Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

COP30: Can India step up and lead Global South on climate?

As nearly 200 countries debate the planet's climate future at the 30th UN Climate Conference (COP30) in Brazil's Amazonian city of Belem, India finds itself in a unique position in balancing the weight of its need for economic growth with its increasingly prominent role as a voice representing the Global South. This year's climate negotiations follow last year's disappointing COP29 held in Azerbaijan, where countries missed the climate finance mark and agreed to raise $300 billion (€259 billion) annually by 2035 instead of the appealed $1.3 trillion. Developing nations criticized countries with industrialized economies for dodging their responsibility by not pledging adequate climate financing. India said the pledged sum was "too little, too distant." Standing on the shaky ground set by COP29, this year's summit aims to operationalize the climate finance targets and revise national climate plans called the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The host country, Brazil, has insisted this will be "the COP of implementation." How is India balancing economic and climate needs? For India, like other vulnerable countries in the Global South facing a disproportionate brunt of the climate crisis, the stakes and hopes are high. As one of the world's fastest growing economies, it walks a tightrope, balancing its economic ambitions with the collective responsibility of tackling the climate challenge. In the past few years, India has made substantial progress in the field of renewable energy — particularly solar and wind. It has the fourth largest renewable energy generation capacity in the world, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). And a report published in October by the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that the country is set to become the second-largest renewables growth market globally, after China, by 2030. Despite its achievements in harnessing renewable power, India still relies heavily on coal, which is estimated to generate around 75% of its electricity. The country is the world's second largest coal consumer, after China. Amid strong economic growth and corresponding energy demand, India has seen a multifold jump in its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The country was responsible for the biggest rise in GHG emissions globally between 2023 and 2024, adding about 165 million tons of GHGs during this period, according to a recent UN report. India's emissions have grown but "it has also become more proactive about committing to more ambitious mitigation action on its own through the NDCs," Aman Srivastava, a fellow studying climate policy at the Delhi-based think tank Sustainable Futures Collaborative, told DW. This year, India has achieved 50% of its installed electricity capacity from non-fossil fuel sources — five years ahead of its 2030 target. Where do wealthy countries stand? This year, the US, which is historically the biggest emitter, pulled out of the 2015 Paris Agreement for the second time under President Donald Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a "hoax" and "a money-making industry." On the other hand, the European Union remains divided and unable to set a clear direction to achieve its climate goals. Just days before COP30 began, the EU agreed to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, from 1990 levels, but gave the target leeway by allowing member countries to buy foreign carbon credits to make up 5% of the emission reduction goal. Speaking of the West's waning leadership in climate affairs, Avantika Goswami, a climate policy researcher at New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, told DW the West's leadership role on climate policy is waning. "It's the crisis of Western economies today, which is spread across military conflicts, trade wars, deindustrialization, and economic stagnation — to which they are responding anxiously," she said. Dhanasree Jayaram, a co-coordinator at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education's Center for Climate Studies, shared a similar view. "Many developing countries have taken the lead while countries in the West or Global North have been faltering in the past decade," she told DW. This is an opportunity, Jayaram added, because "these were the countries that were often blamed for not contributing enough to the global public good." Tackling the effects of extreme weather | Eco India

COP30: Developing nations risk losing out on green economy benefits – Centre for Science and Environment

Developing countries risk being left behind in the global green transition unless they prioritize economic resilience and green industrialization, according to a new series of discussion papers by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Released ahead of the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, the paper series titled “Towards a New Green World” calls on developing nations to focus on value addition and localized production to secure equitable participation in the emerging global green economy. CSE Director General Sunita Narain emphasized, “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” She added, “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. To achieve this, global trade and finance rules must be reset to support localization and value addition. There is an opportunity to establish distributed, locally led production systems as the foundation of green industrialization.” The papers address three key areas: agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology manufacturing, offering a Southern perspective on how developing economies can secure a fair share of the green transition. According to the report, developing nations provide much of the world’s raw resources but capture only a small fraction of the profits. From cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the green transition risks replicating old patterns of extraction and dependence. CSE climate change programme manager Avantika Goswami said, “We need to reinvent the climate agenda for the Global South. Calling for decarbonization without economic resilience is no longer viable.” The first paper, on agriculture and forest commodities, highlights that developing nations remain trapped in low-value export cycles. For example, Ivory Coast and Ghana, which produce over 50% of the world’s cocoa beans, earn only 6.2% of total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate, while manufacturers and retailers in the Global North capture 80-90% of the profits. The report calls for a shift from raw exports to processing and product diversification. The second paper, on critical minerals, notes that while the Global South holds most reserves crucial for the energy transition, it captures little of the value generated. Goswami added, “These countries remain exposed to commodity price volatility, balance-of-payments instability, and geopolitical risks.” The paper analyzes strategies in Chile, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, advocating for policies that prioritize equity and justice for the Global South. The third paper, on clean technology manufacturing, points out that global production is dominated by China, the EU, and the US, with developing regions accounting for less than 5% of production value. It recommends renewed industrial policies, South-South cooperation, and reforms in trade rules to improve participation. Concluding the series, Narain said, “The future green economy must not replicate the inequalities of the old one. The Global South needs not just a greener world, but a fairer one, where economic resilience is integrated with climate action.”

