• Director General Office

Prestigious Edinburgh Medal awarded to Prof. Heidi Larson

Professor Heidi J. Larson, PhD, Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science and the Founding Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was presented with the prestigious Edinburgh Medal as part of Edinburgh Science Festival 2021. The Medal Address Ceremony will be broadcast on Sunday 4 July at 7pm on the Festival’s website: https://www.sciencefestival.co.uk/event-details/the-edinburgh-medal-2021 Professor Linda Bauld, Bruce and John Usher Professor of Public Health, Edinburgh University delivered the Oration and the Vote of Thanks at the Ceremony. The Edinburgh Medal is an award presented to women and men of science who are judged to have made a significant contribution to the understanding and wellbeing of humanity, previous recipients include Jane Goodall, Sunita Narain and David Attenborough. Prof. Larson said: “I am honoured to receive this year’s Edinburgh Medal. The Medal reflects not only a recognition of my scientific work, for which I am very grateful, but also an important acknowledgement of the challenging information and trust environment, which needs new approaches as we continually renew the relationship between science and society.” Prof. Linda Bauld said: “Vaccines save lives. History tells us that this is obvious, but the Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us. Professor Larson has been a champion for the role of social scientists in infectious disease response. Her research has helped us better understand how to build trust and address misinformation as we emerge from the current crisis. Amanda Tyndall, Creative and Festival Director at Edinburgh Science Festival said: “Vaccines are a vital part of our response to infectious diseases but global uncertainty and misinformation can hamper efforts to combat the challenges these diseases present. At a time like this the work of Prof. Larson and her Vaccine Confidence Project – approaching the issue with empathy and understanding, not condemnation – has never been more important and we are very proud she is receiving the 2021 Edinburgh Medal.” Edinburgh’s Lord Provost Frank Ross said: “The Edinburgh Medal is awarded to men and women of science and technology who have made significant contributions to humanity. This year vaccinations have come to the forefront of all our minds and it is entirely fitting that Prof Heidi Larson is the recipient of this year’s medal for her work as Founding Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project which evaluates and addresses vaccine hesitancy. “Prof Larson’s work is vital in recognising the importance of popular and widespread misunderstandings and providing guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential disruptions to roll out of vaccines. Congratulations Heidi.”

• Climate Change and Green Economy

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

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. Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests from May 2009 to July 2011, delivering the inaugural address at Stakeholders Consultation on the Convention on Biological Diversity, in New Delhi on May 23, 2011. Photo from Ministry of Environment and Forests/Wikimedia Commons. Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests from May 2009 to July 2011, delivering the inaugural address at Stakeholders Consultation on the Convention on Biological Diversity, in New Delhi on May 23, 2011. Photo from Ministry of Environment and Forests/Wikimedia Commons. 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. Representational image of a eucalyptus plantations. Jairam Ramesh: "I was against this whole idea of compensatory afforestation... The idea that a monoculture plantation can give you the same ecological value as a multi-species, natural forest, is a bogus idea." Photo by Representational image of eucalyptus plantations. Jairam Ramesh: “I was against this whole idea of compensatory afforestation… The idea that a monoculture plantation can give you the same ecological value as a multi-species, natural forest, is a bogus idea.” Photo by Anand.osuri/Wikimedia Commons. 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. Read more: Silent Valley – A controversy that focused global attention on a rainforest 40 years ago. 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. A coal mine in Jharkhand. Jairam Ramesh: "In my view, phasing 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." Photo by Rakesh Ranjan. A coal mine in Jharkhand. Jairam Ramesh: “In my view, phasing 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.” Photo by Rakesh Ranjan. 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.

• Solid Waste Management and Circular Economy

Mismanagement of Covid-19 waste can help virus sneak through backdoor, finds study

Experts have warned that authorities should be careful with the handling of the mountain of Covid-generated biowaste that has piled up since the pandemic began. India is sitting on the potential powder keg of a serious infection spread. While the lengthening of the Covid-19 pandemic has spiked the country’s generation of biomedical waste, infrastructure for its management is on the verge of collapse, finds a new assessment by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). The statistics tell the tale. Almost 20% of the biomedical waste India generates on any given day since the pandemic began is Covid-19-related, says data collected by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) using the COVID19BWM app, designed to keep track of the waste generated due to the pandemic. Doubtful data But even this hefty percentage might be an under-representation, warns the study. Atin Biswas, programme director, Solid Waste Management unit at CSE, says “While the Covid-19 caseload has increased by a massive 234% between the first and second waves of the pandemic, Covid-19 biomedical waste generation went up by only 11%. The CPCB attributes this mismatch to better segregation of the waste, but our research points clearly to under-representation.” Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh, deputy programme manager of CSE’s Solid Waste Management unit, adds, “The challenge is to monitor the flow of Covid-19 waste. This waste has innumerable sources ranging from individual households to isolation centres and makeshift quarantine camps. Even though the Supreme Court made reporting through COVID19BWM app mandatory in July 2020, till December 2020, only 184 of the country’s 198 biomedical waste treatment facilities were updating their waste handling data on the app. By May, the number had dropped to 168.” The report finds waste generators fare even worse on this account. In November 2020, 1,00,000 waste generators shared their information on the app. But in May 2021, when India accounted for almost half of the world’s new Covid-19 cases, only 5,084 generators had shared their data on the app. “Such gross under-counting and under-reporting on Covid-19 is a matter of concern, especially because of the changing geography of the infection from urban to rural areas, where mechanisms to track patients in real-time are almost nonexistent,” says Biswas. Inadequate infrastructure India has a biomedical waste treatment capacity of 826 tonnes per day, as per the CPCB. The assessment says this capacity is highly inadequate to handle a surge in Covid-19 cases, as was witnessed in September 2020 or May 2021. During the pandemic’s second wave, 22 of India’s 35 states and Union Territories generated more biomedical waste than they could handle. In May 2021, when India recorded the maximum number of new cases, Covid-19 accounted for 33% of the biomedical waste generated across the country. This seems to have particularly overwhelmed an already-strained biomedical waste treatment infrastructure, notes the study. The volumes were particularly high in Haryana (where Covid-19 waste made up 47% of the total biomedical waste), Chhattisgarh (42%), Himachal Pradesh (40%), Andhra Pradesh (40%) and Delhi (39%). Vaccination blues The massive vaccination drive that has been undertaken in India will add to the biomedical waste burden. “Every vaccine generates one waste syringe and needle and every 10-20 vaccinations generate one waste glass vial. They are biomedical waste that need to be disposed of carefully,” says Singh. By the conclusion of the vaccination drive, which the Centre hopes to reach by the end of this year, the country would have generated over 1.3 billion used syringes and needles and more than 100 million discarded glass vials. “Do we have the capacity to deal with this huge mountain of Covid waste, which is going to descend on us very soon?” asks Singh. Cleaning up our act The assessment offers a few recommendations to correct the situation intensifying awareness among citizens to enforce segregation at source, ensuring registration of all waste generators and processors on the COVID19BMW app, limiting the use of PPE kits and other single-use paraphernalia to frontline workers only, and paying more attention to the rural hinterland where the virus has begun its depredation, among other things. advertisement Biswas further adds, “While we are focused on prevention through measures like social distancing, use of masks, hand-washing and vaccination, we must not leave the backdoor ajar for the virus to spread through waste.”

• DTE - Web

No Respite as North India Continues to Reel under Heatwaves

The IMD said the heat wave conditions are likely to decrease in intensity and area coverage due to the expected southwesterly winds from the Arabian Sea. New Delhi: Due to dry westerly or southwesterly winds from Pakistan to northwest India at lower levels, heat wave conditions in some pockets over the northern plains, including Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh and Delhi, north Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and northwest Madhya Pradesh, are likely during the next two days, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) has said. It said heat wave to severe heat wave conditions were observed in isolated places over Jammu on Wednesday. Severe heat wave conditions were observed at isolated places over northeast Rajasthan as well, it said. The IMD further said the heat wave conditions are likely to decrease in intensity and area coverage due to the expected southwesterly winds from the Arabian Sea. “However, due to an increase in the humidity in association with these winds, the human discomfort will continue during the next seven days,” IMD director general Mrutyunjay Mohapatra told PTI. For the plains, a “heatwave” is declared when the maximum temperature is more than 40°C, and at least 4.5 notches above normal. On Thursday, Delhi recorded a maximum temperature of 43.1°C, the highest in July since 2012, with the IMD saying there is “no chance” of monsoon reaching the city till July 7. After that, the region will witness below-normal rainfall till the middle of this month. The last time monsoon arrived so late in Delhi was in 2012. Normally, monsoon reaches Delhi by June 27 and covers the entire country by July 8. The national capital had recorded a maximum of 43.5°C on July 2, 2012. The monitoring station at Mungeshpur recorded a maximum temperature of 45.2°C, the highest in the city on Thursday and eight notches above normal. A severe heatwave baked Lodhi Road (43°C), Ridge (43.9°C), Narela (43.4°C), Najafgarh (44°C) and Pitampura (44.3°C), where the maximum temperature was at least seven degrees Celsius above normal. In the hill stations, Solan in Himachal Pradesh has recorded a high of 35.5°C, whereas Thoise, located in Ladakh’s Nubra Valley, has recorded a maximum temperature of 31°C degrees Celsius, according to IMD data. The southwest monsoon has covered the entire country but has eluded Haryana, Delhi, parts of Punjab, west Rajasthan and west Uttar Pradesh. Looking at heatwaves from a disaster perspective According to IndiaSpend, heatwaves killed about 6,167 people in India over eight years to 2018, of which, 2,081 deaths, or 34% of the deaths, were in 2015 alone, when an intense series of fifth-deadliest heatwaves on record swept across India. However, these numbers may be unreliable because only deaths due to heat exhaustion, heat cramps and heat strokes are recorded. A heat stroke occurs when the body is unable to control its temperature. This condition can cause death or even permanent disability. Besides, higher temperature can also lead to respiratory problems as they contribute to the build-up of harmful air pollutants. Despite being the third-biggest natural cause of death in the country, heatwaves have still not been declared as a natural disaster. According to Statista, two people died of heatwaves in India in 2020 as compared to 498 in 2019. The year 2013 witnessed the second-highest number of deaths due to heatwaves at 1,433. Peak power demand According to NDTV, Punjab’s peak power demand touched a whopping 14,500 megawatt (MW) so far. Due to extreme heat amid power shortage, chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh has ordered to cut short work hours in state government offices from Friday till July 10. He also said that the agriculture sector needed to be prioritised for uninterrupted power supply, as farmers were losing paddy transplantation time due to power breakdowns. According to Hindustan Times, Delhi’s peak power demand on Thursday crossed the 7,000MW mark – the highest in the last two years. Officials in the power department told the daily that the demand may further go up to 7,400 MW, if the ongoing heatwave in the city continues. According to an analysis by Centre for Science and Environment, 33.6% of Delhi’s total power needs come from coal-based thermal power plants that do not meet emission norms under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, DownToEarth had reported last year. Overall, of India’s installed power generation capacity of 382.15 gigawatt (GW), the coal fuelled projects account for 53% or 202.67 GW.

