These countries have historically drawn a red line, refusing to recognize the necessity of phasing down oil and gas to address the climate crisis.

It was perhaps preordained that an agreement on reducing fossil fuel production and consumption should have happened at the COP28 climate negotiations in Dubai, presided over by the CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies. 

For three decades, the international community has avoided the direct mention of fossil fuels in climate agreements. The burning of coal, oil, and gas—the primary drivers of global warming—remained a spectre haunting negotiations, unacknowledged due to the staunch resistance from major oil and gas producers. These countries have historically drawn a red line, refusing to recognize the necessity of phasing down oil and gas to address the climate crisis.

However, COP28 shattered this status quo. The decision to transition away from fossil fuels, made in a petrostate and against the preferences of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), marks a significant leap towards acknowledging and addressing the root cause of climate change.

The agreement, aiming for a “just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels,” is a nuanced wording to start reducing the production and consumption of fossil fuels. While it might not explicitly call for a phase-down or a phase-out, it sends an unmistakable message to the fossil fuel industry: the era of unchecked fossil fuel consumption is drawing to a close.

Yet, COP28 will be remembered for more than just this ground-breaking agreement. It also will be remembered for operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund on the very first day of the conference to support vulnerable developing countries in dealing with climate disasters. While the initial pledges to the fund remains about $800 million (with the host the United Arab Emirates contributing $100 million and the United States just $17.5 million), which is far less than what is needed, the operationalisation of the fund marks an important milestone in the climate justice movement. Dubai COP also enhanced the mitigation ambition by adopting the decision taken by the G20 under India’s presidency to triple the renewable energy capacity and double the energy efficiency improvements globally by 2030.

Missed opportunity

But not all went well. The shortcomings of the Global Stocktaking (GST) process were glaringly evident. This critical component, designed to evaluate global progress in addressing climate change, acknowledged the stark reality: current efforts are insufficient, steering us towards a worrying 2.7°C rise in global temperatures. However, the GST’s failure to assign clear responsibility and provide actionable guidance for both developed and developing countries to enhance ambition for the 2025 emission reduction pledges was a significant missed opportunity. Especially concerning was its failure in highlighting the unfulfilled commitments of developed nations and its apparent leniency towards China, the world’s largest emitter. This oversight not only undermines the process’s credibility but also stalls the momentum needed for meaningful global climate action.

The fact is that the developed countries have consistently not met any of their commitments on emissions reduction or financial support. They continue to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure and emit more than their fair share. For instance, the US presently is the largest producer of oil and gas, producing nearly a quarter of global natural gas and 15% of world’s crude oil. The problem is there is no sign that it is phasing down fossil fuels as the Biden administration has recently approved new offshore oil and gas lease. The developed countries have also not met their collective finance obligations of proving $100 billion to the developing countries. Likewise, China’s GHG emissions, which is a quarter of the global emissions, needs to peak and reduce quickly to have any chance of meeting 1.5 OC target. Yet, GST failed to point out this crucial issue. The lessons from the first GST are that global climate action needs more than just pledges; it demands accountability, transparency, and equitable responsibility-sharing.

Business takes centre stage

COP28 marked a significant shift in the narrative of global climate conferences, not just in its scale but also in the composition of its attendees. This year’s conference, hosted in the vast expanses of Dubai’s Expo-City, shattered previous records with its 70,000 attendees and an extravagant half-a-billion-dollar budget. Such figures not only dwarfed the attendance of COP21, where the Paris Agreement was born, but also set a new precedent for the financial scale of climate conferences

What stood out most prominently was the robust presence of the business sector. Industry leaders, CEOs of major oil companies, and financiers were present in significant numbers, each bringing their perspectives to the climate table. This marked departure from the usual attendee list drew mixed reactions. Some critics likened the event to a trade show, voicing concerns over the influence of business interests and lobbyists in climate negotiations. However, this criticism overlooks a crucial aspect of climate action: the indispensable role of businesses.

The significant turnout of the business community reflects a growing recognition within the business world of the dual realities of threat and opportunity presented by the climate crisis. This shift in perception is crucial to realign capital—a move away from climate-damaging activities towards sustainable practices. The presence of businesses at COP28 suggests that this realignment may be starting to take shape.

For years, experts in sustainable development have advocated for a synergy between environmental concerns and business interests. COP28 can be seen as a tangible step towards this goal. It highlighted that the path to a sustainable future is not just the responsibility of governments and environmental activists but also of the corporate world.

Overall, the ‘UAE Consensus’ is a bold step forward. The decisions in it, and the scale at which they were showcased, reflect a growing recognition of the urgency of climate action and the need for substantive policy shifts—even in regions highly reliant on fossil fuels. Central to this shift is the emerging narrative of a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels—a theme that will increasingly dominate global discourse as countries internalise the imperative of shutting down fossil fuel establishments and diversifying their economies.