COP30: Developing nations risk lagging in global green economy transition

Will developing countries be left behind in the race towards a new, green economy? This is an emerging threat, says a set of new discussion papers by New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) at a time when the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP) has kicked off in Belem in Brazil amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape in which climate ambition is struggling to stay afloat. 'Towards a new green world', as the CSE paper series is called, was released on the eve of COP30. It calls for centering economic resilience, value addition and green industrialisation in the climate agenda for developing countries. Releasing the series, CSE Director General Sunita Narain said: “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localisation and value addition. "There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialisation,” Narain added. Focussing on three strategic fronts of the green transition -- agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology and manufacturing -- the series presents a Southern perspective on how the Global South can participate and stay afloat in the new, green economy. Across commodities, minerals and manufacturing, developing countries face a common dilemma: They supply the world’s resources but capture too little of the value. From raw cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the green transition is repeating old patterns of extraction and dependence. “The global green transition risks reproducing old inequities under a new climate-friendly banner, unless the Global South is empowered to capture greater value, diversify its economies, and shape the governance of emerging green industries,” says Avantika Goswami, programme manager, climate change, CSE. “We need to reinvent the climate agenda for the Global South. Calling for decarbonisation without economic resilience is no longer viable,” she adds. On agriculture and forest commodities, developing countries are trapped in a low-value export cycle -- they sell raw agricultural and forest commodities, and end up with almost nothing of the value, says the first paper in the series. For instance, Ivory Coast and Ghana produce over 50 per cent of the world’s cocoa beans; but, they account for a mere 6.2 per cent of the total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate and cocoa powder. In contrast, manufacturers and retailers located in Global North countries capture almost 80-90 per cent of the total profit margin of a chocolate bar. The paper argues that “a shift from raw exports to processing and diversification is critical”. On critical minerals, the Global South holds most of the world’s reserves of critical minerals crucial for energy transition; but it captures little of the value generated from refining and manufacturing. Says Goswami: “These countries remain exposed to commodity price volatility, balance-of-payments instability, and geopolitical risk.” Taking the cases of three countries -- Chile, Indonesia, and Congo -- the paper has analysed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of their critical minerals policies and strategic plans and offers a list of principles for paving the way forward through centering equity and justice for the Global South in the climate-trade-development nexus. On clean technology manufacturing, global clean tech manufacturing is concentrated in China, the EU and the US; developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia together account for less than 5 per cent of production value. Meanwhile, the Global South faces a dual challenge of decarbonising while industrialising to meet the demands of a growing economy. Structural asymmetries persist: Developing nations assemble goods but import value-heavy inputs. This paper explores how countries can pursue green industrialisation by building clean-tech manufacturing capacity amid China’s dominance, limited domestic capacities, and unequal participation in global trade. Using case studies from China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico, it outlines key takeaways from country experiences in the clean technology sector, calling for renewed industrial policy, South-South cooperation, and global rule reform to build resilient economies. The three papers present preliminary pathways for how developing countries can capture more value, earn more revenue and emerge as strong players in the new green economy for combating climate change. Says Narain: “The future green economy must not mirror the inequalities of the old one. The Global South needs not just a greener world -- but a fairer one, with economic resilience at its core, in hand with climate action.”

COP30: Developing nations at risk of being left behind in green economy race, says research

Will developing countries be left behind in the race towards a new, green economy? This is an emerging threat, says a set of new discussion papers by New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) at a time when the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP) has kicked off in Belem in Brazil amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape in which climate ambition is struggling to stay afloat. ‘Towards a new green world’, as the CSE paper series is called, was released on the eve of COP30. It calls for centering economic resilience, value addition and green industrialisation in the climate agenda for developing countries. Releasing the series, CSE Director General Sunita Narain said: “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localisation and value addition. “There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialisation,” Narain added.

COP30: CSE warns developing nations risk exclusion from green economy

Will developing countries be left behind in the race towards a new, green economy? This is an emerging threat, says a set of new discussion papers by New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) at a time when the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP) has kicked off in Belem in Brazil amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape in which climate ambition is struggling to stay afloat. ‘Towards a new green world’, as the CSE paper series is called, was released on the eve of COP30. It calls for centering economic resilience, value addition and green industrialisation in the climate agenda for developing countries. Releasing the series, CSE Director General Sunita Narain said: “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” Focussing on three strategic fronts of the green transition — agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology and manufacturing — the series presents a Southern perspective on how the Global South can participate and stay afloat in the new, green economy. Across commodities, minerals and manufacturing, developing countries face a common dilemma: They supply the world’s resources but capture too little of the value. From raw cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the green transition is repeating old patterns of extraction and dependence. For instance, Ivory Coast and Ghana produce over 50 per cent of the world’s cocoa beans; but, they account for a mere 6.2 per cent of the total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate and cocoa powder. In contrast, manufacturers and retailers located in Global North countries capture almost 80-90 per cent of the total profit margin of a chocolate bar. The paper argues that “a shift from raw exports to processing and diversification is critical”.