• Climate Change and Green Economy

जयराम रमेशः अर्थशास्त्री से पर्यावरणविद् बनने की यात्रा

देश के पूर्व पर्यावरण मंत्री जयराम रमेश मूल रूप से अर्थशास्त्री हैं, लेकिन यूनाईटेड प्रोग्रेसिव अलायंस (यूपीए)-2 में पर्यावरण मंत्रालय संभालने के बाद से उन्हें एक नई पहचान मिली। मोंगाबे के साथ साक्षात्कार में उन्होंने पर्यावरण मंत्रालय मिलने की कहानी साझा की। उन्होंने इस दौरान रोजाना के काम में आई चुनौतियों का भी जिक्र किया। नेट जीरो के लक्ष्य को लेकर जयराम रमेश का मानना है कि यह एक जुमला है। उन्होंने कहा कि वर्ष 2050 में हम क्या हासिल करेंगे, इससे बेहतर हो कि हम अगले 10 से 15 साल की अपनी कार्ययोजना तय करें। भारत के पूर्व पर्यावरण मंत्री जयराम रमेश से मोंगाबे-इंडिया के मैनेजिंग एडिटर एस गोपीकृष्णा वारियर ने बातचीत की। पेश है इस बातचीत के प्रमुख अंश। मोंगाबेः आज हमारे साथ हैं सांसद और देश के पूर्व पर्यावरण मंत्री जयराम रमेश। जयराम रमेश एक इंजीनियर और अर्थशास्त्री भी हैं जिन्होंने तत्कालीन वित्त मंत्री मनमोहन सिंह के साथ काम किया है। बाद में जब मनमोहन सिंह प्रधानमंत्री बने तब रमेश को वर्ष 2009 से 2011 तक पर्यावरण मंत्रालय संभालने की जिम्मेदारी मिली। रमेश फिलहाल विज्ञान, तकनीक और पर्यावरण पर बनी संसदीय समिती के अध्यक्ष भी हैं। उन्होंने हाल में लाइट ऑफ एशिया नामक किताब प्रकाशित की है। पर्यावरण मंत्री रहते हुए उन्होंने अपने संस्मरण को ‘ग्रीन सिग्नल’ नामक किताब में संजोया है। उनकी एक और किताब ‘लाइफ इन नेचर’ पूर्व प्रधानमंत्री इंदिरा गांधी की पर्यावरण संबंधी जीवनी पर आधारित है। मोंगाबे के इस सत्र में रमेश आपका स्वागत है। रमेश मुझे नहीं पता कि आपको याद होगा या नहीं। तकरीबन 30 वर्ष पहले, 1993 में जब हिन्दू बिजनस लाइन अखबार शुरू हो रहा था, तब आप युवा पत्रकारों के साथ एक सत्र में शामिल हुए थे। उन युवा पत्रकारों में मैं भी शामिल था। आपने आर्थिक सुधारों की बात की थी। आप आर्थिक सुधारों के बारे में उत्साहित थे और आपने उस वक्त शायद ही पर्यावरण की बात की हो। तो ऐसा क्या हुआ? क्या आपने एक अर्थशास्त्री के तौर पर अपना मन बदल लिया जब आपने पर्यावरण संरक्षण के आर्थिक महत्व को देखा? जयराम रमेशः यह पूरी तरह से एक हादसा था। आप जानते हैं 2009 में मुझे पर्यावरण मंत्री बनाया गया। इसे मैं नियति का खेल मानता हूं। मैं 2004 में सांसद बना था। वर्ष 2006 में मुझे वाणिज्य राज्य मंत्री बनाया गया था, और 2008 में मुझे ऊर्जा का अतिरिक्त प्रभार मिला। मैं अपने करियर के मुताबिक ही बढ़ रहा था जो कहीं न कहीं अर्थशास्त्र और आधारभूत ढांचे के विकास के इर्द-गिर्द ही था। जब कांग्रेस पार्टी 2009 में सत्ता में वापस आई तो मैं वित्त मंत्रालय पाने की उम्मीद में था। यही काम मैं पिछले पच्चीस-तीस साल से कर रहा था। मुझे पर्यावरण मंत्रालय संभालने का अप्रत्याशित प्रस्ताव यूपीए की अध्यक्ष सोनिया गांधी ने दिया। शुरुआत में तो मैं झिझका। इस प्रस्ताव को लेकर मेरे मन में एक अनिच्छा सी थी। मैंने प्रधानमंत्री से कहा, “सर यह काम मेरे लिए नहीं है। मैं कोई पर्यावरणविद् नहीं हूं। मध्य 80 के दशक से ही मुझे कोई पर्यावरणविद् के तौर पर तो नहीं जानता, मैं आर्थिक मुद्दों पर काम करता आया हूं। मैंने अंतरराष्ट्रीय व्यापार पर काम किया है। मैंने अधिकतर काम उद्योग और ऊर्जा क्षेत्र में किया है।” मेरी बात पर प्रधानमंत्री हंस पढ़े। बोले, “नहीं, नहीं। आपको यह जिम्मेदारी लेनी ही चाहिए। जलवायु परिवर्तन को लेकर होने वाले समझौते भारत के लिए काफी अहम होने वाले हैं। आपकी पृष्ठभूमि आर्थिक है और ऊर्जा से भी आपका नाता है। मुझे भरोसा है कि आप पर्यावरण मंत्रालय में खुद को स्थापित कर लेंगे।” शुरुआत में कुछ दिनों के लिए मैं पानी बिन मछली जैसा हो गया था। मेरे कुछ पर्यावरणविद् दोस्त थे, मैं उनके नेटवर्क का हिस्सा भी था। मैं कई लोगों को जानता था। मैं कई संस्थाओं से नजदीक से जुड़ा था, उदाहरण के लिए सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट और दूसरे संस्थान। लेकिन पर्यावरण मंत्री होना एकदम ही अलग है। जल्दी ही मैंने इस काम को समझ लिया। आज भी साल 2021 में लोग मुझे पर्यावरण मंत्री समझ लेते हैं। मेरा परिचय हमेशा एक पूर्व पर्यावरण मंत्री के तौर पर दिया जाता है, जबकि मैंने ग्राम विकास, पेयजल और दूसरे आर्थिक मंत्रालय संभाले हैं। मैं समझता हूं कि यह मेरा 2009 के बाद वाला स्वरूप है। पर्यावरण मंत्रालय छोड़ने के बाद भी लोग मुझे लिखते हैं, कहीं बोलने के लिए बुलाते हैं। इसी तरह सांसद के तौर पर पर्यावरण, वन और जलवायु परिवर्तन पर बनी संसदीय समिती का अध्यक्ष भी बन गया। संसद में भी जब भी कोई पर्यावरण या जलवायु परिवर्तन से संबंधित मामला सामने आता है, सभापति मुझे बोलने के लिए आमंत्रित कर देते हैं। तत्कालीन केंद्रीय पर्यावरण और वन राज्य मंत्री, जयराम रमेश ने 31 अगस्त, 2010 को नई दिल्ली में भारत में हाथियों के भविष्य को सुरक्षित करने पर "गजः" नामक पुस्तक का विमोचन किया। तस्वीर- पब्लिक रिसोर्स डॉट ऑर्ग/फ्लिकर तत्कालीन केंद्रीय पर्यावरण और वन राज्य मंत्री, जयराम रमेश ने 31 अगस्त, 2010 को नई दिल्ली में भारत में हाथियों के भविष्य को सुरक्षित करने पर “गजः” नामक पुस्तक का विमोचन किया। तस्वीर– पब्लिक रिसोर्स डॉट ऑर्ग/फ्लिकर मोंगाबेः दरअसल, आप मात्र 25 महीनों के लिए पर्यावरण मंत्री के पद पर थे। देखा जाए तो यह काफी छोटा समय है। आपसे पहले कई मंत्रियों ने इससे अधिक समय तक इस पद को संभाला है। पर उनके मुकाबले आप अपने इस छोटे कार्यकाल में ही अपनी ओर ध्यान आकर्षित करने में कामयाब रहे। पर्यावरण के लिहाज से वह काफी रोचक समय था। इसी समय देश में अर्थव्यवस्था बदल रही थी। वैश्विक स्तर पर मंदी थी लेकिन भारत ने खुद को संभाले रखा था। कोपनहेगन में इसी समय एक बड़ी जलवायु परिवर्तन की बैठक चल रही थी। आपको नहीं लगता कि इच्छा न होने के बावजूद उस पद के लिए उस समय आप सही व्यक्ति थे? जयराम रमेशः इस काम के दो आयाम हैं, एक अंतरराष्ट्रीय और दूसरा राष्ट्रीय। एक तरफ वैश्विक स्तर पर भारत की स्थिति देखनी थी और दूसरी तरफ देश के भीतर पर्यावरण कानूनों को लागू कराना था। मैंने पद संभालने से पहले प्रधानमंत्री से 31 मई 2009 को मुलाकात की। जो पहली बात उन्होंने कही वह भारत को वैश्विक स्तर पर जलवायु परिवर्तन को लेकर चल रहे वार्ताओं में सक्रिय भूमिका को लेकर थी। उन्होंने दूसरी बात पर्यावरण के मुद्दे पर उद्योग और परिवहन मंत्रालयों से अधिक ध्यान देने को लेकर कही। उन्होंने कहा कि दोनों ही मामले एक दूसरे से जुड़े हैं। आप वैश्विक मंच पर लीडर की भूमिका नहीं निभा सकते अगर घरेलू स्तर पर आपकी प्रतिबद्धता नहीं झलकती। उदाहरण के लिए मैं वर्तमान सरकार की आलोचना भी इसी मुद्दे पर करता हूं। वैश्विक स्तर पर तो वह पर्यावरण के प्रति अपनी जिम्मेदारी जाहिर करते हैं, लेकिन घरेलू नीतियों में उनकी वह प्रतिबद्धता नहीं झलकती। मैंने जैसा पहले भी कहा कि पर्यावरण के विषय को लेकर मैं पूरी तरह अनभिज्ञ्य नहीं था। अशोक खोसला को मैं अच्छे से जानता था, डॉ पचौरी (डॉ. आरके पचौरी, टेरी) के साथ मैंने ऊर्जा पर करीब-करीब 15 वर्षों तक काम किया था। सुंदरलाल बहुगुणा, माधव गाडगिल और चंडी प्रसाद भट्ट को मैं मंत्री बनने के पहले से जानता था। और पढ़ेंः [श्रद्धांजलि] सुन्दरलाल बहुगुणा: भारतीय पर्यावरणवाद के एक युग का अंत मैं प्रकृति और संरक्षण से जुड़े लोगों के भले ही करीब था, लेकिन खुद को पर्यावरण का जानकार न मानते हुए अर्थशास्त्र का जानकार ही मानता रहा। बल्कि मेरी पत्नी एक महान पर्यावरणविद् थी। वह पर्यावरण के मुद्दों पर मेरे मुकाबले कहीं अधिक संवेदनशील थीं। मेरे बड़े पुत्र भी इन मामलों में काफी संवेदनशील हैं। मैं इस तरफ काफी देरी से आया। हालांकि, मैंने पाया कि इस पद पर रहते हुए काफी कुछ अच्छा किया जा सकता है। मेरी जिम्मेदारी प्रोजेक्ट्स पर पर्यावरणीय अनुमति दिलाने की नहीं थी, बल्कि पर्यावरण बचाने की थी। मुझे आज भी 1983 की वह घटना याद आती है, मेरे ख्याल से दिसंबर 1983 की बात होगी। मैं उस समय ऊर्जा क्षेत्र में काम कर रहा था। एकबार अपने मंत्री केसी पंत के साथ केरल के तत्कालीन ऊर्जा मंत्री आर बालाकृष्णा पिल्लई से मिलने गया। उस समय बालाकृष्ण पिल्लई काफी गुस्से में थे। इंदिरा गांधी ने साइलेंट वैली प्रोजेक्ट को रोक दिया था। पिल्लई ने गुस्से में पंत से कहा कि इस प्रधानमंत्री को मलयाली लोगों से अधिक बंदरों की फिक्र है। मैं साइलेंट वैली को एमपी परमेश्वरण की वजह से जानता था। वे मेरे परम मित्र थे। मुझे चिपको आंदोलन के बारे में भी पता था। मैंने पहले भी कहा कि मंत्रालय संभालना इन सबसे अलग काम था। मई 2009 से जुलाई 2011 तक पर्यावरण मंत्री रहे जयराम रमेश दिल्ली में जैव-विविधता को लेकर आयोजित एक कार्यक्रम में उद्घाटन भाषण देते हुए। तस्वीर- पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय/विकिमीडिया कॉमन्स। मई 2009 से जुलाई 2011 तक पर्यावरण मंत्री रहे जयराम रमेश दिल्ली में जैव-विविधता को लेकर आयोजित एक कार्यक्रम में उद्घाटन भाषण देते हुए। तस्वीर– पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय/विकिमीडिया कॉमन्स। मोंगाबेः राजनीतिक तौर पर आपने अपने लिए जगह कैसे तलाशी? क्योंकि, यूपीए में एक तरह की खींचतान थी। प्रधानमंत्री