक उपयोग करने पर 35 डॉलर, यानी प्रति टन कुल 85 डॉलर मिल रहे हैं। इंटरनैशनल एनर्जी एजेंसी के अनुसार इस काम पर 135 से 345 डॉलर तक का प्रति टन खर्चा आता है। कंपनियों की कोशिश इसे घटाकर 100 डॉलर से नीचे लाने की है, हालांकि काम वे अभी सरकारों के बुलावे पर ही कर रही हैं। एक अध्ययन के मुताबिक पूरी दुनिया में कार्बन चूसने वाले ऐसे 17 कारखाने चल रहे हैं और कुछ शुरू होने की प्रक्रिया में हैं। हवा से खींची गई कार्बन डायॉक्साइड का सकारात्मक उपयोग कुछ कंपनियां कच्चा तेल बनाने में और कुछ कंक्रीट बनाने में कर रही हैं, हालांकि ज्यादातर इसे कैल्शियम कार्बोनेट में बदलकर पुरानी खदानों में भर देती हैं। अनुमान है कि इस टेक्नॉलजी पर भरपूर अमल की स्थिति में 4 करोड़ टन कार्बन हर साल वायुमंडल से बाहर किया जा सकेगा। लेकिन ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग को काबू में रखने के लिए सन 2050 तक 600 करोड़ टन कार्बन को बाहर का रास्ता दिखाना जरूरी है, जो इसकी क्षमता तो क्या कल्पना के लिए भी दूर की कौड़ी है। बड़े बदलाव का अकेला रास्ता रीन्यूएबल एनर्जी या अक्षय ऊर्जा का ही है, जिसमें पिछले पांच-सात वर्षों में तकनीक के स्तर पर क्रांतिकारी प्रगति देखने को मिली है। जल विद्युत को अक्षय ऊर्जा माना जाए या नहीं, इसे लेकर दुनिया में दुविधा है क्योंकि बड़े बांधों को पर्यावरण के लिए हानिकर माना जाता है। इसे एक तरफ रख दें तो सौर ऊर्जा, पवन ऊर्जा और ज्वार ऊर्जा, तीनों में लगभग हर रोज कोई न कोई नई खोज या उद्यमी प्रगति पढ़ने को मिलती है। खासकर चीनियों के इस क्षेत्र में कूद पड़ने से खोजों की रफ्तार बहुत बढ़ गई है। इसके अलावा ऑस्ट्रेलिया, अमेरिका, जर्मनी और इंग्लैंड में भी महत्वपूर्ण काम हो रहा है। इन स्रोतों से बनने वाली बिजली अब पारंपरिक थर्मल और हाइडेल पावर से भी सस्ती पड़ने लगी है, हालांकि इसमें कुछ योगदान सरकारी सहायता का भी है। नए ऊर्जा स्रोतों में सबसे बड़ा दायरा सोलर एनर्जी का है, जिसकी सबसे अच्छी बात छतों को पावरहाउस बना देने की है। इसकी अकेली बीमारी सोलर मॉड्यूल्स का भारी होना है, जिसके इलाज की कोशिश जारी है। यहां से दो रास्ते हाइड्रोजन इकॉनमी और बैट्री ट्रैक्शन के निकलते हैं। अपने इर्दगिर्द हम दो तरह से ऊर्जा का इस्तेमाल देखते हैं। एक वे सारे काम, जो बिजली से संपन्न हो जाते हैं। दूसरे वे, जिनमें टंकी में भरकर या पाइप से खींचकर डीजल, पेट्रोल, गैस या कोई और फ्यूल जलाना पड़ता है। सोलर, विंड या टाइडल पावर किसी नैशनल पावर ग्रिड से जुड़कर वहां के स्थापित बिजली ढांचे का हिस्सा बन जाती है। इससे कल-कारखाने चलाए जा सकते हैं, बिजली की घरेलू जरूरतें पूरी की जा सकती हैं और ट्रेनें भी चलाई जा सकती हैं, लेकिन सड़क पर चलने वाली गाड़ियों का धुआं नहीं घटाया जा सकता। हाइड्रोजन इकॉनमी और बैट्री ट्रैक्शन अक्षय ऊर्जा को इसी समस्या से जोड़ते हैं। एलन मस्क की कंपनी टेस्ला ने ऑस्ट्रेलिया में नैशनल पावर ग्रिड से दूर पड़ने वाले कुछ इलाकों में सोलर और विंड एनर्जी से चार्ज होने वाली विशाल बैट्रियां इंस्टाल करके बाकायदा छोटी पैरलल ग्रिड खड़ी कर दी है। हम इस कंपनी की पॉश बैट्री कारों के बारे में जानते हैं लेकिन कोरोना से ठीक पहले अमेरिका में इन कारों से ज्यादा चर्चा बैट्री से चलने वाले हैवी ड्यूटी ट्रकों की थी। इस सिलसिले में अगली लहर प्रदूषण रहित ईंधन के रूप में हाइड्रोजन की चलने वाली है, हालांकि अभी इसे बनाने में बहुत ज्यादा कार्बन डायॉक्साइ़ड निकलती है। दुनिया में सात करोड़ टन हाइड्रोजन का उत्पादन अभी होता है, जिसका ज्यादातर हिस्सा सऊदी अरब और कुछ अन्य तेल उत्पादक देशों में प्राकृतिक गैस और भाप की रासायनिक क्रिया से बनाया जाता है। इसे ग्रे हाइड्रोजन कहने का चलन है। लेकिन अगले कुछ सालों में हम सौर ऊर्जा के जरिये समुद्री पानी को औद्योगिक पैमाने पर हाइड्रोजन में बदलते देखेंगे। इस ग्रीन हाइड्रोजन को अपना फ्यूल बनाने वाली गाड़ियों के एग्जास्ट से सिर्फ भाप निकलेगी। एक बात तय है कि दुनिया में कार्बन उत्सर्जन से निपटने वाली टेक्नॉलजी मौजूद है और यह इतनी महंगी भी नहीं है कि लोगों के रोजी-रोजगार का हवाला देकर इससे नजरें चुराई जा सकें। सरकारों को समझ लेना चाहिए कि ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग को नियति के रूप में पेश करने के दिन अब लद चुके हैं। अगर वे कम प्रदूषण वाला रास्ता नहीं अपनातीं तो इसे उनका फैसला समझा जाएगा और देर-सवेर इसकी जवाबदेही उनपर आएगी। घरेलू मोर्चे पर लौटें तो जैसे-जैसे दुनिया के बाकी देश अपने लिए कार्बन न्यूट्रलिटी यानी शून्य कार्बन उत्सर्जन का लक्ष्य घोषित कर रहे हैं, वैसे-वैसे भारत पर भी इसके लिए दबाव बढ़ रहा है। ऐसा कोई लक्ष्य अभी तक भारत सरकार की ओर से घोषित नहीं किया गया है। लेकिन कार्बन उत्सर्जन में कटौती के वादे और सन 2030 तक 450 गीगावाट बिजली सिर्फ अक्षय ऊर्जा स्रोतों के जरिये हासिल करने के भारतीय संकल्प को पूरी दुनिया में काफी प्रशंसा प्राप्त हुई है। ध्यान रहे, अभी भारत की कुल बिजली उत्पादन क्षमता 382 गीगावाट है, जिससे ज्यादा का लक्ष्य इस दशक के अंतिम वर्ष में केवल अक्षय ऊर्जा के लिए रखा गया है। एक गीगावाट यानी 1000 मेगावाट और 1 मेगावाट यानी 1000 किलोवाट। हमारे घरों में आने वाली बिजली की इकाई किलोवाट-घंटा होती है। 1 यूनिट बिजली खर्च करने का अर्थ है 1 किलोवाट बिजली का एक घंटा इस्तेमाल। भारत में अक्षय ऊर्जा की मौजूदा क्षमता पर बात करें तो यह 95 गीगावाट के आसपास है। इसमें सौर ऊर्जा और पवन ऊर्जा की क्षमताएं लगभग बराबर, 40 फीसदी के इधर-उधर हैं जबकि थोड़ी बिजली चीनी मिलों में गन्ने की खोई और अन्य बायोमास से तथा लघु पनबिजली परियोजनाओं से बनाई जाती है। जाहिर है, अक्षय ऊर्जा स्रोतों से इनकी क्षमता के बराबर बिजली नहीं बनती। विंडमिल से यह तभी बनती है जब तेज हवा चल रही हो, जबकि सोलर सेल उजाला रहने तक ही काम करते हैं। वास्तविक बिजली के मामले में अक्षय ऊर्जा स्रोतों की 450 गीगावाट क्षमता खड़ी करने का अर्थ वैसा ही है जैसे चार-चार सौ मेगावाट के 50 यानी कुल 200 गीगावाट के कोयले वाले ताप बिजलीघर खड़े करना। सवाल यह है कि क्या भारत 2030 तक 450 गीगावाट की अक्षय ऊर्जा क्षमता विकसित कर पाएगा? प्रधानमंत्री ने 2015 के विश्व जलवायु सम्मेलन में जब यह घोषणा की थी तब इसके पहले चरण में 2022 तक यानी स्वतंत्रता प्राप्ति के 75वें वर्ष में 175 गीगावाट अक्षय ऊर्जा का लक्ष्य हासिल करने की बात भी कही थी। आंकड़ों से स्पष्ट है कि अभी, यानी 2021 के ऐन अधबीच में इस लक्ष्य से हम काफी पीछे हैं। कहा जा रहा है कि सब ठीक-ठाक रहा तो 2022 के अंत तक 110 गीगावाट की अक्षय ऊर्जा क्षमता हमारे पास जरूर होगी। लेकिन सब ठीक-ठाक कहां है? अक्षय ऊर्जा का असली महत्व इसी बात में है कि उसका स्वरूप विकेंद्रित हो। आम लोगों के हितों के साथ उसका कोई टकराव न हो और प्राकृतिक संसाधनों पर उसका दबाव ज्यादा न पड़े। इसको ध्यान में रखते हुए 2022 तक 40 गीगावाट बिजली छतों पर सौर पैनल लगाकर हासिल करने का लक्ष्य रखा गया था, जो अबतक एक चौथाई भी हासिल नहीं हो सका है। भारत की कुल अक्षय ऊर्जा क्षमता में 85 फीसदी हिस्सा सोलर और विंड एनर्जी का है। दोनों के ही उत्पादन पर दो-तीन बड़ी कंपनियों का कब्जा है, जो आत्मनिर्भरता के लक्ष्य को ताक पर रखकर हैवी इंपोर्ट मॉडल पर काम करती हैं। भूमध्य रेखा के पास पड़ने के कारण भारत में हवा ज्यादा नहीं चलती। लिहाजा पवन ऊर्जा के लिए यहां गुंजाइश कम है। अलबत्ता सौर ऊर्जा के लिए हमारे यहां काफी अच्छी संभावना है लेकिन इसकी 40 मेगावाट क्षमता एक किलोमीटर लंबा और इतना ही चौड़ा जमीन का टुकड़ा मांगती है, जिसमें एक मंझोला गांव अपनी खेती-बाड़ी समेत आराम से बस जाता है। चीनियों ने अपने विशाल रेगिस्तानी इलाकों के इस्तेमाल के लिए अक्षय ऊर्जा का दामन थामा तो अपनी पूरी सप्लाई लाइन डेवलप की। सौर ऊर्जा की जान पॉलीसिलिकॉन वेफर्स हैं, जिन्हें साफ रेत को 300 डिग्री गर्म किए गए नमक के तेजाब में धोने के बाद 1800 डिग्री सेल्सियस पर तपाकर हासिल किया जाता है। इसे बनाने वाली दुनिया की दस शीर्ष कंपनियों में पहले, तीसरे, चौथे, पांचवें, छठें, आठवें और दसवें नंबर पर चीनी कंपनियां ही हैं। इस सूची में दूसरे नंबर पर जर्मन, सातवें पर कोरियाई और नवें पर एक अमेरिकी कंपनी है। भारत में तो कोई कंपनी सिलिकॉन वेफर्स बनाने का जोखिम ही नहीं उठाती। सभी या तो चीन से सोलर सेल मंगाकर भारत में उनके मॉड्यूल तैयार करती हैं, या बहुत किया तो उधर से वेफर्स मंगा लिया और उससे सेल और मॉड्यूल बना डाले। अगर हम अक्षय ऊर्जा को भारत के भविष्य की तरह देख रहे हैं तो हमें नीचे से ऊपर तक इसके हर रूप की पूरी सप्लाई लाइन विकसित करनी चाहिए और इनके विकेंद्रित बिजनेस मॉडल को प्रमोट करना चाहिए। आवाज़ : रोहित उपाध्याय *ये लेखक के निजी विचार हैं