Populist Gimmicks, Dismantling Checks: How the Govt Just Won't Let Delhi Breathe

Almost 10 years ago, on January 1, 2016, Delhi had dared to act. It launched the odd-even car-rationing scheme – a desperate but decisive action against the city’s most visible polluter. As head of the Delhi government’s policy think-tank, I had convened a team of leading environmental experts months earlier. Back then, Delhi didn’t have a reliable pollution inventory – no clear data on what was poisoning us or in what proportion. Yet after weeks of analysis, the experts reached an emphatic conclusion: if Delhi wanted clean air, it had to strike at its biggest culprit – vehicular emissions. Since then, study after study – from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, the Centre for Science and Environment, and TERI – has confirmed that vehicles are the single largest source of Delhi’s PM2.5, contributing between 41% and 51% of the city’s pollution. Delhi has over 10 million registered vehicles — not counting the 6 million petrol and diesel vehicles already past the age limit of 15 and 10 years respectively. Along with the millions of cars, two-wheelers, and commercial vehicles that come into the city every day and spew out PM2.5 and NOx, you have a city poisoning itself on four wheels. The polluted air is causing an unprecedented rise in asthma, lung diseases, heart problems, and strokes. Pollution kills more people in Delhi than obesity or diabetes. How is this then not a public health emergency on the same level as COVID? Why are there no daily health bulletins, no advisories, no emergency financing, no Mann ki Baat? Instead, Delhi has normalised a “pollution season” even as India proclaims itself a Vishwa Guru. Instead of tightening the rules on vehicular emissions, the new Delhi government is systematically dismantling them. It has quietly diluted the Supreme Court’s 2018 order to phase out Delhi’s dirtiest vehicles – diesels over 10 years and petrol cars over 15. This July, government suspended the ban on refuelling these polluting vehicles, citing citizens’ “emotional attachment” to their vehicles. As a result, nearly 6 million polluting vehicles were back on the roads. Then more recently the government has permitted the deregistered vehicles to get re-registered outside Delhi-NCR. The argument is that this will move the polluting vehicles to other states. It is an insult to reason. We all share the common air shed. If fumes from farm fires from Punjab and Haryana do not stop at the states’ borders, then how vehicular pollution from neighbouring states won’t enter Delhi? Also what stops the owners of these vehicles from driving them back into the city after re-registering them in neighbouring states? The populist gimmicks – designed to please the electorate – have not stopped with rehabilitating old polluting vehicles. This year, both the Delhi government and the Union government pleaded before the Supreme Court not to protect citizens from poison in the air, but to secure the “right” to burst firecrackers. The ban was lifted. For three nights Delhi exploded, firecrackers went off across the city. The morning after Diwali the capital woke up under a lid of smoke so thick you could chew it. And then, to complete the theatre of charade, the Delhi government floated the grand spectacle of artificial rain — a stunt that failed as dramatically as “green” crackers. Then the Delhi government pulled another stunt – announcing an “innovation challenge” with Rs 50 lakh prizes for start-ups to “solve” air pollution. One more cruel joke from a government that champions firecrackers in the name of religion and defends old polluting cars as family heirlooms. Delhi’s crisis endures not for lack of solutions, but because of political deceit – leaders who pretend to act while letting the city choke. When London, Los Angeles, and Beijing were choking in in thick, brown, acrid air, they didn’t respond with populist exceptions, pseudo-science, and innovation hackathons. They shifted coal plants and polluting industries, limited new vehicle registrations, and spent billions on clean public transport, last mile connectivity and cycling infrastructure. Their actions and policies were based on science, political will, and sustained enforcement. Vehicles remain Delhi’s biggest polluter. The entire NCR needs a robust, electric, and reliable public transport system, making cars optional rather than indispensable. Delhi-NCR has a world class metro, but third class bus and last mile connectivity, because of which for a large number of people car remains the preferred mode of transport. According to the CAG, the Delhi Transport Corporation added only two buses between 2011–12 and 2021–22. The fleet actually shrank – from 4,344 buses in 2015-16 to 3,937 in 2022-23 – despite hundreds of crores available. By contrast, Beijing has a fleet of 23,000 public buses (as of 2024). Not surprising then that the Delhi-NCR adds 15-20 lakh vehicles annually. An efficient bus network depends on integrated control over service levels, street and bus stops design, infrastructure, and enforcement. In Delhi no single body currently has that integrated authority. Delhi’s bus governance has design flaws. It is shaped by multiple agencies, each performing different statutory roles: DTC/DIMTS/DTIDC/Transport Department: policy and permits (Transport Dept), operations (DTC), technical-ITS support (DIMTS), and infrastructure such as terminals and depots (DTIDC). PWD: arterial roads, lane markings, signals MCD: local roads, shelters, footpaths, vending zones DDA: ROW planning, depot land approvals Delhi Traffic Police: enforcement of lane discipline and traffic rules This institutional fragmentation is the core reason why bus reform has not achieved outcomes comparable to the Delhi Metro. Unless the public transport across NCR is made world class complimenting the Delhi metro with high quality buses, and last mile connectivity, the spectacular rise in private vehicle ownership and usage will not cease. The government of India and the government of NCT Delhi can create a joint venture for bus services, along the lines of DMRC. This would consolidate planning, procurement, operations, and fare integration under one empowered, technocratic authority, much like DMRC. Coordination with PWD, MCD, DDA and Delhi Police would be institutionalised through formal frameworks. After stabilising Delhi operations, this model can evolve into an NCR Bus & Transit Corporation with participation from Haryana, UP, and Rajasthan – mirroring the DMRC’s regional success. Expecting the Delhi government to impose congestion pricing or demarcating low-emission zones – as London did – would be naïve. But it can still push hard on electric mobility. Delhi’s 2020 EV policy was a start; by 2022, over 10% of new vehicles sold were electric. Now is the time to scale that to 25%, 50%, and beyond. Every diesel bus or petrol scooter replaced is pollution we don’t breathe. Like Beijing, Delhi must also invest in last-mile connectivity and protected cycling lanes—so people don’t have to walk for miles to access major transit hubs.