आर्थिक विकास की ओर ध्यान दे रहे थे तो कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष न्यायसंगत सरकार चलाने की ओर। क्या आपको कोई दिक्कत नहीं हुई? जयराम रमेशः काफी मुश्किलें आई। हर दिन अपने आप में एक जंग थी। मैं अपने मंत्रालय के लोगों से लड़ता, राज्य के मुख्यमंत्रियों से लड़ता। इन मुश्किलों के बीच मुझे उन मूल्यों के लिए खड़ा होना था जिनमें मुझे यकीन है। मैं सिर्फ अपने देश का कानून लागू कर रहा था। हमारे पास पर्यावरण से संबंधित वन्यजीव (संरक्षण) कानून, जल प्रदूषण कानून, वन संरक्षण कानून, पर्यावरण संरक्षण कानून और वायु प्रदूषण के कानून हैं। देश में 2006 में वन अधिकार कानून भी आ चुका था। मैं इन छह कानून के दायरे में रहकर ही काम करता था। मैं कोई नया कानून नहीं ला रहा था। मेरे काम से कई लोग नाराज थे। इसकी वजह है देश में पर्यावरण कानूनों की परवाह न करना। लोग परियोजना लगाने के बाद पर्यावरण मंत्रालय की स्वीकृति लेने आते हैं, और कोई सवाल उठे तो कहते हैं हमने पांच हजार करोड़ लगा दिए हैं। हजारों लोगों को रोजगार मिलने वाला है, इसलिए हमें स्वीकृति दीजिए। हिन्दी में इसे ‘बाद में देखा जाएगा’ वाला रवैया कहेंगे। ऐसे कई मामले आए जिसमें हमने प्रोजेक्ट को स्वीकृति नहीं दी। मैंने यह साफ कर दिया कि चाहे वह निजी परियोजना हो या सरकारी, अगर नियमों का उल्लंघन हुआ को कानून अपना काम करेगा। जुर्माना लगाया जाएगा। अगर आपके पास फॉरेस्ट क्लिरियंस नहीं है तो परियोजना शुरू नहीं हो सकती। इससे बड़े व्यापारिक घराने काफी नाराज थे। मुझे याद है नवी मुंबई के एयरपोर्ट निर्माण की परियोजना में मैंग्रोव के जंगल, पहाड़ आदि को नुकसान होना था। उन्होंने जबतक परियोजना को दुरुस्त नहीं किया उन्हें स्वीकृति नहीं मिली। उस समय शरद पवार कृषि मंत्री थे, और प्रफुल्ल पटेल विमानन मंत्री। वे दोनों मेरे काफी अच्छे मित्र हैं लेकिन इस निर्णय से काफी नाराज हुए। मैं उनका काफी आदर करता हूं, मुझे उनके साथ ही काम भी करना था, लेकिन मैं इस मामले में कुछ नहीं कर सकता था। मुझे जो जिम्मेदारी मिली थी उसे निभा रहा था। मैं सुबह 8.15 बजे दफ्तर पहुंच जाता था और 12 घंटे काम कर शाम में 8 बजे के करीब निकलता था। मैं कह सकता हूं कि इन 12 घंटों में 75-80 प्रतिशत समय इसी में निकल जाता था। कभी ऐसा भी होता था कि सुबह मेरी प्रशंसा करने वाला व्यक्ति शाम तक किसी बात से नाराज हो जाता था। मेधा पाटकर, सुनीता नारायण और दूसरे पर्यावरणविद् मेरे काम की सराहना करते, मेरे निर्णय का स्वागत करते और कुछ ही देर में जब जैतपुर परमाणु ऊर्जा संयंत्र को मंजूरी मिल जाती तो मेरी आलोचना भी करते थे। मैंने अपने 26 महीने के कार्यकाल में किसी को खुश नहीं किया। इस परिस्थिति से निकलने का बस एक ही तरीका था, पूरी तरह से पारदर्शी होना। मेरे पास यही एकमात्र हथियार भी है। मेरा कोई बहुत बड़ा राजनीतिक आधार नहीं है, न ही मैं कोई जननेता हूं। मैं लोकसभा नहीं राज्यसभा का सांसद हूं। मेरे पास पारदर्शिता ही एकमात्र हथियार है जिससे मैं अपना काम बेहतर कर सकता हूं। मैंने सारे फाइल की नोटिंग सार्वजनिक कर दिए। मेरे सभी निर्णय, सभी आदेश सार्वजनिक हैं। मैंने कभी भी कोई बैठक की तो उसे सार्वजनिक किया। मेरी आलोचना करने वाले भी सार्वजनिक हुए निर्णयों के आधार पर ही मेरी आलोचना करते थे। अंडमान द्वीप पर जयराम रमेश। तस्वीर साभार- जयराम रमेश अंडमान द्वीप पर जयराम रमेश। तस्वीर साभार- जयराम रमेश मोंगाबेः जीएम बैगन को लेकर आपसे कुछ सवाल हैं। जीएम पर हुए निर्णय के बारे में। यह मामला मध्य 1990 दशक में सामने आया था। लेकिन फिर यह मामला आपके सामने आया। आपने इसपर रोक लगा दी। साथ ही, आप यह भी कहते हैं कि इसपर शोध जारी रहना चाहिए। जीएम पर एक तरफ रोक हो और दूसरी तरफ शोध जारी रहे, यह थोड़ा मुश्किल लगता है। इस मामले पर आपने जो निर्णय लिए थे वही स्थिति अब भी बनी हुई है। जयराम रमेशः मैंने जो निर्णय लिए थे उसे सार्वजनिक कर दिया था। तारीख थी 10 फरवरी 2010। इस बात को 11 साल बीत गए, लेकिन निर्णय नहीं बदला गया। इस दौरान कई सरकारें आईं और कईयों ने मंत्री पद संभाला, लेकिन किसी ने निर्णय वापस नहीं लिया। मेरा स्थगन का आदेश अस्थायी था, हालांकि इसमें अस्थायी शब्द नहीं शामिल था। पर स्थगन की प्रकृति ही अस्थायी है। यह कोई प्रतिबंध नहीं होता। और मेरे हिसाब से मैं बीटी कपास का समर्थक रहा हूं। मैं पर्यावरण मंत्री बनने से बहुत पहले इसकी सार्वजनिक तौर पर तारीफ कर चुका था। लेकिन फिर बीटी बैगन आ गया। यह याद रखना होगा कि यह खाने की चीज है। पहली बार हमें खाने में शामिल फसल पर फैसला लेना था। मैंने पाया कि इसके लिए आम लोगों की रायशुमारी नहीं की गई है। यह जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग अप्रेजल कमेटी और तकनीक का विकास करने वाली कंपनी माइको के बीच का मामला था। मैंने अच्छी खासी संख्या में वैज्ञानिकों से संपर्क किया। मैंने चेन्नई जाकर डॉक्टर स्वामीनाथन जो कि भारतीय कृषि शोध के भीष्म पितामह माने जाते हैं, के साथ चार घंटे का समय लगाकर इस विषय को समझा। मैंने भारत और विश्व के करीब 50 वैज्ञानिकों को इसके बारे में लिखा और उनका जवाब भी आया। मैंने पाया कि राज्य सरकारों से भी राय नहीं ली गयी है। मैंने पाया कि यूरोप में भी जीएम पर प्रतिबंध लगाने वाला रवैया है पर अमेरिका इसके पक्ष में नजर आता है। इधर भारत बुद्ध की धरती होने के नाते मध्यम रास्ता अपनाता है। तो मैंने न ही जीएम को अनुमति दी न ही इसपर प्रतिबंध लगाया, बल्कि इसको लेकर एहतियात बरता। मैंने क्या कहा था? स्थगन लेकर आते हैं। यह स्थगन तीन स्थिति में हटाया जा सकता था। खासकर वैज्ञानिकों की राय जानने के बाद कि इसके लिए किस तरह के सुरक्षा उपाय किए जा रहे हैं, स्वास्थ्य पर इसका क्या प्रभाव है और तीसरा विषैला है या नहीं! राज्य सरकारों को भी इसमें शामिल किया गया। हमने स्वतंत्र नियामक बनाया। अब यह जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग अप्रेजल कमेटी का मामला नहीं था जिसमें वैज्ञानिक खुद ही आंतरिक स्तर पर निर्णय ले रहे हों। अब हम उम्मीद कर रहे थे कि पांच वर्ष के समय में सभी तीन शर्तें पूरी हो जाएं। अब तो 11 वर्ष का समय बीत चुका है। प्रसंगवश, मैं आपको बताना चाहता हूं कि आरएसएस और स्वदेशी जागरण मंच बीटी बैगन पर स्थगन के पक्ष में थे। उन्हें इस बात से खुशी मिली थी। मेरा स्थगन सिर्फ बीटी बैगन को लेकर था, इसका मतलब यह नहीं कि जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग पर कोई प्रतिबंध हो। मैं इसे ट्रांस जेनेटिक्स कहता हूं, जो कि बायोटेक्नोलॉजी का महज एक हिस्सा है। और अब यह तकनीक गुजरे जमाने की हो गई है। अब आपके पास सीआरआईएसपीआर जैसी संस्थाएं हैं जहां जेनेटिक एडिटिंग हो सकती है। यह एकदम से अलग की दुनिया है। मैंने यह बात अपने स्पीकिंग ऑर्डर में नहीं लिखी लेकिन आपको बताता हूं। बायोटेक्नोलॉजी विभाग के सचिव डॉक्टर एमके भान थे। डॉ. महाराज भान। एक बेहतरीन वैज्ञानिक। दुर्भाग्य से वह कुछ महीने पहले चल बसे। मैंने उस वक्त उन्हें मिलने के लिए बुलाया और उनसे उनकी राय पूछी। उन्होंने मुझसे कहा कि आपने जो किया है ठीक किया है। मैं इसे सार्वजनिक तौर पर नहीं रह सकता लेकिन आपने ठीक निर्णय लिया है। मैंने उनसे कहा कि मैं आपकी बात अपने तक रखूंगा। दरअसल, डॉ. स्वामीनाथन का पत्र मेरे स्पीकिंग ऑर्डर में भी शामिल है, जिसमें इस मुद्दे को लेकर एहतियात बरतने की वजह शामिल है। उन्होंने अपने पत्र में एक और वजह दी थी, भारत की जैव विविधता। यह देश जैव-विविधता का केंद्र है, इसलिए हमें जीएम से परहेज ही करना चाहिए। मोंगाबेः कैंपा (क्षतिपूरक वनीकरण कोष प्रबंधन एवं योजना प्राधिकरण) से जुड़े एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसले के लिए भी आपको याद किया जाता है। कैंपा फंड को राज्यों को देने के मामले में। इस वक्त इस फंड में 5300 सौ करोड़ रुपए हैं, लेकिन इसके खर्च को लेकर हमेशा शिकायतें होती रहती हैं। वन अधिकार कानून के साथ भी समस्याएं आती हैं। आपको क्या लगता है, ऐसा क्यों हो रहा है? क्या यह ढांचागत खामी की वजह से है इसे लागू करने के तरीके में कुछ गड़बड़ी है? जयराम रमेशः मैं जंगल काटकर उसकी भारपाई के लिए पेड़ लगाने के विचार से एकदम असहमत था। मैंने यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट में भी कहा था। कुछेक प्रजाति के पेड़ लगाकर प्राकृतिक जंगल जितना फायदा लेने का विचार ही फर्जी है। हम अपने विवेक को संतुष्ट करने के लिए जंगल के बदले पेड़ लगाते हैं। जंगल का मूल्य निर्धारित कर पेड़ लगाने के लिए कैंपा फंड में पैसा जमा होता जा रहा था। यह राज्य के पास नहीं आ पा रहा था। यह मामला तभी सामने आया। मैं मुख्य न्यायधीश जस्टिस कपाड़िया से मिलने गया। मैंने उन्हें सारा मामला समझाया और हम इस मामले का हल निकाल लाए। अब पैसा कैंपा से राज्य को मिलने लगा। मैं ग्राम सभा के महत्वपूर्ण योगदान को लेकर काफी स्पष्ट था। दुर्भाग्य से वर्ष 2016 में जिस तरह कैंपा के नियम बदले, उसमें अब स्थानीय लोगों का कोई योगदान नहीं बच जाता। मैंने कहा था कि कैंपा फंड का इस्तेमाल जंगल को पुनर्जीवित करने में होना चाहिए। वृक्षारोपण में पौधों के बचने की संभावना काफी कम होती है। हमने यह भी पाया कि पौधा लगाने के नाम पर बबूल और यूकेलिप्टस के पेड़ लगा दिए