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

Noida, Gzb saw more ‘severe’ air days in 2021 than last year

Noida: The air quality of Noida and Ghaziabad has dropped several notches in the first half of 2021 compared to six months of last year. Both districts have seen a rise in the number of “severe” days, when the AQI has been more than 400.This sudden change in air quality levels has baffled officials because the source of pollution in the region has remained similar in both the time frames. Officials in the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) have insisted on a study on the changing pollution levels. Two pollution hotspots in Noida and Ghaziabad recorded a rise in “severe” AQI days in particular. They are the Sector 116 station in Noida, which covers areas that see heavy construction like Noida Extension and the 7X sectors, and the Loni station in Ghaziabad. While Loni had reported just two “severe” days in January last year, it rose to 10 for the same month in 2021. In fact, between January and June, the total number of “severe” days in Loni was only three for 2020 and 16 this year. Noida’s Sector 116 station had recorded three “severe” days in 2020 compared to eight in the first half of this year. AQI records for both these stations are patchy for 2019. “The local reasons for this spike have to be checked. The primary causes can be waste burning and improper management of construction waste. This year, there has been more traffic on the streets compared to last year, when the lockdown had begun early. But the causes for a large qualitative difference have to be investigated,” said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy and head of the air pollution wing at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Other stations in Ghaziabad, such as Indirapuram, have also shown a significant rise in “severe” AQI days. Indirapuram has recorded eight “severe” days this year compared to just three in 2020. Air quality expert Rekha Singh said, “Last year, we had reached an almost ideal air quality level because of a prolonged lockdown. The air had cleaned up fast. This year, it is not the same. What we can say is that the AQI in NCR is going back to what it was before the lockdown.” UPPCB members said they needed to investigate the reason behind the unstable air quality. “The source of pollution in Noida has not increased. But suddenly, we are getting to see spikes in AQI once in a while. We are investigating this. Overall, the AQI has been worse this year than the same period last year,” said Praveen Kumar, regional officer at UPPCB.