Developing Nations At Risk Of Being Left Behind

Will developing countries be left behind in the race towards a new, green economy? This is an emerging threat, says a set of new discussion papers by New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) at a time when the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP) has kicked off in Belem in Brazil amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape in which climate ambition is struggling to stay afloat. ‘Towards a new green world’, as the CSE paper series is called, was released on the eve of COP30. It calls for centering economic resilience, value addition and green industrialization in the climate agenda for developing countries. Releasing the series, CSE Director General Sunita Narain said: “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localization and value addition. “There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialization,” Narain added. Focusing on three strategic fronts of the green transition — agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology and manufacturing — the series presents a Southern perspective on how the Global South can participate and stay afloat in the new, green economy. Across commodities, minerals and manufacturing, developing countries face a common dilemma: They supply the world’s resources but capture too little of the value. From raw cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the green transition is repeating old patterns of extraction and dependence. “The global green transition risks reproducing old inequities under a new climate-friendly banner, unless the Global South is empowered to capture greater value, diversify its economies, and shape the governance of emerging green industries,” says Avantika Goswami, programme manager, climate change, CSE. “We need to reinvent the climate agenda for the Global South. Calling for decarbonization without economic resilience is no longer viable,” she adds. On agriculture and forest commodities, developing countries are trapped in a low-value export cycle — they sell raw agricultural and forest commodities, and end up with almost nothing of the value, says the first paper in the series. For instance, Ivory Coast and Ghana produce over 50 per cent of the world’s cocoa beans; but, they account for a mere 6.2 per cent of the total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate and cocoa powder. In contrast, manufacturers and retailers located in Global North countries capture almost 80-90 per cent of the total profit margin of a chocolate bar. The paper argues that “a shift from raw exports to processing and diversification is critical”. On critical minerals, the Global South holds most of the world’s reserves of critical minerals crucial for energy transition; but it captures little of the value generated from refining and manufacturing. Says Goswami: “These countries remain exposed to commodity price volatility, balance-of-payments instability, and geopolitical risk.” Taking the cases of three countries — Chile, Indonesia, and Congo — the paper has analyzed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of their critical minerals policies and strategic plans and offers a list of principles for paving the way forward through centering equity and justice for the Global South in the climate-trade-development nexus. On clean technology manufacturing, global clean tech manufacturing is concentrated in China, the EU and the US; developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia together account for less than 5 per cent of production value. Meanwhile, the Global South faces a dual challenge of decarbonizing while industrializing to meet the demands of a growing economy. Structural asymmetries persist: Developing nations assemble goods but import value-heavy inputs. This paper explores how countries can pursue green industrialization by building clean-tech manufacturing capacity amid China’s dominance, limited domestic capacities, and unequal participation in global trade. Using case studies from China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico, it outlines key takeaways from country experiences in the clean technology sector, calling for renewed industrial policy, South-South cooperation, and global rule reform to build resilient economies. (IANS)