जाते हैं। भारतीय जंगल खोकर हम न सिर्फ पेड़ बल्कि जमीन भी खराब कर रहे हैं। कार्बन सोखने के लिहाज से यह महत्वपूर्ण है। जंगल काटकर पेड़ लगाने की वजह से काफी नुकसान हो चुका है। उम्मीद है लोगों को यह बात जल्द समझ आएगी। यूकेलिप्टस की प्रतीकात्मक तस्वीर। जयराम रमेश कहते हैं, "मैंने कहा था कि कैंपा फंड का इस्तेमाल जंगल को पुनर्जीवित करने में होना चाहिए। वृक्षारोपण में पौधों के बचने की संभावना काफी कम होती है। हमने यह भी पाया कि पौधा लगाने के नाम पर बबूल और यूकेलिप्टस के पेड़ लगा दिए जाते हैं। भारतीय जंगल खोकर हम न सिर्फ पेड़ बल्कि जमीन भी खराब कर रहे हैं।" तस्वीर- आनंद उरुस/विकिमीडिया कॉमन्स यूकेलिप्टस की प्रतीकात्मक तस्वीर। जयराम रमेश कहते हैं, “मैंने कहा था कि कैंपा फंड का इस्तेमाल जंगल को पुनर्जीवित करने में होना चाहिए। वृक्षारोपण में पौधों के बचने की संभावना काफी कम होती है। हमने यह भी पाया कि पौधा लगाने के नाम पर बबूल और यूकेलिप्टस के पेड़ लगा दिए जाते हैं। भारतीय जंगल खोकर हम न सिर्फ पेड़ बल्कि जमीन भी खराब कर रहे हैं।” तस्वीर– आनंद उसूरी/विकिमीडिया कॉमन्स मोंगाबेः मैंने पर्यावरण पर आपकी दूसरी किताब को काफी रुचि से पढ़ा, जो कि इंदिरा गांधी के जीवन का पर्यावरण से संबंधित पहलू दिखाती है। दरअसल मेरे जैसे लोग, जो कि पर्यावरण के विद्यार्थी हैं और पर्यावरण आंदोलन के आधुनिक इतिहास को समझने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं, इसकी शुरुआत चिपको आंदोलन से मानते हैं। हालांकि, आपने अपनी किताब में 60 के दशक से ही इसकी शुरुआत मानी है। इस किताब को लिखने के पीछे आपकी क्या प्रेरणा थी? जयराम रमेशः चिपको आंदोलन से पहले ताज महल बचाने के लिए हुआ आंदोलन भी काफी महत्वपूर्ण है। इसी वजह से वायु प्रदूषण को नियंत्रित करने वाले कानून हमें मिले। गंगा का रासायनिक प्रदूषण भी एक महत्वपूर्ण घटना है। तब इंदिरा गांधी प्रधानमंत्री बनी ही थीं। 67-68 में यह काफी बड़ा मामला बन गया था, विशेषकर बिहार में। मैं इंदिरा गांधी से लंबे समय से काफी प्रभावित रहा हूं। उनकी दो छवि हमारे मानस में है, एक तो दुर्गा की छवि जो कि उन्हें शक्तिशाली दर्शाती है। उन्होंने इसी छवि के साथ बंगलादेश को आजाद कराया। उनकी दूसरी छवि आपातकाल से जुड़ी हुई है। उन्होंने कई कानून थोपे। वह नेहरू के आदर्शों को पार कर पार्टी डेमोक्रेसी से खुले डेमोक्रेसी की तरफ बढ़ीं। मैंने इन दो छवियों के बीच उनके प्रकृति के प्रेम को भी देखा। मंत्री बनने से काफी पहले मैंने उनके इस रूप के बारे में जाना। उदाहरण के लिए सलीम अली ने उनपर काफी प्रभाव छोड़ा। पचास के दशक के शुरुआत में पर्यावरण में वह बर्डवाचिंग के जरिए आईं। नेहरु खुद भी बड़े प्रकृति प्रेमी थे। लेकिन जब बात बांध और जंगल में किसी को चुनना हो तो उन्होंने बांध चुना। इंदिरा गांधी बड़े बांधों पर रोक लगाना चाहती थीं। नेहरू ने ऐसा नहीं किया। हालांकि, नेहरु पर्यावरण को लेकर काफी संवेदनशील थे और इंदिरा गांधी में यह संवेदनशीलता उनसे ही मिली थी। नेहरू काफी स्पष्ट थे कि देश को बड़ी परियोजनाएं चाहिए। सलीम अली के प्रभाव की वजह से इंदिरा गांधी ने अपना काफी वक्त शांतिनिकेतन में बिताया। उनके मामा कैलाश नाथ कौल एक वनस्पति वैज्ञानिक थे। वह अपने घर में अजगर पालते थे। इंदिरा इस माहौल में बड़ी हुईं थी। उन्होंने उनके साथ अपने पिता के मुकाबले अधिक समय बिताया था, इसकी वजह थी नेहरू जेल के अंदर-बाहर होते रहते थे। उनके बचपन और जवानी का बड़ा समय पहाड़ों में बीता है। इंदिरा की मां बीमार थीं तो उन्होंने उन्हें अल्मोड़ा, नैनीताल, मसूरी और रानीखेत और फिर स्विट्जरलैंड में रखा था। वह खुद भी सांस की मरीज थीं। वर्ष 1972 को ही लें, यूएन कॉन्फ्रेंस जिसकी पचासवीं वर्षगांठ हम अगले साल मनाने वाले हैं। वहां ओलोफ़ पाल्मे के अलावा इंदिरा एकलौती नेता थी जो कि किसी देश का नेतृत्व कर रही थी और संयुक्त राष्ट्र में वक्ता के तौर पर उन्हें आमंत्रित किया गया था। ओलोफ का वहां रहना वाजिब था क्योंकि वह मेजबान देश से थे। पेरिस में 2015 में हुए सम्मेलन के मुकाबले इसे देखें तो समझ में आता है। पेरिस में 90 से अधिक देश के नेता शामिल हुए। लेकिन स्टॉकहोल्म के वक्त इंदिरा इकलौती थीं। उनका वहां दिया गया भाषण आज भी वैश्विक पर्यावरण के संवादों में मील का पत्थर माना जाता है। मुझे सलीम अली के शोध पढ़ने का मौका मिला। मैंने दुनिया के दूसरे शोधकर्ताओं के पेपर भी पढ़ें। इससे मेरी एक समझ बनी और मैंने उनकी एक जीवनी पर्यावरण की दृष्टि से लिखी। जब 1971 में पाकिस्तान के साथ लड़ाई की तैयारियां चल रही थी तब सलीम अली, बिली अर्जन सिंह और जफर फतेहली के साथ वे वन्यजीव संरक्षण कानून पर चर्चा कर रही थीं। वन्यजीव को कैसा बचाया जाए इसकी नीतियां बना रही थीं। प्रोजेक्ट लायन, प्रोजेक्ट टाइगर, प्रोजेक्ट क्रोकोडाइल जैसे बड़े राष्ट्रीय कार्यक्रम तभी बने थे। ओडिशा में ओलिव रिडली टर्टल बचाने का काम भी तब शुरू हुआ था। भारत में व्हेल नहीं मिलता था बावजूद इसके भारत अंतरराष्ट्रीय व्हेलिंग कमिशन का हिस्सा था। इंदिरा गांधी इसके बारे में काफी सजग थीं। जापान के लोग इस बात से काफी नाराज भी थे, क्योंकि जापान के लोग व्हेल को मारने पर किसी तरह के नियंत्रण के खिलाफ थे। मैंने जैसा कहा कि वन्यजीव संरक्षण कानून, जल प्रदूषण कानून, वन संरक्षण कानून, वायु प्रदूषण जैसे महत्वपूर्ण कानून उनके समय में आया। वह 1980 में बने मंत्रालय में पहली पर्यावरण मंत्री थीं और 1984 में मृत्यु से पहले तक बनी रहीं। उन्होंने जो कहा सो किया। मुझे लगता है मेरे पर्यावरण मंत्री रहते वक्त वो मेरी आदर्श थीं। मेरे ख्याल से वह भारत की पहली और आखिरी प्रधानमंत्री थी जिन्होंने जो कहा वह लागू करके दिखाया। साइलेंट वैली की परियोजना एक राजनीतिक मांग थी। राज्य के कांग्रेस नेता करुणाकरण इसके पक्ष में थे। सीपीएम, नैनार, वहां के स्थानीय सांसद वीएस विजयराघवन, सभी इसकी मांग कर रहे थे। विजयराघवन कांग्रेस पार्टी के ही थे। लेकिन श्रीमति गांधी ने इस परियोजना को मंजूरी नहीं दी। टेहरी के मामले में भी उन्होंने बेहद आदर्श निर्णय लिया। गुजरात के लालपुर परियोजना पर भी उन्होंने यही किया। उन्होंने वन्यजीवों के मुद्दों पर भी काफी काम किया। इस मामले में उनके राजनीतिक साथी ही उनके विरोध में थे पर उन्हें पता था इन लोगों को कैसे संभालना है। उन्हें यह पता था कि उनके कुछ अपने ही राजनीतिक साथी शिकार कंपनी चलाते हैं, जैसे शुक्ला बंधु बाघ शिकार की कंपनी चलाते थे। तब भी उन्होंने बाघ के शिकार पर 1972 में रोक लगा दी। 1970 में इसपर स्थगन आया था। तत्कालीन ग्रामीण विकास मंत्री के तौर पर एक कार्यक्रम में भागीदारी करते जयराम रमेश। तस्वीर- बारबरा श्नेट्ज़लर/फ्लिकर तत्कालीन ग्रामीण विकास मंत्री के तौर पर एक कार्यक्रम में भागीदारी करते जयराम रमेश। तस्वीर– बारबरा श्नेट्ज़लर/फ्लिकर मोंगाबेः मैं अंत में एक सवाल नेट जीरो के ऊपर पूछना चाहूंगा। संसदीय समिति के अध्यक्ष के तौर पर क्या नेट जीरो के लक्ष्य में भारत की व्यावहारिक स्थिति के बारे में आपका क्या सोचना है? जयराम रमेशः मेरे विचार से नेट जीरो शब्द अपने आप में ही एक भ्रम में डालने वाला नारा है। भारत निकट भविष्य जीवाश्म ईंधन को पूरी तरह से खत्म करने की स्थिति में नहीं है। भारत इसे कम कर सकता है लेकिन वर्तमान में ऊर्जा संग्रहन करने की तकनीक के साथ ऐसा होता नहीं दिख रहा है। हमें जिस तरह की ऊर्जा की जरूरत है, वह या तो कोयले से पूरा की जा सकती है या परमाणु ऊर्जा से। ये कहना काफी आसान है कि भारत 2050 तक यह कर लेगा, लेकिन उस वक्त न हम वहां रहेंगे न आप। मेरे ख्याल से बेहतर ये हो कि हम कहें कि 2025 तक हम क्या करने वाले हैं? 2030 तक हम क्या करेंगे। मेरा मतलब 10 से 15 साल की कार्ययोजना से है। हमें कोयला और परमाणु ऊर्जा की जरूरत पड़ने वाली है। अगर ऊर्जा संग्रहण की तकनीक में मोबाइल तकनीक जैसी कोई क्रांति हुई तो स्थिति कुछ और हो सकती है। मैं सरकार के कुछ निर्णय का स्वागत कर सकता हूं। जैसे अगर सरकार कहे कि 2035 तक सड़क पर पेट्रोल और डीजल चलित कार नहीं दिखेगी। ऐसा करना संभव है। इलेक्ट्रिक कार चलाने के लिए बिजली सिर्फ सौर या पवन ऊर्जा से नहीं मिलेगी। इसके लिए कोयला और परमाणु ऊर्जा को भी शामिल करना होगा। हमें परमाणु के क्षेत्र में और अधिक तेजी से बढ़ना होगा। फिलहाल परमाणु से करीब साढ़े तीन प्रतिशत बिजली मिल रही हैं, इसे कम से कम 10 प्रतिशत करना होगा। अगर 5-7 प्रतिशत भी कर लिया तो बड़ी उपलब्धि होगी। परमाणु से भी पर्यावरणविदों को समस्या है, लेकिन कार्बन उत्सर्जन की दृष्टि से देखें तो यह ऊर्जा साफ मानी जा सकती है। मोंगाबे- एक आखिरी सवाल। क्या पर्यावरण को लेकर आपकी कोई किताब आ रही है। जयराम रमेशः पर्यावरण पर तो नहीं, लेकिन बुद्ध पर मैंने एक किताब लिखी है। मोंगाबेः मुझे इस किताब का किंडन वर्जन मिला है। किताब मेरे पास पहुंचने में समय लगेगा। जयराम रमेशः यह किताब बिल्कुल ही अलग है। इस समय में भारतीय विज्ञान पर एक जीवनी लिखना चाहता हूं। मैं ओबैद सिद्दिकी के ऊपर काम कर रहा हूं। वे भारत में कई चीजों के जनक थे, जैसे मॉलीकुलर बायोलॉजी। उन्होंने मॉलीकुलर बायोलॉजी पर टीआईएफआर नामक संस्थान की स्थापना की थी। नेशनल सेंटर फॉर बायोलॉजिकल साइंस की स्थापना उन्होंने बैंगलुरु में की थी।