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

Dust, fuel combustion among Delhi’s chief summer pollutants, finds study

Instead of treating PM2.5 as one entity, the researchers of the study broke it down into several sub-categories -- organic aerosols, elements, black carbon, sulphates, nitrous oxides, chlorine and nitrates. Breaking down the suspended particulate matter of the size of 2.5 microns or PM2.5 — the primary air pollutant in Delhi — into three components, a new study by Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Kanpur has identified dust, solid fuel combustion, vehicular emissions, garbage burning and cooking as some the leading sources of pollution in the Capital during summer. The study titled ‘Realtime quantification and source apportionment of fine particulate matter including organics and Elements in Delhi during summertime’ will be released on Monday. HT has seen the report. This is the first real-time pollution source apportionment study in the capital. Experts say such studies are important to understand and identify the sources of pollution in a particular area and help authorities plan specific interventions in real-time. Instead of treating PM2.5 as one entity, the researchers broke it down into several sub-categories -- organic aerosols, elements, black carbon, sulphates, nitrous oxides, chlorine and nitrates. They said this helped in quantifying more accurately the proportion of each source in the total pollution mix. Professor SN Tripathi, head of department (civil engineering), IIT-Kanpur, and member of National Clean Air Programme, said highly advanced equipments were used for this study that helped the researchers not only understand the sources of pollution, their share, and even their location. “The technology used for this study has given us data every hour, which has helped us better understand the sources and how these are impacting Delhi’s air. We have also been able to identify more sources, such as cooking that were ignored in earlier source apportionment studies,” said Tripathi. The study showed that secondary oxidised pollution particles, which are formed as a result of pollutants reacting with the molecules in the atmosphere, had a share of 64% in the city’s organic aerosols (pollutants released from combustion of organic matter such as vehicular fumes, cooking etc), and 27% elements (metals particles suspended in the air emanating from power plant emissions, industrial waste burning, etc) during June and July. The study showed that three major factors contributed organic aerosols in Delhi’s air during summers--vehicular emissions had 12.3% share, solid fuel 16.2% and cooking, both in-house and in the open, released 7.3% of such aerosols. Elements or metals came mostly from dust (52.5%), emissions from power plants (16.2%), garbage burning and emissions from steel industries (10.7%), solid fuel combustion (10.5%), non-exhaust pollution from reasons such as road dust, industrial waste burning (1.5%) and emissions from metal processing industries (1.4%). “It was also found that the difference between the percentage composition of primary organic aerosols (from sources such as traffic, biomass burning and cooking) and secondary organic aerosols in the study was 28.4% as compared to only 4% in winters, indicating the dominance of secondary sources in summer,” the source apportionment study said. Scientists said that while government agencies and pollution monitoring bodies focus on air pollution in winters when Delhi faces a public health crisis each year, it was also important to understand how pollution sources change and act differently during summer months so that a holistic pollution control plan can be implemented for the region. In 2016, IIT-Kanpur conducted a similar source apportionment study for Delhi, giving a year-round analysis of sources contributing towards the city’s pollution levels. The study showed that during summer months, coal and fly ash (26-37%), soil and road dust (26-27%), secondary particles (10-15%), biomass burning (7-12%), vehicular emissions (6-9%) and municipal solid waste (7-8%) were the major sources of pollution in the city. As opposed to earlier source apportionment studies that have been conducted for Delhi, the recent one gives out a high-resolution, real time analysis that gives a more accurate understanding of sources, researchers said. The study has also marked the different areas from where pollutants come into the Capital to understand the share of pollution from local sources and sources located outside the city. For instance, the study highlighted that small and medium metal processing units located in Punjab, Haryana and Pakistan were contributing significantly to chlorine in Delhi’s PM 2.5 levels. Similarly, high contribution of crustal elements (such as aluminium, calcium, magnesium, potassium and iron) in PM 2.5 was seen during summer due to high intensity of dust storms blowing into the region from the deserts of Rajasthan. Tripathi said that this study should be seen in the context of earlier source apportionment studies to get a complete picture of Delhi’s pollution graph. He said this will help government agencies and policy makers to understand what mitigation steps have helped and what more needs to be done. “The idea is that we can’t do just one study of a region and be done with it. Data needs to be constantly updated with the use of latest technology. There are newer findings in this study that was never known before. With this policy makers will be able to better understand what was the scenario, have the pollution mitigation measures that were implemented based on earlier findings worked and what more needs to be done to fix the major pollution sources in the Capital,” Tripathi said. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director (research and advocacy), Centre for Science and Environment said that updated and real-time data on pollution contributors in Delhi were needed to formulate plans to tackle the sources. “If we know details of what are the pollutants, what is it’s contribution and from where they are coming in, out preparedness to plug this will be much better. Seasonal analysis is also necessary because meteorology plays a very important role in changing the pollution profile of a region,” Roychowdhury said.

• Climate Change and Green Economy

Opinion: Forests facing a double whammy

Deforestation and degradation of forests are a serious environmental challenge and threat to our planet Forests are considered the best solution for sequestering carbon and also act as a stabilising force for the climate by regulating ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, maintaining the carbon cycle and supporting livelihood. Acting two-fold in climate change, forests act as a cause and also a solution for greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation and forest degradation contribute to nearly half of the emission coming from the land sector and account for 25% of the global emissions. Deforestation and degradation of forests are a serious environmental challenge and threat to our planet, especially in developing countries that need to tackle the problem of poverty. Every year, nearly 18.7 million hectares (mha) of forests are destructed globally for various anthropogenic considerations, including developmental needs. As per one estimate, 5.7 million hectares of forest land in India have been used for non-forestry purposes since independence. Regenerative Capacity While nearly 75% of the forests are affected by grazing, another 10 mha is affected by encroachment. These increase the degradation of forests besides affecting their productivity and regenerative capacity. State of the World’s Forest Report 2020 estimates the loss of 420 million hectares of forest through conversion to other land uses since 1990, and 178 million hectares had decreased globally due to deforestation. The recently established origin of infectious zoonotic diseases like Covid-19 is also being linked to habitat loss due to degradation and deforestation. The global recognition of forests as the most suitable and effective weapon to fight climate change was acknowledged during 2005 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), followed by the creation of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), a collaborative programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in 2008. The REDD programme was followed by the Bonn Challenge, launched by Germany and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in 2011 for restoring 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded land by 2020 and 350 million hectares by 2030. The Paris Climate accord 2015 gave a big boost to forests when all countries’ committed to offsetting their carbon emissions from fossil fuel use and other sources by planting or protecting forests. The recent decision of the United Nations to declare 2021-30 as the UN decade on Ecosystem Restoration and targeting restoration of nearly 350 million hectares of degraded land by 2030 is also a step ahead to acknowledge the importance and role of forests. Under the Paris agreement, India has pledged to increase its forests by 95 million hectares by 2030 and committed to restoring 26 million hectares degraded land by 2030. Survival of Forests The most intriguing part of forest degradation is that while on one side, forest degradation and deforestation are responsible for climate change, on the other, the consequences of climate change also impair the growth and survival of existing forests and contribute to their degradation. Global warming not only makes forests difficult to adapt to but also exposes them to other calamities like floods, droughts, wildfires and insect damage. This gets further compounded by uncontrolled land-use changes, unsustainable exploitation, pollution and fragmentation of habitats. Further, 20-30% of plant and animal species will likely be at risk of extinction if there is an increase in global average temperature from 1.5 to 2.5 °C.. Forests also face the problem of depletion of water table due to unsustainable extraction of water and it gets aggravated by droughts and degraded conditions of the forest. Other repercussions of climate change are changes in the climatic, edaphic and environmental conditions, negatively affecting the survival and emergence of forests. Water scarcity not only encourages conditions to enhance the spread of fires but also decreases the resilience of groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Many Problems One of the notable approaches to address the problems of degradation and deforestation is the Nature-based Solutions (NBS) of IUCN. Defined as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, the NBS approach addresses societal challenges effectively and adaptively for human well-being and biodiversity benefits. Another approach to reverse deforestation and degradation is FLRM (Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism). Established by FAO in 2014, the FLRM includes actions to strengthen the resilience and ecological integrity of landscapes with the participation of local communities. Current strategies and initiatives, both at global and national levels, strongly advocate these approaches to counter the challenge of degradation of forests. Most of the initiatives to counter these challenges, especially climate change, have been so far limited to afforestation or tree planting as a mitigation alternative. However, a cursory evaluation of these programmes does not portray a very satisfactory picture mainly because of a lack of seriousness and enabling policy. There is also a shortage of financial support. Adequate provisions to take care of backward and forward linkages essential for the establishment or survival of these plantations too fall short. Similar is the fate of approaches meant to counter degradation like NBS and FLRM. In the absence of an effective policy initiative, enabling atmosphere with the required institutional and legal framework with assured financing provisions, the action plans or policy declarations are unable to yield desirable results. Though the mitigation measures for reducing emissions using forests are more economical than other mechanisms, one policy brief of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) estimates the cost to meet the REDD+ interventions between $17 billion and $28 billion per year to reduce global emissions from deforestation by 50% for developing countries. This makes it highly cost-sensitive and challenging to implement. Forests Integrated Approach There is no denial in the fact that degradation, biodiversity loss, pollution and other climate change-induced problems are not only environmental, but they are also social and economic problems. Climate change and degradation being closely interlinked with poverty also contribute to making a vicious circle for the environmental crisis, thereby posing a complex yet serious challenge, especially for developing countries, including India. This call for integrated and inclusive solutions with strong political will having pro-poor and gender-sensitive priorities, commitment, strong policy support, enabling institutional and committed finances. Only initiation and implementation of such mechanisms can help break the nexus between degradation and climate change for achieving effective and sustainable environmental results. In the absence of such timely initiatives and priorities, forests across the world will continue to face the double whammy of degradation and climate change and may reach a stage from where their restoration and rejuvenation may well become impossible.