Green Transition: Developing Countries Urged to Step Up to Avoid Losses

Developing countries risk being left behind in the new green economy despite being richly endowed with critical minerals crucial for energy transition, a new report has revealed. The report, titled “Towards a New Green World: Critical Minerals—Moving Up the Value Chain, by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) reveals that the ongoing global transition toward renewable energy is repeating old patterns of resource extraction and dependency. While developing nations provide the raw materials needed for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles, the real profits are reaped elsewhere. “Developing countries continue to export raw materials while industrialized nations capture most of the value through refining, manufacturing, and innovation,” reads part of the report. According to the report, from copper and cobalt to lithium and rare earth elements, the mineral wealth of the Global South powers the world’s green ambitions, but the benefits rarely reach those who mine them. For instance, Chile contributes around 30 percent of the world’s raw copper exports, yet captures only 12 percent of the revenue from processed copper. Australia supplies more than 76 percent of global raw lithium, but China earns nearly a quarter of the world’s processed lithium export revenues. Meanwhile, Indonesia produces over 60 percent of mined nickel, but China and Japan control 75 percent of global refining capacity. “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localisation and value addition. There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialisation,” said Sunita Narain, CSE’s Director general. The report warns that if developing countries remain stuck in the role of raw material suppliers, they could face new economic vulnerabilities. Heavy reliance on mineral exports exposes economies to commodity price shocks, environmental degradation, and “boom-and-bust” cycles that weaken long-term development. For example, Chile’s current account balance surged twenty-fold in 2004 during a global copper price spike, only to contract sharply when prices fell again. However, the report also highlights emerging success stories showing that change is possible. Indonesia, for example, banned the export of nickel ore in 2014 and introduced incentives for companies investing in local smelting and refining. This policy attracted over US$20 billion in downstream projects and transformed the country into the world’s largest refined-nickel producer. “In Africa, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have formed a joint battery value chain partnership aimed at local processing of nickel, manganese, and cobalt critical inputs for electric vehicle batteries. Similarly, the African Union’s Green Minerals Strategy, launched in 2025, seeks to ensure that Africa moves from being merely a supplier of raw materials to an integrated partner in global value chains,” the report reads. To prevent the green transition from becoming another form of exploitation, the report proposes four strategic pillars for the Global South. First, sufficiency encouraging sustainable consumption and reducing over extraction. Second, recycling and circularity. Investing in technologies to recover minerals from e-waste and used batteries. Third, regional cooperation, through frameworks like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), to harmonize standards and attract investment. Fourth, economic diversification, to reduce dependence on single-resource exports and build resilience against price shocks. “The global green transition risks reproducing old inequities under a new climate-friendly banner, unless the Global South is empowered to capture greater value, diversify its economies, and shape the governance of emerging green industries,” says Avantika Goswami, programme manager, climate change, CSE. The study calls on policymakers to embed justice, human rights, and environmental safeguards in mineral governance. It also urges stronger international collaboration that enables fair financing, technology transfer, and equitable participation in the green value chain. “The future green economy must not mirror the inequalities of the old one. The Global South needs not just a greener world but a fairer one, with economic resilience at its core, in hand with climate action,” says Narain.

Should India cope or cop-out?

Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment, pertinently asks: “Why single out coal? Why not natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel, and emits gases that contribute to global warming? I know, I am asking an inconvenient question. But bear with me. I do so, knowing that we need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But we need clarity on what we are doing and why?” Most people say that Belem, which hosts COP30 multilateral meet, is a spectacularly beautiful place in Brazil. The event marks the 30th edition of a global alliance, which wants to mitigate the effects of Climate Change, and tackle the looming crisis. Predictably, soon after he was elected for a second term, the US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the 2015 Paris Agreement. He did the same during his first tenure. Nevertheless, the Brazilian event will continue, even as it struggles to find solutions. Like most institutions, which are either governed directly or indirectly by the United Nations, its future faces challenges. For India, events like COP30 are of extreme importance for various factors. One, they trigger old and haggard arguments about the double standards, and hypocrisy of the West in Climate Change issues. Two, there is the growing pressure from global activists, actively aided and abetted by what I would call the brown sepoys. Three, although India is successful, particularly since the signing of the Paris Agreement, to grow its share of renewable production, and consumption increases rapidly, it faces stark choices. Despite the successes, the pressures are mounting. In an article, Anurabha Ghosh, a leading activist, wrote, “The time for promises is now over. COP30 must mark the shift from a bank of promises to a bank of actions where delivery not declarations mark progress. Nowhere is this more important than in South Asia, a region on the front lines of clear climate crisis…. For India, climate action is both a necessity and an opportunity…. But for it to succeed, the world must come together through smarter, more inclusive multilateralism.” Of course, as is the case with global activists, the voice is eloquent, articulate, and passionate. But India’s choices cannot be dictated only by the western or global concerns. For example, take the case of the increasing pressure to reduce the use of thermal energy, or of electricity generated by coal. In contrast, the European nations, which are not openly hostile to the Paris Agreement like the US, adopt a peculiar stance on energy sources. As far as they are concerned, natural gas is good, but coal is dirty, old, and polluting. It is ironic that gas, like coal, is a fossil fuel, and no matter how one spins it, or liquefies it, gas remains a polluting fuel. One cannot condone the use of one, and condemn the other. Obviously, everyone does not buy the argument. An environmentalist, Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment, pertinently asks: “Why single out coal? Why not natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel, and emits gases that contribute to global warming? I know, I am asking an inconvenient question. But bear with me. I do so, knowing that we need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But we need clarity on what we are doing and why?” Now, Narain is not a fan of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, or the ruling regime. She is not a fan of coal, or Trump. When the US president says that Climate Change is a hoax, and a fraud, Narain asks the reasons to single out coal vis-à-vis gas. She is merely harping on the fact that it is unjust, and cruel to impose restrictions on energy use on the third world countries. Narain has pointed that the average electricity consumption of an American is 36 times that of an average Indian household. Hence, as the Indian economy grows rapidly, emerges as the fastest-growing major economy in the world, millions will walk out of a life of poverty and destitution, and become part of the new aspirational Indian middle-class generation. These are families that have never used a refrigerator, mixer, or microwave oven, forget about a washing machine, dishwasher, or other gadgets. They need electricity, whatever may be the source, and coal is most obvious one in India. But the brown sepoy of the global activists have other arguments. They want India to give up coal, adopt gas in the interim period, and accelerate the production and use of renewables, and green energy. While this may be a fine argument for the Europeans, and even the US, which have access to gas, it does not suit India. While India sits comfortably vis-à-vis targets for green sources, its energy demand is high. At least for the next decade or so, it cannot give up on coal. At present, India produces a billion tonnes of coal a year, and imports 200 million tonnes. India has the fifth largest reserves of coal in the world, and half of the power and electricity generated is based on coal. This figure is likely to remain the same till 2030. Hence, it is virtually impossible for India to forsake coal, and choose gas and green sources, if it wishes to maintain high GDP growth. Even if one agrees with the argument, where will the gas come from? Most of the coal is locally produced, but the country has minimal gas sources. Hence, it will need to import huge quantities every year. Apart from the infrastructure costs, and issues of energy security, it will distort the current account deficit, and balance of payments. Just imagine the dollar value of importing gas equivalent a billion tonnes of coal! No government can take such a decision. It is economic harakiri, and political suicide for a ruling political party. Well, the next level of argument is that India needs to be a global poster boy, and reduce energy use through efficiency, and efficacy. For example, in heated discussions that the author has had with activists, the latter contend that there is no need to supply electricity to the poor and dark areas by using coal. Let these old, pristine communities live the way they do. Push more welfare schemes, and provide them with social security. Make sure that they get the basic amenities like food and drinking water, apart from healthcare and education, and higher incomes, minus the electricity. I find it strange. Well, I may not matter, but the Indian policy-makers will need to juggle with this kind of arguments, and activism, which may seem to border on the unusual. This explains why each time a coal mine licence is given, or a thermal plant construction begins, there are waves of protests. But then India cannot afford to let its guard down, and needs to ensure its economic interests. Global activists, and their brown sepoy backers will continue to question. The author has worked for leading media houses, authored two books, and is now Executive Director, C Voter Foundation; views are personal