• Industrial Pollution

CSE Survey Says Coal Plants Flouting Water Norms with Impunity

The report surveyed over 154 GW of total coal power capacity and found about half the freshwater-based plants were non-complying. Most of these plants belong to state-owned companies. The largest number of such plants were from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. India’s coal based power plants – an ever expanding industry with the most water intensive usage in the country – have been found flouting major water consumption norms. The violation is leading to scarcity and conflict as glaring loopholes over self-monitoring systems and further dilutions of other norms, such as the fly ash pollution guidelines, loom large. In its extensive survey on coal-based power plants the Center for Science and Environment highlighted that six years since water consumption norms came into force, the water-guzzling coal-power industry is ignoring regulations; it added there was a high degree of non-compliance observed in the sector. The report surveyed over 154 GW of total coal power capacity and found about 50% of the freshwater-based plants were non-compliant. Most of these plants belong to state-owned companies. The largest number of non-complying plants were from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Working under MahaGENCO (Maharashtra State Power Generation Company) and the UPRVUNL (Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam), a majority of these plants are old, with inefficient practices which lead to water wastage. The companies constitute about 75% of the total installed coal power capacity in India. Almost half the plants did not comply with the specific water consumption norms of 3.5/3 m3 per MWh. Total non-complying capacity stood at 59 GW and complying capacity was 64 GW. Nivit Kumar Yadav, programme director at the CSE's Industrial Pollution Unit, said, “This is when many power producing regions of the country are facing acute water shortage. Also, there is huge water pollution due to the effluent discharge by power plants.” Chart Source – CSE The report stated that the coal-power industries were among the most water-intensive in India, responsible for about 70% of the total freshwater withdrawal by all industries in India. About 48% of the existing coal-power fleet is located in water-scarce regions. Coal-power plants in water-scarce regions such as Nagpur and Chandrapur in Maharashtra; Raichur in Karnataka; Korba in Chhattisgarh; Barmer and Baran in Rajasthan; already face the brunt of water scarcity. According to the 2015 norms, which were revised again in 2018, plants installed before January 1, 2017 were to meet the specific water consumption limit of 3.5 cubic metres of water per MWh; plants installed after the said date had to meet the norm of three cubic metres of water per MWh, apart from adopting zero liquid discharge. All plants were required to meet the norms within two years of the notification, i.e. by December 2017. The norms were, however, largely ignored. As the deadline to meet the norms ended on December 7, 2017, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) wrote to all power plants stating, among other things, "the new timeline for compliance of water consumption limit shall be finalized in consultation with the plants". Since then, no individual timelines have come up for the plants to follow. Sugandha Arora, the author of the report, told Newsclick there had been no significant improvement state-wise "due to the absence of any effective deterrence system put in place by the union environment ministry, especially in case of meeting water consumption norms. These norms have been completely overlooked. Since the time (2015) the norms came into place for coal power plants which included both emission and water norms, we have only seen its dilution and the extension of deadlines. Though the ministry recently – in April 2021 – came up with an amendment which gave new timelines to the coal power sector for meeting emission norms, it was silent on water norms and there was no emphasis put on it,” she added. Experts say a major issue with the policy has been the loopholes in the self-reported data and data formats being followed across states to report specific water consumption. Many plants continue to underreport or report their specific water consumption incorrectly to authorities in the environment statements. There is no third party monitoring and verification done of the self-reported data through annual water audits. Moreover, the upcoming draft on fly ash pollution is also likely to aid flouting of these norms, Arora said, adding: “The previous fly ash notification made it mandatory for all power plants to utilise 100% of its ash in dry form. If all power plants try to utilise their generated ash in dry form to the maximum extent possible, then the issue of ash slurry disposal and ash pond overflows can be drastically reduced." "However the latest draft notification in circulation, if notified, considerably dilutes and relaxes the previous fly ash regulations in place and will only lead to more fly ash breach incidents and more water consumption in ash disposal due to absence of any effective deterrence system in place in the draft notification," she said. The report has suggested that the environment ministry and regulatory authorities must prioritise implementation of norms in water scarce regions and making cross-verification and monitoring of self-reported water consumption data by third party agency through annual water audits mandatory.