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

लॉकडाउन से अस्थमा के मरीजों में आई कमी

कोरोना (Corona virus) के कारण जारी लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) से अस्थमा रोगियों को राहत मिलने की संभावना है. अप्रैल और मई में लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) के दौरान लोग सिर्फ जरूरी काम से ही घरों से बाहर निकले. घर से बाहर निकलने वाले ज्यादातर लोग मास्क लगा रहे थे. इस दौरान वाहनों की संख्या भी सड़कों पर कम हो गई थी. इसका फायदा अस्थमा के मरीजों को हुआ है. गाजियाबाद (Ghaziabad) जिला अस्पताल के वरिष्ठ जनरल फिजीशियन और एचओडी डा आरपी सिंह बताते हैं कि इस समय ओपीडी में पोस्ट कोविड मरीज, जिन्हें अस्थमा की परेशानी हो रही है, वे आ रहे हैं, लेकिन अस्थमा के सामान्य मरीजों में करीब 20 फीसद कमी आई है. गाजियाबाद (Ghaziabad) के स्वास्तिक मेडिकल सेंटर के वरिष्ठ फिजीशियन डॉ राहुल गुप्ता भी बताते हैं कि लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) से अस्थमा रोगियों को राहत मिली है, उनके यहां अस्थमा मरीजों में कमी आई है.विशेषज्ञों के अनुसार इस संबंध में कोई स्टडी तो अभी नहीं कराई गई है लेकिन कोरोना प्रोटोकॉल का पालन करने से अस्थमा के रोगियों में कमी आना संभव है. इसका प्रमुख कारण लगातार मास्क लगाना है, जिससे अस्थमा रोगियों को राहत मिली है. इसके अलावा लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) की वजह से लोग घरों से बाहर नहीं निकले हैं.साथ ही, सड़कों पर वाहनों की संख्या कम होने से भी पर्यावरण में भी सुधार हुआ है, यह भी अस्थमा रोगियों के लिए फायदेमंद साबित हुआ है. इसकी पुष्टि सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) ने की है. सीएसई के अनुसार इस साल दिल्ली में छह अप्रैल से रात का कर्फ्यू और वीकेंड में लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) लगाया गया था. 19 अप्रैल को पूर्ण लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) लगा था. आंशिक-लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) से पीएम 2.5 प्रदूषण स्तर 20 फीसद कम हो गया. पूर्ण लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) ने औसत को 12 फीसद और नीचे ला दिया था. इस तरह 32 फीसदी की कमी आई है. इसके अलावा अगर अस्थमा और टीबी के मरीज लगातार मास्क लगाकर रखें तो उससे दूसरों में बीमारी फैलने की आशंका कम रहती है. लॉकडाउन (Lockdown) के दौरान लोगों द्वारा बरती गई सावधानियों से अस्थमा मरीजों को लाभ हुआ है. ऐसे मरीजों की संख्या में कमी आई है. सोशल मीडिया (Media) में इससे संबंधित स्टडी को लेकर मैसेज चलाए जा रहे हैं. लेकिन एक्सपर्ट इस तरह की स्टडी से इंकार करते हैं.