Data smog engulfs capital as pollution figures go missing

As a grey blanket of smog smothered the city and Delhiites struggled to breathe, air pollution data went missing for a major portion of Monday. Since 1 pm, neither hourly air quality index (AQI) updates nor the city's daily average had been released till late evening, even as the air visibly worsened since the afternoon. While hourly AQI data for individual stations was back on the Central Pollution Control Board website around 9pm, there were gaps in readings at several monitors. There was no response from CPCB or the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to TOI's queries on the data outage. As per an independent analysis, the average PM2.5 concentration from 12am to 9pm on Monday was 249 micrograms per cubic metre as compared to 215 micrograms per cubic metre over the same period of the previous day. Based on these readings, the PM2.5 levels were near severe on Monday. Till early afternoon, when the last available readings were published, the city's average PM2.5 levels - the primary pollutant responsible for Delhi's foul air - were nearly identical to those recorded at the same time on Sunday. Yet, the corresponding AQI values were significantly higher, mirroring the palpable deterioration that residents could feel. By evening, visibility had dropped sharply and an acrid stench hung in the air. Roads and flyovers disappeared into a yellow-grey haze as people covered their faces and hurried indoors. "The CPCB has not updated any data since the afternoon and it's not the first time this has happened in the last two years. The data missing from such a crucial website at such a critical time, handicaps citizens, researchers and regulators in taking action to reduce pollution or initiate precautionary measures, " said Sunil Dahiya, founder and lead analyst, Envirocatalysts. From 1pm onwards, data went missing from the CPCB website but was available on the DPCC portal. This indicated that the monitors were working and the glitch was elsewhere. By around 5.30pm, out of 562 stations across India, only 4 were live. Gurgaon's AQI 'cover story': Trees, walls & missing data A thick smokescreen hung over the city till late Monday morning. It was much the same in Delhi, Noida and other parts of NCR. But while Delhi's AQI was 345 (very poor) and Noida's 318 (very poor), Gurgaon seemed to be breathing easier with an AQI of 221 (poor). What one saw didn't fit with what the data suggested. It's been like this through this peak pollution season, since Diwali, with Gurgaon's average AQI mostly better than other NCR cities. Since Diwali, Gurgaon has recorded only two very poor AQI days, 16 poor days and three moderate days. Within the same airshed, this can happen sometimes because of wind direction and hyperlocal meteorological factors. But when it sustains over a period of time, one has to look more closely at the data. In fact, place recording the data. That's what we did on Monday. It was revealing. All five continuous air monitoring stations - at Vikas Sadan, Sector 51, Teri Gram, Gwalpahari and Manesar - are close to thick foliage or near walls, violating CPCB rules that require monitors to be installed at least 20-30 metres from trees and 50 metres from major structures, in open and wellventilated areas. The stations have also not consistently recorded PM2.5 and sulphur dioxide (SO₂) data, lowering the city's AQI averages. Gwalpahari and Teri Gram recorded incomplete indices for several days. LED display boards at all five stations have, meanwhile, been non-functional for weeks. Over the years, vegetation within govt and institutional campuses has grown tall around these stations, trapping air and absorbing a share of pollutants before they reach the sensors. The ambience of the stations, in other words, is very different from the ambience of the road that hits you as you step out. "Vegetation grew, but the monitors' locations stayed fixed, " an official said. An analysis of CPCB's real-time data shows the Gwalpahari station failed to record PM2.5 levels for several hours on multiple days this month. Since AQI averages are based on available readings, missing data of PM2.5 - the pollutant most responsible for NCR's poor air - improves the average score. At Teri Gram, SO₂ data was missing for extended periods, which means one key gaseous pollutant wasn't factored in AQI calculations. "The stations are recording partial data and AQI looks better than it should. There are long gaps in data, " said Shubhansh Tiwari, a research associate at Centre for Science and Environment.