• Industrial Pollution

CSE survey says coal plants flouting water norms with impunity

• Sustainable Food Systems

A webinar was organized on ‘Challenge of Child Obesity and Packaged Food during Covid pandemic in India

New Delhi: A webinar was organized on ‘Challenge of Child Obesity and Packaged Food during Covid pandemic in India. Dr. Naveen Thacker, President Elect, International Pediatrics Association (IAP) , Dr Arun Gupta, pediatrician and ex-member of the Prime Minister’s Nutrition Council and many other prominent Doctors and health experts were participated in this webinar . With more than 14.4 million obese kids, India has the second highest number of children with childhood obesity in the world. This number is likely to swell to 17 million by 2025, if the government does not intervene urgently to fix scientific limits and labelling for salt, sugar, saturated fats and other harmful ingredients in packaged and ultra-processed food and beverages, public health experts and doctors have warned. Participating in a webinar on ‘Challenge of Child Obesity and Packaged Food during Covid pandemic in India,’ they also demanded front of pack labels (FOPL) on these products to ensure that parents make an informed choice before giving them to their kids to eat. “Usually, an increased consumption of unhealthy or processed food coupled with physical inactivity leads to this preventable condition. It is fast emerging as the most serious public health challenges,” Dr. Naveen Thacker, President Elect, International Pediatrics Association (IAP) said, as he enlisted various physical and mental health issues such as poor academics, mood swings and lack of alertness, less energy, depression and sleep disturbances due to rampant consumption of junk food, energy drinks, beverages, caffeine and ultra-processed food. He explained that “along with tobacco, alcohol and physical activity, an unhealthy diet is strongly linked with NCDs, which are a major challenge in India.” Recently, the World Health Assembly (WHA) globally agreed framework for evidence-based cut-offs for anti-nutrients like sugar, salt and saturated fat present in packaged food. “In India, there are many guidelines related to consumption of foods and drinks for children, but there is a need for policy recommendations and implementation,” said Dr Thacker even as he asserted on making right to have healthy food a public movement. In Corona times, the obesity has increased among children due to lifestyle changes; their physical activities are restricted to bare minimum due to lockdown restrictions and closure of schools. It’s time that the government introduces front-of-package labelling (FOPL). Lip service will not help, he asserted. World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified FOPL as “one of the policy tools that can support healthy diets.” So far 11 countries across the world have enacted laws making FOPL mandatory. India is still holding consultations with various stakeholders to find a viable model, he added. Dr Arun Gupta, pediatrician and ex-member of the Prime Minister’s Nutrition Council too made strong case for tightening the noose around the food industry. “There are various studies that shows that 10 per cent increase in the consumption of Ultra processed food increases the chances of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer by approximately 10%. “Children are particularly at risk. It is not good to blame people always that they are not eating right food. The government and food industry should be held accountable to safeguard children and enable a nutritious food system for them. For this, strong legislation backed by the will to implement is needed,” he asserted. “We need to set evidence-based limits on the high concentration of salt, sugar and fats in packaged foods so families have clear guidance when buying these products,” he added. Senior journalist Mr. Vijay Jha opined that there was a need to curb marketing strategies of the food industry while the government should come out with strong legislations and create awareness among people about the health hazardous of the junk food. As per the Burden of Packaged Food on School children, based on Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) survey Know your Diet Study (2017), 53% children consumed salted packaged food such as chips and instant noodles at an average of over twice a week. About 56% children consumed sweet, packaged food such as chocolates and ice creams at an average of over twice a week. 49% children consumed sugar-sweetened packaged beverages at an average of over twice a week sedentary lifestyle, unhealthy food choices, including increasing consumption of pre-packaged food among adults and children has increased the rate of obesity and NCDs. Global researches have proved that the packaged food, without sufficient and adequate warning labels has been dangerous and tends to increase the consumption of salt, sugar and saturated fat.

• Water Programme

This is what causes toxic white foam to float on surface of the Yamuna in Delhi

The formation of white foam in the Yamuna river is not something new. However, what's worrying is that the formation of this foam is not a natural phenomenon. New Delhi: A layer of toxic foam has been floating on the surface of the Yamuna near Kalindi Kunj in Delhi for the last few days. Following this, the Delhi government Tuesday banned fishing in parts of the Yamuna citing high pollution levels in the river. However, the formation of toxic foam in the Yamuna is not new. Every year, during the Chhath Puja, images of devotees standing in waist-deep toxic forth in Yamuna make headlines. Even Sanskrit poet Avaghosa in his poetry, dating as far back as the 1st century, mentioned the presence of foam in Yamuna’s waters. ThePrint explains the science behind this froth. Phosphates in water Under natural circumstances, the formation of lines of foam on the surface of water is very common. VDO.AI Dead and decaying parts of plants contain fats molecules that do not mix with water. They form an invisible floating layer on the water surface. When the water gets disturbed by waves, natural waterfalls, or artificial falls from river barrages, this fatty layer gets beaten into a froth — similar to how shaking up soapy water causes air to get trapped in tiny bubbles that form a layer of foam. The foam made from organic matter in rivers and lakes can last for a long time. However, the amount of foam visible in present-day Yamuna cannot be explained by such natural phenomenon. According to Sushmita Sengupta, a scientist working with the Water Programme at Centre for Science and Environment, the high level of phosphates in the Yamuna is what causes such foam to build up. Phosphates are an ingredient used in many detergents which are designed to reduce the surface tension of water. These compounds make cleaning a lot easier. However, these phosphates persist in water, which leads to eutrophication — a process by which a water body becomes enriched with minerals and nutrients, causing the growth of algae that in turn cuts off oxygen from mixing with the water and sunlight from reaching the depths of the water body. This lowers the oxygen content, killing off marine life that is essential to maintain the quality of water. These phosphates are responsible for the alarming amount of foam that forms on the surface of the river, similar to the foam created by detergents. “Raw, untreated sewage is constantly dumped into the Yamuna in Delhi. The sewage contains detergents from households as well as industries,” Sengupta said. According to Sengupta, several detergents that make their way into the river are not approved by the Bureau of Indian Standards, which regulates the content of phosphates in detergents. Also read: Why Delhi Jal Board is just not able to clean up the Yamuna mess Concentration of phosphates in Yamuna According to a Delhi Pollution Control Committee report, the concentration of phosphates in the Yamuna varies from 6.9 mg/l at Okhla to 13.42 mg/l at Khajoori Paltan (downstream of Najafgarh drain). In 2020, the Bureau of Indian Standards prescribed Sodium Tripolyphosphates percentage for the household laundry detergents should be 5 for detergent bars, 2.5 for powder, and zero for household detergents for woolen and silk fabrics. Anshuman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director of Water Resources Policy & Management Area at TERI, explains that along with the presence of phosphates, the water also needs to be agitated to form the foam. This can be achieved if strong winds blow over the surface of the water, or heavy rain pours on the surface, he told ThePrint. The Okhla Barrage, from where the water is released also plays a part in churning up the waters — leaving a foamy cover downstream of the barrage. In a healthy flowing river, Anshuman said, the phosphates can get diluted over time, which would eventually cause the froth to disappear. However, if the amount of such compounds is too high in the water, the river cannot clean itself, he added. Anshuman also explained that phosphates is a skin irritant, and the presence of sewage and other pollutants in the river can make the foam toxic.

• Director General Office

Il futuro non è un pranzo di gala: dialogo tra Carlo Petrini, Nicola Lagioia e Massimo Giannini

Dialogo sulla Terra Madre con Carlo Petrini e Nicola Lagioia, modera il direttore de La Stampa Massimo Giannni. Ad introdurre Giovanni Quaglia, Presidente della fondazione Crt e con gli interventi di Giorgio Brizio, Alessia Cucciòla e Ottavia Pieretto. Durante la conversazione saranno proiettati contributi dell’ambientalista indiana Sunita Narain, l’architetto Carolyn Steel e lo scrittore Jonathan Franzen.

• Director General Office

Il messaggio di Slow Food: attivismo, cultura e biodiversità per scongiurare l’estinzione dell’uomo

La Terra non è una tavola sulla quale banchettare abbuffandosi a sazietà ma un ambiente da proteggere affinché possa continuare ad essere l’habitat in cui vivere, e il futuro non può accogliere soltanto chi è ricco e benestante, ma dev’essere inclusivo, capace cioè di assicurare cibo buono, pulito e giusto a tutti: ecco i temi del dialogo, promosso ieri alle Officine Grandi Riparazioni di Torino, da Slow Food e Fondazione Crt, con la collaborazione del Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino, dal titolo “Il futuro non è un pranzo di gala”, un’occasione per riflettere sui principali spunti di Terra Madre - Salone del Gusto 2020, l’edizione straordinaria lunga 7 mesi (chiusa ad aprile 2021), e per mettere a fuoco i pilastri da cui partire per immaginare il futuro del cibo e non solo. La prima arma di cui disponiamo, secondo Slow Food, o meglio la condizione indispensabile per poter affrontare il futuro, è la consapevolezza di quanto immorale e ingiusto sia il modo in cui gli effetti della crisi climatica impattano sulla vita delle persone: esserne a conoscenza è importante affinché si possano ridurre gli squilibri esistenti. “Oggi, in Italia, il consumo pro capite di carne è pari a 95 kg annui, più del doppio di quanta se ne mangiava a metà degli anni ‘50, il momento storico in cui, secondo l’Istituto nazionale della nutrizione, nel nostro Paese ci si è nutriti meglio dall’Unità in poi - spiega il fondatore e presidente di Slow Food, Carlo Petrini - occorre ridurre il consumo di carne, sia per ragioni di salute sia ambientali, ma non possiamo certo chiedere di farlo ai Paesi dell’Africa, dove il consumo è di appena 5 kg a testa. È il momento, dunque, che chi ha goduto fin troppo intraprenda un percorso di contrazione, nel consumo di carne ma in generale nei livelli di benessere, e che al tempo stesso si avvii un processo di convergenza per chi fino a oggi ha avuto meno”. Che occorra ripensare al modello occidentale lo sostiene anche Nicola Lagioia, direttore del Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino. “Non sempre lo sviluppo coincide con il progresso - sottolinea Lagioia - anzi, a volte finisce per erodere il principio di giustizia sociale, come testimonia la forbice sempre più ampia tra i ricchi e chi vive in povertà. Non solo: gli stili di vita adottati negli ultimi decenni hanno contribuito ad accelerare la crisi climatica eppure, anche di fronte all’evidenza e all’urgenza di farne fronte, non a tutti è chiaro che è l’uomo a rischiare l’estinzione”. La seconda arma, quella per così dire operativa, è la tutela della biodiversità, uno dei capisaldi dell’impegno di Slow Food: “siamo cresciuti facendo della difesa della biodiversità contro l’omologazione la nostra bandiera - continua Petrini - un’omologazione che, agli albori della nostra associazione, in ambito culinario vedeva nei fast food il modello di sviluppo. Più di trent’anni più tardi, l’omologazione e la perdita di biodiversità non riguardano soltanto il cibo, le varietà vegetali e le razze animali, bensì anche la cultura: i colossi dell’e-commerce, ad esempio, stanno distruggendo la biodiversità dei nostri centri urbani, specialmente nei borghi più piccoli che, giorno dopo giorno, perdono vitalità trasformandosi in cittadine-dormitorio”. La terza arma è l’attivismo delle persone, specialmente delle nuove generazioni, e la testimonianza è arrivata da tre giovani presenti al dialogo di Torino: Giorgio Brizio, studente di 19 anni in Scienze internazionali dello sviluppo e della cooperazione, esponente del movimento “Fridays for Future Torino” e autore del libro “Non siamo tutti nella stessa barca” edito da Slow Food Editore, Alessia Cucciòla, 24 anni, allevatrice, casara, contadina della Valsesia e produttrice del Presidio Slow Food del Macagn, e Ottavia Pieretto, 24 anni, gastronoma laureata all’Università di Scienze Gastronomiche di Pollenzo e membro della rete giovani di Slow Food. “Dobbiamo smettere di considerare le istanze, come le politiche alimentari, quelle per il clima o quelle per i diritti umani, singolarmente, e cominciare a ragionare in modo olistico”, ha dichiarato Giorgio Brizio, che ha esortato a “pensare globale e ad agire locale”. Chi certamente agisce in questo modo, rappresentando un esempio da seguire, è Alessia Cucciòla che, in Valsesia in provincia di Vercelli, alleva la razza bovina Bruna Alpina Originale con il cui latte produce il macagn, tipico formaggio di montagna delle zone la cui particolarità sta, tra le altre cose, nella produzione che avviene dopo ogni mungitura, quindi due volte al giorno. “Viviamo in mezzo alla biodiversità con gli animali che pascolano all’aperto e che, così facendo, contribuiscono a mantenere curati i prati fermando l’avanzata del bosco - ha raccontato - spero di poter continuare a contribuire alla salvaguardia della montagna”. Il futuro, però, non è nelle mani soltanto di chi produce: “Come consumatori, troppo spesso ignoriamo i meccanismi e le distorsioni che caratterizzano i sistemi produttivi e la filiera alimentare dei cibi che portiamo in tavola - ha aggiunto Ottavia Pieretto - in mano, però, abbiamo uno strumento: l’educazione alimentare. Un esempio? Smettere di rincorrere il risparmio: il cibo a basso costo non può esistere, e c’è sempre qualcuno che paga il conto di ciò che non troviamo sul cartellino. Un prezzo che spesso ha a che fare con la violazione dei diritti dei lavoratori o con lo sfruttamento dell’ambiente”. Il dibattito è stato poi arricchito dagli spunti offerti dai contributi di tre dei relatori intervenuti a Terra Madre - Salone del Gusto 2020: l’attivista indiana Sunita Narain, che denuncia l’impatto della crisi climatica sui più deboli, lo scrittore americano Jonathan Franzen, che esorta a proteggere la biodiversità, e l’architetta britannica Carolyn Steel, che invita a ripensare ai rapporti tra città e campagna. “Fondazione Crt lavora con Terra Madre per ridisegnare il futuro nel segno della tutela dell’ambiente, la nostra casa comune, portando avanti un’idea di società aperta alla dimensione non dell’io, ma del ‘noi insieme’, con al centro le persone e le comunità - ha dichiarato il presidente della Fondazione Crt, Giovanni Quaglia - un modello realmente sostenibile, inclusivo e orientato al bene comune, che si può sintetizzare con la formula “neo-personalismo comunitario”.