• Industrial Pollution

Jairam Ramesh: India cannot phase out fossil fuels but can phase them down

The idea that a monoculture plantation can give you the same ecological value as a multi-species, natural forest, is a bogus idea. -- Jairam Ramesh was India’s environment minister for 26 months from 2009 to 2011. During this period he could attract attention to himself and his ministry with his public engagements and speaking orders. -- In this interview under ‘Mongabay Sessions’, Ramesh talks about his days as the minister, the tricky political decisions that he had to take, his fascination for Indira Gandhi’s environmental decision making, and options for India’s future energy policy. --To be an internationally-respected environment leader India has to take the right domestic policy decisions, states Ramesh. Mongabay: Welcome to Mongabay sessions. I have with me, Mr. Jairam Ramesh, India’s former Environment Minister and currently a Member of Parliament. Mr. Ramesh is an engineer and an economist and worked with the then Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh. Later when Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramesh was the Environment Minister from 2009 to 2011. He is currently the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Science, Technology, and Environment. A prolific writer, Mr. Ramesh authors a book almost every year. And currently, the latest one is called the Light of Asia. He has done two books on the environment. One is memoirs from the Ministry of Environment and Forests called Green Signals and the other one called Life in Nature, an environmental biography of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Welcome to Mongabay sessions, Mr. Ramesh. It’s a pleasure to have you with us. Mr. Ramesh, I don’t know whether you would remember. Nearly 30 years ago, in 1993, when the Hindu Business Line newspaper was starting, you had a session for the young journalists who had been recruited for the newspaper, which included me. You were talking to us about economic reforms, you were gung-ho about economic reforms, and you hardly talked about environment at that time. So, what happened? Was it a change of heart or as an economist you saw the economic value of conserving environment? Jairam Ramesh: It was a complete accident. It was as, you know, hand of destiny, in 2009, when I was made Environment Minister. I became an MP in 2004. In early 2006, I became the Minister of State for Commerce, then I was given additional responsibility for Power in 2008. So that was my career trajectory – economics, infrastructure. And when the Congress Party came back to power in 2009, I expected one of the economic ministries, which is what I had been working on for 25-30 years. So, it was completely out of the blue that the Prime Minister and the chairperson of the UPA, Mrs. Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, offered me the ministership of Environment and Forests. And initially, I was taken aback. Initially, I was a bit reluctant. I told the Prime Minister, “Sir, this is not my cup of tea, I mean, I’m not an environmentalist. And I’m not known to be an environmentalist and since the mid-80s, I’ve been working on economic issues. I’ve worked on international trade, I’ve worked on industry. I’ve worked on energy mostly.” The Prime Minister laughed, and he said, “No, no, no, you must go. Because climate change negotiations are going to be very crucial for India. And you have a background in the economy, you have a background in energy. And I’m sure that you will establish yourself in the environment ministry.” Initially [for a] couple of days, I was a little, like a fish out of water. I had environmentalist friends, I was part of the network. I knew a lot of people. I was closely associated, for example, with the Center for Science and Environment and various other organisations. But to be Minister of Environment and Forests was a completely different proposition. So, the first few days, I was feeling my way around. But very soon I settled down. I’ve held other portfolios after that, but even today, in 2021, when I go to different parts of India, I am introduced, some people still mistake me as the continuing Minister for Environment. And I am always introduced as former Minister of Environment, although I’ve done other things in my life, rural development, drinking water, the other economic ministries. And even abroad, I mean, whenever I go, people just refer to me as India’s former Minister for Environment. So, this is a post-2009 phenomenon, this avatar, I look upon it as an avatar. I did not have this ‘eco avatar’ before 2009. This avatar came only after 2009. And long after I left the environment ministry, people would continue to write to me, call me to speak. And, of course, two years ago, I became Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forests and Climate Change. And even in Parliament, whenever the issue of environment or climate comes up, even if I have not given my name, the Chairman asks me to speak. I’ve got branded so to speak. Mongabay: Actually, you were the environment minister only for 25 months, which is a rather small period. There have been Ministers who have had far longer stints, but you managed to attract attention to yourself, and also to the Ministry while you were there. Jairam Ramesh: Twenty-six, to be precise, because every month counted in that ministry, so to speak. Twenty-six months. Mongabay: I stand corrected. And it was actually a very interesting period at that time, 2009 to 2011. That’s the time when India was going through some kind of an economic renaissance. Globally, there was a recession, but we sort of came out of it in good shape. And also, that’s the time when the big climate change meeting was happening in Copenhagen. The world had so much faith in Copenhagen. So do you feel that you were, maybe reluctant, but you were the right person at the right time, during the Ministry? Jairam Ramesh: Well, there were two dimensions to this job. One was the international dimension, which was the repositioning of India, in global climate change negotiations. And the other one was the domestic dimension, which was the enforcement of laws, and to make sure that the laws and the regulations that we have for the protection of the environment are enforced. When I met the Prime Minister before I took over formally, I called on him, and this was on the 31st of May 2009. The first thing he told me was, as I mentioned to you, that India needs to be a much more constructive and much more proactive player in global climate change negotiations, number one. And number two, he said, “Look, we need to pay far greater attention to the environment, in industry, in transport, various other sectors.” I mean, that’s all he told me. So, I saw these as two interlinked priorities, the international dimension, which is repositioning India, in the global climate change negotiating forums, and the second of course was the domestic dimension, which is to enforce the laws. Now, I became controversial in both, but I believe that they were closely interrelated. You cannot claim leadership in international forums if your domestic record does not speak for itself. For example, one of the criticisms I have of the current government is that they speak in international forums, the language of environmental responsibility, but domestically, the actions are not giving the signal of environmental responsibility in any way. So, I think I didn’t come as a complete stranger to environment. I was aware of the environmental issues. I had been associated with people in the environmental field. As I mentioned, Centre for Science and Environment, Ashok Khosla, I knew very well, Dr. Pachauri was somebody whom I had worked with for almost 15 years in the energy field. Sunderlal Bahuguna and Chandi Prasad Bhatt, I knew. Madhav Gadgil was another person whom I had been in touch with, long before I became a Minister. So I knew these people. I knew the nature community, I knew the conservation community, but I didn’t see myself as a conservationist or as a champion of nature. I was a champion of economic reforms. I was, at that time, the champion of opening up the economy, the champion of science, technology, but environment was very, very far away, very far away. In fact, my wife was a greater environmentalist than me. She was far more sensitive to environmental issues, and my children are far more sensitive to environmental issues, particularly my older son. So, I came onto this pretty late. I’m a latecomer. But I saw this as an opportunity of doing the right thing. I mean, as Minister for Environment, my job is not to be the Minister of environmental clearances or the Minister of environmental approvals. My job is to protect the environment. I still remember in 1983, I still recall, this was, I think, December of 1983, when I was working in the energy sector, and I went with my Minister, Mr. K.C. Pant, to Kerala, and we met the Electricity Minister at that point of time. That was Mr. R. Balakrishna Pillai. Mr. Pillai was very, very angry. He was very angry that Indira Gandhi had stopped the Silent Valley Project. She had stopped it in October of 1983. And, Mr. Pillai, was so angry that he turned to Mr. Pant, and he said, “What Mr. Pant, this Prime Minister, she likes monkeys more than she likes Malayalis!” I still remember that phrase. So I knew about Silent Valley. M.P. Parameswaran, was a very close friend of mine. We had worked on other issues, education issues. So I knew what Silent Valley was. I knew about the Chipko Movement. But coming to the Ministry and becoming a Minister was a completely different proposition. Mongabay: Politically, how did you find space for yourself? Because the UPA was itself a bit of a yin and yang. You had the Prime Minister, focusing on economic growth and the Congress President, focusing more on equity-led legislation. So how did you find political space? Or you had no problem? Jairam Ramesh: It was very, very difficult. Every day was a battle. I was fighting my own Ministerial colleagues. I was fighting my own chief ministers very often. Yeah, it was difficult, but you had to stand up for what you believe is right. And my defense was that I’m doing nothing but enforcing the laws of the land. I mean, we have the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. We have the Water Pollution Control Act of 1974. We have the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. We have the Air Pollution Control Act of 1981. We have the Environmental Protection Act of 1986. And then finally, we had the Forest Rights Act of 2006. So my stand was, look, please tell me where I’m going beyond these six laws. Whatever is in the law books, I’m enforcing that, that’s all. That’s all I’m doing. I’m not inventing a new law. I am not adding to any new law. I’m not amending any law. Here are the laws passed by Parliament and I am going by the book. Now, many people were upset with this, because you see, environment in India, environmental approvals in India even today, are matters of fait accompli. They put up a project and they will come to government and say, “Oh, we forgot to get this clearance, but we have already invested 5,000 crores. We are already employing 1000 people and 800 people. So give us the clearance.” So this was the mentality over a period of time. This “Baad me dekha jaayega!” (“We will see to it later” in Hindi), this was the approach to environmental approvals. And remember, there are two approvals: there is an environmental approval under the Environment Protection Act. And there is a forest approval under the Forest Conservation Act. It’s not one consolidated approval, you need to get both. So, people would get environmental approval and start the project without forest approval. And then they will say we will set up a plant. There’s a very famous case, the Ruias, a joint venture between the Ruias and Kumar Mangalam Birla – the Mahan project. They set up a project, they put up a power plant. But they didn’t have a coal linkage, they had not got the clearance. Now, how can you do this? So I put a stop to it. There was a famous Lavasa project, which, built a whole Hill City, never got any