Climate finance emerges as dominant issue as COP30 Summit opens in Brazil

The COP30 Summit opened in Brazil’s Belem on Monday with a brief agenda dispute that was swiftly resolved before the formal opening ceremony, with climate finance emerging as the dominant issue for the summit. The disagreement centred on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which mandates developed countries provide financial resources to assist developing nations with mitigation and adaptation. Developing countries, particularly the G77 bloc, demanded its inclusion on the official agenda following inadequate and unpredictable climate finance flows. Developed countries, including the EU, resisted. The matter was resolved after it was agreed Article 9.1 would be discussed under Presidency consultations rather than on the formal agenda. The June Bonn climate meeting had also been delayed over the same issue. “India was among the first countries to raise concerns about the inadequacy of the finance outcome at Baku, and has carried that forward to Bonn demanding an agenda item on Article 9.1. This will remain crucial as finance is prominent in its absence and inadequacy across many tracks be it adaptation, mitigation and even the loss and damage fund that is yet to disburse fund. India must carry this mantle even at COP30,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager at the Centre for Science and Environment’s Climate Change division.

Gurgaon’s AQI‘cover story’: Trees, walls& missing data

Gurgaon: A thick smokescreen hung over the city till late Monday morning. It was much the same in Delhi, Noida and other parts of NCR. But while Delhi's AQI was 345 (very poor) and Noida's 318 (very poor), Gurgaon seemed to be breathing easier with an AQI of 221 (poor). What one saw didn't fit with what the data suggested. It's been like this through this peak pollution season, since Diwali, with Gurgaon's average AQI mostly better than other NCR cities. Since Diwali, Gurgaon has recorded only two very poor AQI days, 16 poor days and three moderate days. Within the same airshed, this can happen sometimes because of wind direction and hyperlocal meteorological factors. But when it sustains over a period of time, one has to look more closely at the data. In fact, place recording the data. That's what we did on Monday. It was revealing. All five continuous air monitoring stations — at Vikas Sadan, Sector 51, Teri Gram, Gwalpahari and Manesar — are close to thick foliage or near walls, violating CPCB rules that require monitors to be installed at least 20-30 metres from trees and 50 metres from major structures, in open and well-ventilated areas. The stations have also not consistently recorded PM2.5 and sulphur dioxide (SO₂) data, lowering the city's AQI averages. Gwalpahari and Teri Gram recorded incomplete indices for several days. LED display boards at all five stations have, meanwhile, been nonfunctional for weeks. Over the years, vegetation within govt and institutional campuses has grown tall around these stations, trapping air and absorbing a share of pollutants before they reach the sensors. The ambience of the stations, in other words, is very different from the ambience of the road that hits you as you step out. "Vegetation grew, but the monitors' locations stayed fixed, " an official said. An analysis of CPCB's real-time data shows the Gwalpahari station failed to record PM2.5 levels for several hours on multiple days this month. Since AQI averages are based on available readings, missing data of PM2.5 — the pollutant most responsible for NCR's poor air — improves the average score. At Teri Gram, SO₂ data was missing for extended periods, which means one key gaseous pollutant wasn't factored in AQI calculations. "The stations are recording partial data and AQI looks better than it should. There are long gaps in data, " said Shubhansh Tiwari, a research associate at Centre for Science and Environment. "There is no live display, but the data is being generated every day. LED screens are unable to show data as they were shut down for several months, " Krishan Kumar, regional officer, HSPCB, told TOI.