• Books

कैसे टूटेगा कोरोना संक्रमण का यह सिलसिला, जानिए कहानी ‘कप्पा’ और ‘डेल्टा’ की

डॉ. संजय वर्मा। मर्ज बढ़ता गया, ज्यों-ज्यों हुआ इलाज-यह एक चर्चित कहावत है। इधर कोरोना वायरस से पैदा महामारी कोविड-19 के संदर्भ में कुछ ज्यादा ही सटीक बैठ रही है। पूरी दुनिया में एक ओर इसके टीकाकरण के अभियान रफ्तार पकड़ रहे हैं तो दूसरी तरफ कोरोना के नए से नए स्वरूप (वैरिएंट्स) आम लोगों, विज्ञानियों, चिकित्सकों और सरकारों तक को चिंता में डाल रहे हैं। कहा जा रहा है कि इलाज और टीकाकरण के प्रयासों के बीच कोरोना वायरस अपना रूप बदल रहा है। वायरसों के संदर्भ में इसे म्यूटेशन (उत्परिवर्तन) कहते हैं। खतरा सिर्फ नए वैरिएंट सामने आने का नहीं है, बल्कि यह है कि अपने भाई-बंदों के मुकाबले ये नए रूप ज्यादा खतरनाक साबित न हों। इसलिए आशंकाओं का दौर जोरों पर है। तीसरी लहर का संकट आसन्न माना जा रहा है। हमारे ही देश में कहा जा रहा है कि कोरोना का नया रूप ‘डेल्टा प्लस’ तीसरी लहर का कारण बन सकता है। Facebook twitter wp koo Email affiliates कैसे टूटेगा कोरोना संक्रमण का यह सिलसिला, जानिए कहानी ‘कप्पा’ और ‘डेल्टा’ की कोई नहीं जानता कि कोरोना वायरस अभी कितने रूप बदलेगा। प्रतीकात्मक Publish Date:Thu, 01 Jul 2021 09:47 AM (IST)Author: Sanjay Pokhriyal डेढ़ साल पहले दुनिया में जब कोरोना वायरस का प्रसार शुरू हुआ था तो उम्मीद नहीं थी कि इतनी जल्दी कोरोना के नए और खतरनाक वैरिएंट सामने आएंगे पर इसके संक्रमण की रफ्तार संहारक क्षमता और रूप बदलने की प्रवृत्ति ने दुनिया को सकते में डाल दिया है। डॉ. संजय वर्मा। मर्ज बढ़ता गया, ज्यों-ज्यों हुआ इलाज-यह एक चर्चित कहावत है। इधर कोरोना वायरस से पैदा महामारी कोविड-19 के संदर्भ में कुछ ज्यादा ही सटीक बैठ रही है। पूरी दुनिया में एक ओर इसके टीकाकरण के अभियान रफ्तार पकड़ रहे हैं तो दूसरी तरफ कोरोना के नए से नए स्वरूप (वैरिएंट्स) आम लोगों, विज्ञानियों, चिकित्सकों और सरकारों तक को चिंता में डाल रहे हैं। कहा जा रहा है कि इलाज और टीकाकरण के प्रयासों के बीच कोरोना वायरस अपना रूप बदल रहा है। वायरसों के संदर्भ में इसे म्यूटेशन (उत्परिवर्तन) कहते हैं। खतरा सिर्फ नए वैरिएंट सामने आने का नहीं है, बल्कि यह है कि अपने भाई-बंदों के मुकाबले ये नए रूप ज्यादा खतरनाक साबित न हों। इसलिए आशंकाओं का दौर जोरों पर है। तीसरी लहर का संकट आसन्न माना जा रहा है। हमारे ही देश में कहा जा रहा है कि कोरोना का नया रूप ‘डेल्टा प्लस’ तीसरी लहर का कारण बन सकता है। Ads by Jagran.TV स्कूलों ने नए सत्र के नाम पर बीस से चालीस फीसद तक फीस बढ़ा दी है। MP School Fees: मध्य प्रदेश में स्कूल फीस की वृद्धि पर तकरार, उलझन में शिवराज सरकार यह भी पढ़ें दावों के मुताबिक भारत में कोविड-19 की दूसरी लहर की वजह कोरोना वायरस का डेल्टा वैरिएंट (म्यूटेशन से पैदा हुआ नए किस्म का कोरोना वायरस) था। अब आठ से दस राज्यों में अपनी पहुंच बना चुका इसका नया संस्करण डेल्टा प्लस नई चिंताओं के केंद्र में है। कोई नहीं जानता कि ग्रीक वर्णमाला के आधार पर किए जा रहे कोरोना वायरस के नए रूपों के नामकरणों की यह सूची अभी कहां तक जाएगी। फिलहाल बात डेल्टा और लेम्डा तक पहुंच चुकी है। डेढ़ साल पहले दुनिया में जब कोरोना वायरस का प्रसार शुरू हुआ था तो उम्मीद नहीं थी कि इतनी जल्दी कोरोना के नए और खतरनाक वैरिएंट सामने आएंगे, पर इस संक्रमण की रफ्तार, संहारक क्षमता और रूप बदलने की प्रवृत्ति ने दुनिया और मेडिकल साइंस की अब तक तरक्की को सकते में डाल दिया है। संक्रमणों के पिछले तीन दशकों के इतिहास पर नजर डालें तो पता चल रहा है कि दुनिया में एक वायरस का खौफ थमता है और दूसरा कोई अन्य संक्रामक रोग कई गुना ज्यादा ताकत के साथ आ धमकता है। इस तरह दो सवाल पैदा होते हैं। एक, नए वायरस क्यों पैदा हो रहे हैं और क्या हमारे आधुनिक चिकित्सा विज्ञान के पास नए संक्रमणों को रोकने का कोई तरीका है? दो, वायरसों का म्यूटेशन क्यों होता है और उसे कैसे रोका जाए? करीब सौ साल पहले दुनिया में पेनिसिलिन के आविष्कार के साथ यह माना जाने लगा था कि मानव सभ्यता को अब संक्रामक रोगों से निजात पाने में कोई मुश्किल नहीं होगी, बल्कि यह राय बनी कि रोगाणुओं (विषाणुओं-जीवाणुओं) को अब अपनी मांद में चले जाना होगा, क्योंकि इंसान को इलाज की एक ऐसी मुकम्मल विधि मिल गई है, जिसमें रोग पनप ही नहीं सकते। स्कॉटिश चिकित्सक और माइक्रोबायोलॉजिस्ट अलेक्जेंडर फ्लेमिंग ने 1928 में पेनिसिलिन का आविष्कार करके संक्रामक रोगों से लड़ने और उन पर काबू पाने का जो रास्ता सुझाया था, वह चेचक, पोलियो, फ्लू सरीखे कई संक्रामक रोगों के टीके और दवाएं विकसित करने का जरिया बना। इस उपलब्धि के बावजूद समय के साथ साबित हुआ है कि मनुष्य ने संक्रमणों के खिलाफ जितने हथियार बनाए, वायरसों के नए रूपों ने सारे उपायों को बौना साबित कर दिया। जोर वायरस मारने पर, प्रक्रिया समझने पर नहीं : आधुनिक विज्ञान ने संक्रामक रोगों (विषाणुओं) को खत्म करने पर तो जोर दिया, लेकिन रोगाणुओं (माइक्रोब्स) के जीवनचक्र को समझने की कोशिश नहीं की। यह जीवनचक्र बताता है कि किसी संक्रमण के लंबे समय तक जीवित रहने, एक प्रजाति से दूसरी प्रजाति में छलांग लगाने और उत्परिवर्तन की कार्यप्रणाली क्या होती है। इसका परिणाम यह निकला कि संक्रमण की श्रंखला टूटने के बजाय वह और मजबूत होती चली गई। शायद यही वजह है कि बीते चार दशकों में बर्ड फ्लू, स्वाइन फ्लू, इबोला, मलेरिया, डेंगू बुखार, जीका और एचआइवी-एड्स आदि से होने वाली मौतों में कई गुना बढ़ोतरी हो चुकी है। दावा यह भी है कि 1970 के बाद से 30 नई संक्रामक बीमारियों ने मानव समुदाय को घेर लिया है। कोरोना वायरस को इस गिनती में सबसे नया ठहराया जा सकता है। चूंकि वायरस म्यूटेशन का रुख अपना रहे हैं। यानी हालात के मुताबिक खुद को समायोजित कर लेते हैं और अपना स्वरूप बदल लेते हैं। इससे उनके मुकाबले को बनी दवाइयां और टीके कारगर नहीं रह पाते हैं। हालांकि इसके पीछे फार्मा कंपनियों की साजिश का भी एक आरोप लगाया जाता है। दावा किया जाता है कि दवा कंपनियां खुद नहीं चाहतीं कि कोई वायरस इतनी जल्दी धरती से विदा हो जाए या उनका म्यूटेशन हमेशा के लिए रुक जाए। इस दावे का आधार यह है कि शोध-अनुसंधान का हवाला देकर उन्हें पहले से कई गुना महंगी दवाएं और टीके बेचने का मौका मिल जाता है। एक और बड़ा कारण रोग-निदान या उपचार का सही तरीका विकसित किए बगैर दवाओं और टीकों की बमबारी करना भी है। खास तौर से एंटीबायोटिक दवाओं के अंधाधुंध इस्तेमाल ने वायरसों को खत्म करने के बजाय उन्हें और मजबूत ही बनाया है। कोरोना से निपटने में जिस तरह विभिन्न दवाओं का बिना यह जाने ताबड़तोड़ इस्तेमाल हुआ कि वे कोई असर करेंगी भी या नहीं, स्थितियां बिगाड़ी ही हैं। बिगड़ती जीवनशैली भी गुनहगार : पिछले चार दशकों में अगर संक्रामक बीमारियों ने रफ्तार पकड़ी है तो इसके लिए शहरीकरण और लोगों की बिगड़ती जीवनशैली भी एक अहम वजह प्रतीत होती है। कोरोना से पहले भी इसकी चर्चा दुनिया भर में थी कि खराब जीवनशैली हर साल लाखों लोगों को मौत के मुंह में धकेल रही है। कोरोना के प्रकोप के दौरान यह जोखिम और बढ़ गया है। ब्रिटिश जर्नल ऑफ स्पोर्ट्स मेडिसिन के शोध में बताया गया है कि शारीरिक श्रम की कमी और निष्क्रिय जीवनशैली ने कोरोना संक्रमण की जद में आने वालों में वायरस के गंभीर लक्षण पैदा किए और उनकी मृत्यु का जोखिम दूसरों के मुकाबले अधिक रहा। निष्क्रिय जीवनशैली के साथ धूमपान, मोटापा और उच्च रक्तचाप ने कोरोना की मार में काफी ज्यादा इजाफा कर दिया। हो सकता है कि आगे चलकर यह तथ्य भी पर्याप्त डाटा मिलने पर सामने आए कि ग्रामीणों के मुकाबले कोरोना ने उन शहरियों पर ज्यादा कहर ढाया है, जो सुविधाजनक जीवनशैली के आदी हो गए हैं। वातानुकूलित कमरों में रहने के कारण उनके फेफड़े कमजोर पड़ गए जिससे वे कोरोना की आसान चपेट में आ गए। चार साल पहले सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (सीएसई) ने भी अपनी रिपोर्ट ‘बॉडी बर्डन’ में चेताया था कि भारत में होने वाली कुल मौतों में से 61 फीसद खराब जीवनशैली और गैर संचारी रोगों की वजह से होती हैं। कैंसर, हृदयरोग और मधुमेह के अलावा हमारे शहरों में लोगों के फेफड़े वायु प्रदूषण और शारीरिक निष्क्रियता के चलते कमजोर होते जा रहे हैं। दिल्ली में हर तीसरे बच्चे के फेफड़े प्रभावित हैं और 2016 में भारत में 3.5 करोड़ लोग अस्थमा के गंभीर मरीज पाए गए थे। अफसोस कि इस रिपोर्ट के महत्व को गंभीरता से नहीं समझा गया और कोरोना के दौर में हम भारतीयों के फेफड़े गंभीर संकट में फंस गए। अब वक्त आ गया है, जब पूरी दुनिया को ठहरकर सोचना चाहिए कि वह आखिर ऐसा क्या करे, जिससे कोरोना जैसी महामारियां दोबारा लौटकर न आ पाएं। सरकारें जनता को कम कीमत पर अच्छे इलाज की सहूलियतें देने के साथ जागरूक करें कि बीमार होने से बेहतर है कि स्वस्थ जीवनशैली अपनाई जाए। उन पर्यावरणीय कारणों की तह में भी जाना होगा, जो नए वायरसों की पैदावार, कई पुराने वायरसों की वापसी और उनके उत्परिवर्तन की वजह बन रहे हैं। ऐसे प्रबंध किए जाएं, ताकि भविष्य में किसी भी संक्रमण को हावी होने का मौका नहीं मिले। कहानी ‘कप्पा’ और ‘डेल्टा’ की : पूर्व अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप ने जब कोरोना वायरस को चाइनीज वायरस कहा और उनके सहयोगी (माइक पोंपियो) ने इसे बाकायदा वुहान वायरस कहकर पुकारा तो सबसे पहली आपत्ति चीन की तरफ से ही आई। वैसे वायरस के ऐसे नामकरण को लेकर कोई भी देश एतराज कर सकता है। यही वजह है कि डब्ल्यूएचओ ने इसकी एक व्यवस्था बनाई है। इसके तहत कोरोना वायरस सार्स-कोव-2 के विभिन्न नामकरण किए गए हैं। चूंकि वक्त के साथ और म्यूटेशन के कारण कोरोना वायरस के व्यवहार और संहारक क्षमता में तब्दीली हो रही है, इसलिए नाम में भी परिवर्तन किया जा रहा है। यह इसलिए जरूरी है, क्योंकि इन बदलावों का एक असर वायरसों के गुणों पर पड़ता है। परिवर्तनों के बाद कोई वायरस आसानी से फैल सकता है या बीमारी-महामारी की गंभीरता को प्रभावित कर सकता है अथवा बचाव की वैक्सीनों को धता बता सकता है। ऐसे में नए वायरस की पहचान सुनिश्चित कर उससे बचाव के तौर-तरीके में भी तब्दीली लानी पड़ती है। यह परिवर्तन अलग-अलग देशों में वहां की जलवायु और वायरस के म्यूटेशन की प्रवृत्तियों के आधार पर होता है। जैसे भारत की बात करें तो यहां अक्टूबर 2020 में पहली बार सामने आए कोरोना वायरस के नए स्वरूप बी.1.617.1 को डब्ल्यूएचओ ने ‘कप्पा’ नाम का लेबल दिया, जबकि एक अन्य वैरिएंट बी.1.617.2 को डेल्टा नाम दिया। डेल्टा नाम दिए जाने से पहले दुनिया में बी.1.617.2 को भारतीय या कोरोना का बंगाल वायरस कहा जाने लगा था। इस पर भारत ने आपत्ति जताई थी। वायरस की नई पहचान के लिए डेल्टा आदि अक्षर ग्रीक वर्णमाला से लिए गए हैं। इस सिलसिले में ब्रिटेन में मिले कोरोना के नए वैरिएंट बी.1.1.7 को अल्फा, दक्षिण अफ्रीका में मिले वैरिएंट बी.1.351 को बीटा और ब्राजील में मिले पी.1 को गामा नाम दिया है। ये सभी वे वैरिएंट हैं जिन्हें वैरिएंट ऑफ कंसर्न (वीओसी) की श्रेणी में रखा गया है। जबकि वैरिएंट ऑफ इंटरेस्ट (वीओआइ) की श्रेणी में रखे अमेरिका में पहली बार मिले वैरिएंट बी.1.427/बी.1.429 को एप्सिलोन, ब्राजील में मिले पी.2 को जीटा, कई अन्य देशों में मिले वैरिएंट बी.1.525 को ईटा, फिलीपींस में मिले पी.3 को थीटा, बी.1.526 को लोटा नाम दिया गया है। जोखिम के स्तर को देखते हुए कोरोना के नए रूपों को वीओआइ और वीओसी दो भागों में बांट दिया है।