clearances. There was a Vedanta project, which got a clearance for 1 million tonne and put up 6 million tonnes. Obviously pollution load from a 6 million tonne alumina refinery is going to be significantly different from a 1 million tonne alumina refinery. So the attitude of industry was, “Baadh me dekha jaayega! We’ll handle it when it comes.” It was fait accompli, so I said, “No fait accompli!” Whoever has done, whatever has happened – public sector, private sector, Congress government, BJP government, makes no difference. A law will be enforced, penalties will be imposed. And, if a project doesn’t have forest clearance, it will not start. As simple as that. Now, big business was upset, corporate India was upset. I remember the new international airport in Navi Mumbai. It involved loss of hundreds of acres of mangrove forests. It involved blasting a hill, it involved diversion of a river. And I said no environmental clearance unless these issues are addressed. And the project ultimately got redesigned. But Mr. Sharad Pawar was very upset with me. He was the Agriculture Minister. Mr. Praful Patel was the Civil Aviation Minister. They are very close friends of mine, they’re colleagues of mine and respect them, I work with them, I like them. But what to do? I was given a job, I have to do it. My job was not to clear it. My job was to ensure that the international airport subscribed to all the environmental rules and regulations. So, it was a daily fight. I left home every day at 8.15, I was in my office at 8.20. It’s a five-minute drive from my house. Every day at 8.15 I would leave, 8.20 maximum 8.25 I would reach my office. I would leave the office sharp, at 8 pm. So it was a 12-hour day. And I can tell you in that 12-hour day, it was 12 hours a day, six days a week. Sunday was the only day I never went to work but I worked out of the house. But 75 to 80% of the time was political negotiations; creating this political space. And for every bouquet I got, I would get a brickbat. And the same people who would give me bouquets in the morning, would give me brickbats in the evening. I’ll give you an example. When I issued some show cause notice to some hydel projects, which had not fulfilled their environmental conditions, Medha Patkar, and Sunita Narain, and all the great environmentalists hailed me [and] welcomed my decision. But that same evening or a day later, I gave the environmental clearance, a conditional environmental clearance to the Jaitapur nuclear power plant. And the same environmentalists went after me saying that, “How can you give the environmental clearance?” See, the point I’m making is that the environmentalists were not happy that I was not progressive enough, bold enough. The industrialists and the economists were very unhappy that I was enforcing the law. So the net result at the end of 26 months was that I pleased nobody. Take the Mullaiperiyar issue, for example, the issue; all I did was to give, the clearance for, environment and forest survey and my effigies were burned in Tamil Nadu, when I landed in Chennai airport, to see my in-laws, I saw my effigies burning and the TV channels were going after me. Or during Athirapally. I remember Mr. A.K. Balan, who was then the Power Minister of Kerala, he came to meet me and I said, “No, Mr. Balan. This is not on, I’m not going to do it.” And I explained to him and then the entire CPM guys came down on me. They protested to Mrs. Gandhi. Technically they were not part of UPA because, you know, the CPM was not part of UPA 2. But still they supported. I mean, they were good friends. It was not like UPA 1. But, the point is that, in this job, the Minister of Environment, who ends up having friends, has not done his job. Because it isn’t the nature of the Minister of Environment, to create enemies for himself. And in my book, I have described this as, this is a phrase that Henry Kissinger once used in the context of the Balkans. When there were international efforts to bring peace into erstwhile Yugoslavia, Henry Kissinger said that the solution can only achieve balanced dissatisfaction. It cannot achieve balanced satisfaction. So, Environment Minister will be successful if you achieve balanced dissatisfaction. I decided that the only way to meet this situation was to be completely transparent. Mongabay: And that’s what people sort of recognise you for. Jairam Ramesh: That’s the only weapon I have. It’s the only weapon I have. I don’t have a great political base. I’m not a mass leader. I am not a Lok Sabha MP or a Rajya Sabha MP. So, the only instrument I have is transparency. So I had glass doors, all my file notings were made public. All my decisions, speaking orders were made public. Any meetings I had, it was open. I never, never held anything back, right. I really believe that the instrument that I had was transparency. And there were people who criticised me. Fine, there were decisions that were taken. The National Green Tribunal, for example, long after I left, was critical of my decision to give clearance to some coal mines in Chhattisgarh. But they base their criticism on a speaking order that I had issued, which is put into the public domain, all the file notings and I told my officers, “Look, you don’t second guess me. You don’t second guess me, please put down what you believe.” So there are many places in the files where I agreed with the officials. There are many places where I disagreed. And where I disagreed, I was open. I said, “Look, this is why I disagreed.” And I think that’s the speaking orders, over 20 speaking orders. A large number of speaking orders. All the files were in the public domain. Nothing was held back. So ultimately I think if I survived those 26 months, it was because of transparency. Nothing else. Mongabay: I think people on both sides and people who, who criticised you and people who, who praised you and criticised and praised at the same time. I mean, they all sort of appreciate you for the fact that you brought discussions on these issues, these decisions were not taken, abruptly or pushed down people’s throats. But I wanted to ask you about one very specific speaking order on GM brinjal. The GM discussion, GM controversy had started in the mid-1990s. And it had sort of been there. And then it came to you. You came through the court order, but then at one level, you had a moratorium. And at the other level, you said, research should go on. I mean, which itself was a bit difficult, because of the moratorium, research was unlikely to go on. But more than that, weren’t you trying to push the ball, pass the buck? The decision had come to you. You were the last person to have taken the decision – the decision, still, is not there. Jairam Ramesh: My decision was made public. If I remember on the 10th of February 2010. Eleven years have passed by, but that decision has not been reversed. Eleven years have gone, successive governments have come and there have been many Environment Ministers. But nobody has revoked the decision. Now, what was my decision? My decision was that there should be a temporary moratorium. I didn’t use the word temporary. I use the word moratorium because a moratorium by its very nature is temporary. It’s not a ban. And my view was that you see, Mr. Warrier, I was a great supporter of Bt cotton. I wrote publicly in favour of Bt cotton, I publicly supported Bt cotton long before I became Environment Minister. But when the Bt brinjal issue came up, remember, it was a food crop. It was the first time we were called upon to decide on the food crop. So that was something that was at the back of my mind. And I found that no public consultation process had gone through. This was between the GEAC, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, and the developers, MICO. Hardly any public debate and hardly any public consultation. So I consulted a large number of scientists. I went to Chennai and spent four hours with Dr. Swaminathan – the Bhishma Pitamah of Indian agricultural research. And I learned a lot from him. I wrote to 50 scientists across the world, including in India. I got responses from them. I found that state governments had not been consulted, and I wrote to all the state governments for their views. I didn’t kick the ball. I’m sorry, I slightly disagree with you. I didn’t kick the ball. I just realised that the Europeans have a prohibitory approach on GM food crops, the Americans have a permissive approach. And India, the land of Buddha should always adopt the middle path. So neither permissive nor prohibitory, but precautionary. So, my approach was precautionary. What did I say? I said, let’s have a moratorium. The moratorium would get lifted, subject to three conditions. One, there is a consensus in the scientific community on what type of test protocol for safety, for efficacy, for health effects. And so number one, toxicity. Number two, state governments are brought on board. And number three, we set up an independent regulatory, professional regulatory body. And not this internal GEAC type of mechanism. Scientists talking amongst themselves. Now, and I expected that those three conditions would get fulfilled in a five-year time span, but eleven years have passed by. Incidentally, I must tell you the greatest supporters of my moratorium on Bt brinjal has been the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. They are the ones who were delighted. And they continue to be delighted by the fact that there was this moratorium. My moratorium was only on Bt brinjal. It was not a moratorium, it was not a ban on genetic engineering. And I said, trans-genetics, this transgene is only one form of biotechnology. And now of course, as you know, this transgene is becoming a thing of the past. You have things like CRISPR (a technology for editing genes), you have genetic editing and so on. It’s a completely different game altogether. In fact, I met, I mean, I have not mentioned it in my speaking order, because it was not right. But the Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, at that time was a great scientist called Dr. M. K. Bhan. You know Maharaj Bhan, unfortunately he passed away a few months ago. And I asked him to come and meet me, and please educate me. And he spoke to me for almost two hours. At the end of it, he said, “Sir, what you have done is the right thing. I can’t say it publicly, but you’ve done the right thing.” I said, “Please, I will, I will not utter a word on what you have told me…because I want to respect your position. But this is what he told me.” In fact, Dr. Swaminathan’s letter is reproduced in my speaking order, the reasons why we should be careful. And one of the reasons that he gives is, India as a centre for genetic biodiversity, and you don’t get into GM, for crops in which you are the centre for biodiversity. Mongabay: Another initiative you were recognised for was, was the CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) order, the transfer of CAMPA funds to the states. Right now, we have 530 billion rupees in that fund, but there are always complains about inadequate utilisation or problems with FRA (Forest Rights Act). Why do you think it’s happened? Is it is the design or is it the way it is implemented? Jairam Ramesh: I was against this whole idea of compensatory afforestation. And I said so to the Supreme Court. The idea that a monoculture plantation can give you the same ecological value as a multi-species, natural forest, is a bogus idea. We satisfy our conscience for the loss of forest cover, natural forest cover, by saying we will have compensatory afforestation. I have never believed in this compensatory afforestation. I said so to the Supreme Court. But I was a voice in the wilderness. So as long as there was this whole idea of compensatory afforestation, net present value and some forest areas had to be diverted for essential infrastructure. And that’s how this CAMPA, this whole compensatory afforestation management issue came up. And money got accumulated in the accounts. Money was not flowing back to the states. And it took me some time. I went to meet the Chief Justice and the (Late) Justice Kapadia; I explained to him and we were able to work out a solution and the first funds started