Developing nations risk losing out on green economy benefits: CSE

Developing countries could be left behind in the race towards a green economy unless they make economic resilience and green industrialisation central to their climate agenda, noted a new set of discussion papers by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Released on the eve of the UN's 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, the paper series titled "Towards a New Green World" urges developing nations to focus on value addition and localised production to ensure equitable participation in the emerging global green transition. CSE Director General Sunita Narain said, "Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change." She added, "Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localisation and value addition. There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialisation." The papers focus on three strategic fronts of the transition, agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology and manufacturing. It presents a Southern perspective on how developing economies can participate and remain afloat in the new, green order. According to the series, developing nations supply much of the world's raw resources but capture only a fraction of the profits. From cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the report says the green transition risks "repeating old patterns of extraction and dependence." CSE programme manager for climate change, Avantika Goswami, noted "We need to reinvent the climate agenda for the Global South. Calling for decarbonisation without economic resilience is no longer viable." The first paper, on agriculture and forest commodities, notes that developing nations are trapped in a low-value export cycle. For instance, Ivory Coast and Ghana, which produce over 50 per cent of the world's cocoa beans, account for only 6.2 per cent of total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate, while manufacturers and retailers in the Global North capture nearly 80-90 per cent of profits. The paper argues that "a shift from raw exports to processing and diversification is critical." The second paper, on critical minerals, highlights that while the Global South holds most reserves crucial for the energy transition, it captures little of the value generated. Goswami said, "These countries remain exposed to commodity price volatility, balance-of-payments instability, and geopolitical risk." The paper examines the mineral strategies of Chile, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, calling for policies that centre "equity and justice for the Global South." The third paper, on clean technology manufacturing, observes that global production is dominated by China, the EU and the US, with developing regions accounting for less than 5 per cent of production value. It urges renewed industrial policies, South-South cooperation and reforms in trade rules. Concluding, Narain said, "The future green economy must not mirror the inequalities of the old one. The Global South needs not just a greener world, but a fairer one, with economic resilience at its core, in hand with climate action." (ANI) (This content is sourced from a syndicated feed and is published as received. The Tribune assumes no responsibility or liability for its accuracy, completeness, or content.)

COP30: Developing nations at risk of being left behind in green economy race, says research

Will developing countries be left behind in the race towards a new, green economy? This is an emerging threat, says a set of new discussion papers by New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) at a time when the UN’s 30th Conference of Parties (COP) has kicked off in Belem in Brazil amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape in which climate ambition is struggling to stay afloat. ‘Towards a new green world’, as the CSE paper series is called, was released on the eve of COP30. It calls for centering economic resilience, value addition and green industrialisation in the climate agenda for developing countries. Releasing the series, CSE Director General Sunita Narain said: “Inclusive and affordable development is critical for economic resilience and will help combat climate change.” “Countries need an economic stake in the green transition, which requires domestic manufacturing and job creation. For this, we must also reset global trade and finance rules for localisation and value addition. “There is an opportunity to rethink these rules so that distributed local-led production systems can become the basis of green industrialisation,” Narain added. Focussing on three strategic fronts of the green transition -- agriculture and forest commodities, critical minerals, and clean technology and manufacturing -- the series presents a Southern perspective on how the Global South can participate and stay afloat in the new, green economy. Across commodities, minerals and manufacturing, developing countries face a common dilemma: They supply the world’s resources but capture too little of the value. From raw cocoa and copper to lithium and solar cells, the green transition is repeating old patterns of extraction and dependence. “The global green transition risks reproducing old inequities under a new climate-friendly banner, unless the Global South is empowered to capture greater value, diversify its economies, and shape the governance of emerging green industries,” says Avantika Goswami, programme manager, climate change, CSE. “We need to reinvent the climate agenda for the Global South. Calling for decarbonisation without economic resilience is no longer viable,” she adds. On agriculture and forest commodities, developing countries are trapped in a low-value export cycle -- they sell raw agricultural and forest commodities, and end up with almost nothing of the value, says the first paper in the series. For instance, Ivory Coast and Ghana produce over 50 per cent of the world’s cocoa beans; but, they account for a mere 6.2 per cent of the total export revenue from value-added products like chocolate and cocoa powder. In contrast, manufacturers and retailers located in Global North countries capture almost 80-90 per cent of the total profit margin of a chocolate bar. The paper argues that “a shift from raw exports to processing and diversification is critical”. On critical minerals, the Global South holds most of the world’s reserves of critical minerals crucial for energy transition; but it captures little of the value generated from refining and manufacturing. Says Goswami: “These countries remain exposed to commodity price volatility, balance-of-payments instability, and geopolitical risk.” Taking the cases of three countries -- Chile, Indonesia, and Congo -- the paper has analysed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of their critical minerals policies and strategic plans and offers a list of principles for paving the way forward through centering equity and justice for the Global South in the climate-trade-development nexus. On clean technology manufacturing, global clean tech manufacturing is concentrated in China, the EU and the US; developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia together account for less than 5 per cent of production value. Meanwhile, the Global South faces a dual challenge of decarbonising while industrialising to meet the demands of a growing economy. Structural asymmetries persist: Developing nations assemble goods but import value-heavy inputs. This paper explores how countries can pursue green industrialisation by building clean-tech manufacturing capacity amid China’s dominance, limited domestic capacities, and unequal participation in global trade. Using case studies from China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico, it outlines key takeaways from country experiences in the clean technology sector, calling for renewed industrial policy, South-South cooperation, and global rule reform to build resilient economies. The three papers present preliminary pathways for how developing countries can capture more value, earn more revenue and emerge as strong players in the new green economy for combating climate change. Says Narain: “The future green economy must not mirror the inequalities of the old one. The Global South needs not just a greener world -- but a fairer one, with economic resilience at its core, in hand with climate action.”