• Industrial Pollution

Many Indian utilities ignore water efficiency standards:

A survey by the Centre for Science an Environment of 154,000 MW of India’s coal plant capacity has found almost half the plants relying on freshwater do not meet water efficiency standards first announced in 2015. Most of the plants failing to meet the standards are owned by public utilities. The standards require coal plants built before January 1, 2017 to consume less than 3.5 cubic metres of water per megawatt hour (MWh) with plants commissioned after that date to use 3 cubic metres of water or less per MWh. India’s fleet of coal plants consumes about 70 per cent of water consumed by all industries with about half located in water-scarce districts, often causing conflict with other users. Coal plants reliant on seawater for cooling are exempt from the standards. (Centre for Science and Environment)

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

This sector is the biggest cause for pollution in Mumbai

As per SAFAR, the contribution to PM2.5 emission from different sectors between 2019-20 was 30.5% from the transport sector, 18% from industries & power sector, 15% from residential burning.

• Industrial Pollution

How Transparent Are Our Pollution Control Boards? CSE’s New Rating Report Finds Most Are Not

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

• Clean Air & Sustainable Mobility

Transport sector: The top polluter in Mumbai

41 lakh vehicles not just causing snarls, also contributing 30% to city pollution Mumbai: There are 41 lakh vehicles in Mumbai, 26 lakh of them being two-wheelers. Not just noise pollution during traffic snarls, these vehicles are also the biggest reason for air pollution in the city. As per the latest source estimation analysis for PM 2.5 (particulate matter) pollutants in Mumbai, vehicular emissions have nearly doubled in the last four years. Under the current Covid-19 situation, pollution has become one of the major worrying factors. According to an analysis conducted by the System of Air Quality Weather Forecasting & Research (SAFAR), the PM 2.5 from the transport sector for 2019-20 is 30.5%, which stood at 16% in 2016-17. This is fast downgrading the city’s already poor air quality. The air we breathe has suspended particulate matter (PM) of different sizes. Many of these are complex mixtures of dust, pollen, soot and smoke and are clearly hazardous. Of this, PM 2.5 (with diameter not more than 2.5 micrometre) is considered to have a significant impact on health as it can stay in the air for days or weeks, and is small enough to invade the lung airways. As per latest figures, the four RTOs of Tardeo, Andheri, Wadala and Borivali registered 84,373 vehicles between January and June this year. These include 68,034 vehicles running on petrol and 7,379 diesel vehicles. In 2017, there were 2.68 lakh vehicles registered in these four RTOs, of which over 2 lakh ran on petrol and close to 29,000 on diesel. In 2016-17, the total number stood at 30.69 lakh, while the number was 20.28 lakh in 2011-12. As per SAFAR, the contribution to PM 2.5 emissions from different sectors between 2019 and 2020 was 30.5% from the transport sector, 18% from industries and power sector, 15% from residential burning, which includes residential cooking in households and slums, trash burning, cow dung burning, emissions from street vendors and wood burning. Dr Gufran Beig, senior scientist and founder project director of SAFAR said, “In the past five years, the transport sector has shown a steep rise in contribution to PM 2.5 pollution in Mumbai. This is a combination of both rise in the number of vehicles and snarls at junctions.” The other pollutants in the PM 2.5 category include wind-blown dust (15%) and other sources (21.5%), including municipal solid waste (MSW) plants, MSW open burning, crematoriums, aviation sector, incense sticks and brick kilns, to name a few. A similar source estimation for PM 2.5 pollutants by SAFAR in 2016-17 had shown transport accounting for 16%, with industry and power sectors being the biggest contributors at 36%. Other sources included residential burning at 27%, and wind-blown dust at 21%. In Mumbai, new industries or power plants are not being set up any longer, but vehicles continue to grow in numbers, said Anumita Roy Chowdhury, executive director-research and advocacy, the Centre for Science and Environment.