flowing. But I was very clear in my mind that the gram sabhas have to play a very important role. That, it’s not a free ride, it’s not a free for all, for the foresters. Unfortunately, the way Parliament passed the CAMPA now in 2016, and the rules that got formulated thereafter, left a lot to be desired and many CAMPA projects are being implemented to the detriment of local communities, where the local communities are not involved. They are not involved in the process. They’re not involved in the choice. But fundamentally, I’m opposed to this idea of compensatory afforestation. But if the CAMPA funds are inevitable, and if they have to be used, I made it a point of saying that they must be used only for regeneration of natural forests. Because the survival rates in the afforestation program are very low. This has been our experience. It has also been our experience that when we have compensatory afforestation, we end up having Acacia afforestation or, Prosopis, or Eucalyptus, whatever. It’s not fine. We’re losing forest cover, Indian forest cover, we are not losing just the ground biomass, we are also losing soil, which is also a very important carbon sink. So ecologically, the two can never be equated. Unfortunately, we’ve equated the two and I think we are paying a price for it. Sooner we get out of the idea of compensatory afforestation, the better off we are frankly. Mongabay: I really enjoyed your second book on the environment, the ecological biography of Indira Gandhi. And actually, people like me, who are students… trying to understand modern environment history, we usually start our discussions from the Chipko Movement and then build beyond that, but you moved the front date to the mid-60s with that book. What motivated you to write that book? Jairam Ramesh: Well, before the Chipko Movement, the movement for protecting the Taj was very important. And that led incidentally, to the Air Pollution Control Laws of ’81. And before the Taj, there was the pollution in the river Ganga, chemical pollution in the river Ganga. Just about the time that Mrs. Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, became Prime Minister. It became a big issue in ’67 and ’68, particularly in Bihar. Well, I was long fascinated with Indira Gandhi. There are two images of Indira Gandhi in India. One is the Durga image, she is all-powerful, the only ‘man’ in her cabinet… the Durga, you know, who took the vested interests on and liberated Bangladesh, for example, stood up to Nixon, there was the Durga image. The other image, of course, is that she was the architect of the Emergency, that she imposed draconian laws which completely destroyed civil liberties. She went against Nehru’s very concept of party democracy, open democracy. But these are two images that we have of Indira Gandhi. But I found, this is part of my reading of political history, long before I became Environment Minister, I had been aware of the fact that she was extraordinarily sensitive to issues of nature. Salim Ali, for example, had a great influence on her since the early 50s. She got into environment through birdwatching. Nehru himself was a great naturalist. But when it came to the crunch, he would rather build a big dam rather than protect a national forest area. Indira was willing to put a halt to big dams. Nehru was not. Although Nehru was very sensitive to environmental issues himself. And a large part of Indira’s own sensitivity to nature and environment came from Nehru. But I don’t think that was the predominant influence. When push comes to shove and the choice has to be made, Nehru was very clear – we need these big large projects. So Indira, because of the Salim Ali influence, because of her spending a year at Shantiniketan, a very important influence on her life and thinking, Rabindranath Tagore and her friendship circle – her uncle, mother’s brother, he was a botanist, one of India’s leading botanists, called Kailash Nath Kaul, a herpetologist who kept pythons in his house as pets – this is how she grew up. Indira probably spent more time with him than her father, because her father was in and out of jail. And Indira also spent, I would say, a good part of her childhood and her youth in hill stations, because her mother was a patient of tuberculosis. She herself was a patient of pleurisy. So, she was in Almora, Nainital, Mussoorie, Ranikhet and finally Switzerland. So she was drawn to mountains, she was drawn to nature. And so she was a great environmentalist, a great naturalist. Of course, in 1972, next year, we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the first UN conference on the environment, where… she was the only leader other than Olof Palme, who had to be there because he was the host. The only visiting head of government to speak at the first UN conference in the environment was Indira Gandhi. And see what happened in Paris, in 2015. There were 90 Prime Ministers and presidents, more than 90, whereas the first time you had this conference in Stockholm, the only visiting Prime Minister you had was Indira Gandhi. Sure, her speech, even today, is considered to be a milestone in global environmental discussions. I had some time I had access to the Salim Ali papers, I had access to some other papers internationally. So I wrote this biography to bring out a dimension of a political personality. The preparations are going on for the war with Pakistan in 1971. And she’s having meetings with Salim Ali, Billy Arjan Singh, Zafar Futehally and others on the Wildlife Protection Act. She was having meetings on how to protect India’s wildlife, when, at the same time, preparations were going on for the war with Pakistan, which happened in December of ’71. And, of course, there were all the big national conservation programmes, the Project Lion, Project Tiger, Project Crocodile, the Project Gharial. These were all conservation programmes that had been started during her time. Olive ridley turtles, the movement to protect the olive ridley turtles off the coast of Odisha, for example. In India, there is no population of whales around India, but India became a member of the International Whaling Commission. Mrs. Gandhi was very concerned about the whole issue of whales. The Japanese were quite unhappy with her for India becoming a member of the International Whaling Commission because as you know Japan has always been against any form of control on the killing of whales. So, she was a remarkable personality, she made it a political issue. As I mentioned, the Wildlife Protection Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, the Forest Conservation Act, and the Air Pollution Control Act, the four acts, the Central Pollution Control Board, and of course, the Ministry of Environment, she set it up in November of 1980. And she was the first Minister for Environment, she was Minister of Environment until the day she was assassinated on the 31st of October 1984. So she walked the talk. I think that’s, she was, in a way, my role model when I was Environment Minister. In my view, she was India’s first and India’s last Prime Minister, to walk the talk. Every Prime Minister talks but she is the only one who walked the talk. And she had the courage of conviction. Silent Valley was a political decision. [State Congress] leader Karunakaran wanted the project. The CPM, Mr. Nayanar, wanted the project, the local MP who belonged to the Congress Party, V.S. Vijayaraghavan was a supporter of the project. But Mrs. Gandhi said no. On Tehri, for example, she took a very principled stand. She took a very principled stand on the Lalpur project in Gujarat. And she took a stand on wildlife issues, knowing full well that some of our own political colleagues, were running shikar (hunting) companies. The Shukla Brothers were running a tiger shikar company, as late as 1970-71. Tiger shooting is banned only after 1972. There is a moratorium in 1970. But it gets banned only in 1972. Mongabay: I’ll end with one last question, on your position as the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee. India is under pressure on net zero and energy transition, fossil fuel to renewable energy. What is the practical position on that – political positions are one rhetorical positions are another – but what do you think is the practical position on net zero? Jairam Ramesh: Net zero is really, in fact, in my view, is a misleading slogan. What does net zero mean? You’re putting in as much as you’re taking out, and we do not have the technologies for taking out today, physically. And India cannot phase out fossil fuels in the immediate future, India can phase down fossil fuels, but it cannot phase out with today’s energy storage technologies. We still need baseload electricity generating capacity. And that will come either from coal or from nuclear. Both have their limitations. It’s very easy to say that India will do this in the year 2050, you won’t be there, I won’t be there. The Prime Minister will not be there, nobody will be there. But we can say in 2050 we’ll do this. All these G7 Ministers, Presidents and Prime Ministers, none of them will be there in 2050. But they’re making commitments for 2050. So we can feel good. We’ve also made a commitment. The Chinese have made a commitment for 2060. Xi Jinping is now going to be around in 2060. So we can also make a commitment. But I think, it’s more responsible to say what are we going to do by 2025? What are we going to do by 2030? I mean, a 10 to the 15-year roadmap, is what we should be aiming at. And in my view, phase out fossil fuels is simply infeasible. And in my view, undesirable also in the Indian context, it has to be a phase down, and it has to be an accelerated phase down. And we will still need coal, we will still need nuclear, barring a major revolution in energy storage, the type, the revolution that we’ve had in mobile telephone, which has completely transformed the telephone industry, telecom industry. Hopefully, there’ll be some new energy storage device. But there may well be sectors where we may be completely fossil fuel-free. I mean, I can see a situation, I mean, I would welcome a situation where the Government of India announces that after the year 2035, no petrol or diesel driven vehicles will be manufactured or used. If that’s possible, you can have all-electric vehicles, by 2035, it’s a 15-year time horizon, but you still need the electricity for the all-electric vehicles. And that electricity cannot come only from solar, cannot come only from wind, it has to come from a basket of sources, which will include coal, which will include nuclear. In fact, I would argue that we need a much more aggressive nuclear programme. Right now, nuclear capacity, nuclear supply, nuclear sources account for only about three and a half percent of our electricity supply. I am saying that nuclear should account for at least 10%. But even if nuclear accounts for 5% or 6%, it will be a great achievement. But when I say something about nuclear, all the great environmentalists who are my great admirers, begin criticising me. Nuclear is, as I’ve often described, nuclear power is red drag to the green bull. If you are a green, you see red when you go nuclear, but I believe, from a carbon dioxide point of view, if you want net zero, you have to have investment in nuclear. Mongabay: But the nuclear sector has been growing very, very slowly, isn’t it? Jairam Ramesh: Very slowly. As I said, three and a half percent, it’s only about three and a half percent of supply. And even if we reach 5%, by the year 2035, that itself will be a stupendous achievement. And that’s what we should be doing. Mongabay: Last quick question, is there any other book on the environment in the pipeline? Jairam Ramesh: Not on the environment. I’ve just finished this book on the Buddha. That was a completely different book. Right now, I’m thinking of writing a biography of something to do with Indian science. [I am] working on a biography of Obaid Siddiqi, who was, in many ways, the founder of molecular biology in India. He set up the TIFR Institute for Molecular Biology. Then the NCBS, the National Center for Biological Sciences in Bangalore. So, I’m working something on science, but on the environment, no, not yet.

• Industrial Pollution

50% freshwater thermal plants fail norms: CSE

BATHINDA: India’s coal-fired power plants have been rampantly flouting the country’s water consumption norms dated 2015, said a new survey report released recently by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Water Inefficient Power, as the report is titled, says that even six years after water consumption norms came into force, the water-guzzling coal power industry is ignoring water regulations and a high degree of non-compliance has been observed in the sector. Counted among the most water-intensive industries in India, the coal power sector is responsible for about 70% of the total freshwater withdrawal by all industries in India. Indian power plants, with cooling towers, consume twice as much water as their global counterparts. According to the 2015 norms (revised in 2018), plants installed before January 1, 2017 were required to meet a specific water consumption limit of 3.5 cubic meters per MWh; plants installed after January 1, 2017 had to meet the norm of 3 cubic meters of water per MWh, apart from adopting zero liquid discharge. Additionally, all freshwater-based plants were required to install cooling towers and subsequently achieve the norm of 3.5 cubic meters of water per MWh. All sea waterbased plants were exempted from meeting the norms. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director, Industrial Pollution unit, CSE, said, “This is when many power producing regions of the country are facing acute water shortages. Also, there is huge water pollution due to the power plants’ effluent discharge.”

• Water Programme

Heiliges Bad in schmutzigem Wasser

Sie heißen Ganga, Yamuna oder Narmada: Indiens Flüsse tragen die Namen weiblicher Gottheiten. Aber trotz ihrer Heiligkeit sind die Gewässer hoffnungslos verschmutzt. Umweltinitiativen setzen sich für ihren Schutz ein. Über die Treppen des Yamuna-Ghat schallen die Gesänge eines Opferrituals. Ghats, das sind die Treppenzugänge zu den Flüssen. Hier im Herzen des alten Teils der indischen Hauptstadt Delhi führen 32 Ghats direkt ans Ufer der Yamuna. Vor dem Priester stehen verschiedene Ritualgegenstände, unter anderem ein kupferfarbenes Gefäß mit einer Kokosnuss darauf. Göttinnen als Mütter allen Lebens „In allen unseren Zeremonien rufen wir durch ein Wassergefäß die Gewässer aller heiligen Flüsse an“, erklärt Madhu Khanna, Religionshistorikerin an der Universität Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi. „Die Verehrung des Gefäßes symbolisiert die Gebärmutter des Kosmos, die das heilige Wasser enthält. Wir rufen die Flüsse herbei, in dem Gefäß zu verweilen, solange die Zeremonie andauert.“ Die Verkörperung des Göttlichen durch die Natur sei ein wichtiges Merkmal der indischen Religionen, sagt Khanna, ob in Steinen, Bäumen, Tieren oder den Elementen. Die alten Schriften – etwa der Rigveda oder das spätere Epos Mahabharata – würden die „Wasser des Lebens“ immer mit den Göttinnen verbinden: „Wasser erhält uns. Es heilt uns. Es reinigt uns. Und es hat die Kraft Leben zu erneuern. Deshalb wurden Flüsse als lebenserhaltende Mütter verehrt.“ Nur wenige Meter von dem Opferritual entfernt sitzt Rani mit ihrer Familie auf Matten, die auf dem Boden ausgebreitet sind. Die 65-Jährige erklärt, warum sie immer wieder das Ufer des Flusses Yamuna besucht: „Wir kommen hierher, weil wir die Yamuna verehren. Wir betrachten sie als Mutter. Wir können auch den Ganges besuchen, aber in Delhi haben wir die Yamuna. Ganges und Yamuna werden beide sehr verehrt. Bete sie an, bade in ihnen. Das ist gut. Baden hat eine positive Wirkung.“ Heiliger Fluss mit beißendem Geruch Die zierliche Frau zieht sich ihren Sari über den Kopf, bis tief in die Stirn. „Aber heute badet niemand mehr im Fluss“, sagt Rani, „wegen der Verschmutzung. Wir verehren Yamuna aus der Entfernung mit gefalteten Händen und baden dann an der Wasserpumpe. Als das Wasser noch sauber war, haben wir hier im Fluss gebadet.“ Wer die Treppen zum Wasser hinuntersteigt, versteht sofort, was Rani meint. Die Yamuna ist schwarz, und ihr stechender Geruch beißt sich in den Schleimhäuten fest. Sushmita Sengupta ist Wasser-Expertin im Center for Science and Environment, einer Denkfabrik für Umweltfragen. „Wenn man die Verschmutzungswerte überprüft, kommt dabei heraus, dass der Fluss dort, wo er durch Delhi fließt, tot ist“, sagt sie. „Der Fluss hat keinerlei Leben.“ Verschmutzt durch Abfälle einer Millionenstadt Die 22 Kilometer, die der Fluss durch Delhi fließt, machen nur zwei Prozent seiner gesamten Länge aus, erklärt Sengupta, aber auf dieser Strecke finden 80 Prozent der Verschmutzungen statt. Die Stadt Delhi mit ihren 20 Millionen Menschen zapft dem Strom gigantische Wassermassen ab. Haushalte und industrielle Betriebe nutzen es, verschmutzen es und leiten es – zur Hälfte völlig ungereinigt – zurück in den Fluss. „Für diese 22 Kilometer der Yamuna wurden bereits 450 Millionen Euro investiert“, sagt Sengupta. „Aber der Verschmutzungsgrad hat vom ersten zum zweiten Yamuna-Aktionsplan noch zugenommen.“ Ein paar hundert Meter flussaufwärts steht ein kleiner Tempel zu Ehren der Göttin Yamuna. Ihre Statue ist in einen gold-gelben Sari gehüllt, ihr Reittier ist eine Schildkröte, und in den Händen hält sie zwei Krüge. „Mutter Yamuna ist sehr bedeutungsvoll“, sagt Gauri Shankar Sharma, der Priester des Tempels. „Sie ist die Tocher der Sonne und die Schwester des Saturn. Der Fluss segnet uns. Während des Lockdowns ist in unserer Gegend niemand an Corona erkrankt.“ Vom Kultort einer Göttin zum Abwasserkanal Der Priester erklärt, dass es nur wenige Tempel zu Ehren von Yamuna gibt, weil der Fluss ja als ihre göttliche Verkörperung gilt. Wer sie verehren will, besucht seine Ufer. „Früher war das Wasser so sauber, dass alle reichen Ladenbesitzer vom Chandni Chowk zuerst hier gebadet haben und danach ihre Geschäfte öffneten“, sagt der Priester. „Aber jetzt ist das Wasser so schmutzig, dass kaum noch jemand kommt.“ Gauri Shankar Sharma, der Priester des Yamuna-Tempels in Delhi, trägt Vollbart, ein gelbes Poloshirt und ein rotes Tuch über der linken Schulter. (Deutschlandradio / Antje Stiebitz) Damals, erklärt Gauri Shankar Sharma, habe die Yamuna zu 95 Prozent aus Wasser und 5 Prozent Abwasser bestanden. Heute habe sich das Verhältnis umgekehrt. Solange die Abwasserkanäle nicht stillgelegt würden, gebe es keine saubere Yamuna. Der erste Yamuna-Aktionsplan startete im Jahr 1993. Die zweite Phase des Aktionsplans begann 2003 und dauert bis heute an. Warum zeigen die Pläne keine Wirkung? „Es wurde bereits ein ganzheitlicher Plan gemacht“, sagt die Wasser-Expertin Sushmita Sengupta. „Wir warten nur darauf, dass er umgesetzt wird.“ Woran liegt es, dass der bestehende Plan nicht umgesetzt wird? Es mangele an Wissen, antwortet die Wasser-Expertin. Rückbesinnung auf die Rechte der Natur Die Religionshistorikerin Madhu Khanna erklärt, dass Industrialisierung und Technologie einen katastrophalen Einfluss auf die Flüsse Indiens haben. Die moderne Ökonomie sei von einem anthropozentrischen Weltbild bestimmt und das sei verheerend: „Wir müssen akzeptieren, dass Mutter Natur genauso Rechte hat wie alle von uns. Die Menschen sind die Beschützer der uns umgebenden Naturkräfte.“ Die Natur, so Madhu Khanna, sei ein Geschenk der Götter an die Menschen gewesen. Deshalb müssten wir uns um sie kümmern und sollten uns vor ihr verbeugen. „Die Gottheit dieses oder des nächsten Jahrhunderts wird die Erde und die Natur sein“, sagt Khanna. Die toxischen Gewässer der Yamuna stehen im scharfen Widerspruch zu ihrer Göttlichkeit. Angesichts der erschöpften Selbstheilungskräfte und jahrzehntelanger erfolgloser Reinigungsprogramme scheint die Lage hoffnungslos. Die fließenden Göttinnen Indiens haben es allerdings verdient, endlich wieder als kostbare „Wasser des Lebens“ wahrgenommen und behandelt zu werden.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

Under-counting and under-representation of data dogs management of COVID-19 biomedical waste, says CSE assessment

... the infrastructure for managing this extremely hazardous waste is on the verge of collapse, finds a new assessment from Centre for Science and Environment ...