The post A balanced consensus: Despite scepticism, UAE has delivered a balanced package on climate action at COP28 appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

The 28th conference is a milestone event where the international community must confront the harsh truths about our collective (and differentiated) efforts to combat climate emergency.

There is always a hype built around the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Every Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is projected as a do-or-die meeting. Success is typically measured by the grandeur of new pledges, with the host country basking in the glow of any significant commitments. However, the 28^th COP, which begins on 30 November in Dubai, is unique because it is not so much about new promises (though there will undoubtedly be some) but what happened to the old ones. The question to be answered in Dubai this December is: Have the countries kept their promise, and if not, what’s next. Dubai COP, therefore, is the first ‘official’ reality check of the climate crisis. It is also a reality check for the oil and gas industry and for the commitment of the rich world to support poor countries in dealing with climate disasters.

Climate balance sheet

The Paris Climate Accord, adopted in 2015 and signed by 195 countries, is a unique treaty. While it has set an international goal to keep temperature increases within 1.5-2.0°C, it cannot force countries to cut emissions. Countries pledge voluntary commitments to reduce emissions, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), but these are not legally binding and there is no penalty for non-compliance. What the Paris Agreement has is a process to review pledges every five years, called ‘global stocktake’, to check where the world stands on climate action. The assumption is that disclosing information will put moral pressure on countries to enhance their commitments. The Dubai COP, therefore, is crucial because the results from the first-ever global stocktake will be discussed here. It will also be a test of the “moral pressure” hypotheses.

This year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report. It confirms that between 2011 and 2020 global surface temperatures were on average 1.09°C higher than they were from 1850 to 1900, with 1.07°C of this change being caused by human activity

The findings of the UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2023: A Broken Record is even graver. It notes an average temperature 1.8°C warmer than pre-industrial levels in September 2023. It further asserts that proceeding along the current path as determined by NDCs would have us on track for 3°C of climate change by the century’s end.

The preliminary findings of the global stocktake, published in the Synthesis Report of the Technical Dialogue of the Global Stocktake, clearly states the following:

“Global emissions are not in line with modelled global mitigation pathways consistent with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, and there is a rapidly narrowing window to raise ambition and implement existing commitments in order to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

While all assessments clearly show that the world is far off from the 1.5°C emissions trajectory, the big question is what kind of message from the global stocktake will be delivered in Dubai? Would it be greenwashing, or would it call out countries for vapid and unmet commitments? This is important because the outcome of the global stocktake will inform the next round of NDCs that countries need to declare by 2025. These commitments will be implemented through 2035 and thus would decide climate action for the next 10 years. So, the right messaging from COP28 is crucial to unequivocally indicate what countries, developed and developing, are required to do to put the world on track to meet the Paris Agreement goals in the next decade, a decade which will decide whether we will win or lose the climate battle.

Moment of truth for oil and gas

There is the elephant in the room and it is oil and gas (O&G). Often touted as a cleaner fuel than coal, oil and natural gas in 2022 accounted for 54 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions; coal accounted for 40 per cent. O&G is the developed world’s fuel of choice. In the European Union (EU), for instance, they contribute about 60 per cent of the total energy; coal’s contribution is 10 per cent. The reliance on O&G is even greater at 70 per cent in the US. In contrast, the dependence on coal is higher in emerging economies like India, China, South Africa and Indonesia.

Two years ago, at COP26 in Glasgow, an agreement was reached to phase down coal use. This concession was wrung from countries like India that depend heavily on coal to meet their energy demands. Despite repeated attempts, and support from the EU, no such commitments have been made for O&G, although it is abundantly clear that prolonged reliance upon such fuels is entirely incompatible with the 1.5°C goal. Dubai, however, is the perfect venue to make such a commitment.

The UAE is the world’s eighth largest petroleum producer and very much a petrostate. A recent Guardian exposé found that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has the most investment in new petroleum production projects. The CEO of ADNOC is Sultan Al Jabar, the man that the UAE has selected to preside over COP28. So, the stage is set for what the executive director of the International Energy Agency has called a “moment of truth for the [global] oil and gas industry’s efforts on climate”. Would the developed world and the petrostates agree to the O&G phase-down, or would this be another lost opportunity?

A compassionate world

Perhaps the most critical issue for developing countries at COP28 is action on the Loss and Damage Fund, whose creation was agreed to last year at COP27 in Egypt. Recent years have seen a rapid acceleration of climate-related disasters. In 2022, there were 81 weather, climate and water-related disasters in Asia, of which over 83 per cent were flood and storm events. More than 5,000 people lost their lives, more than 50 million people were directly affected and there were more than US$ 36 billion in economic damages.[iv] So far in 2023, the world has witnessed extreme floods in China, forest fire in Canada, flash flood in Somalia, heatwaves in East Asia and extreme rainfall in India. These impacts are being borne disproportionately by smaller, poorer, and inevitably less developed countries, which are least responsible for the climate crisis. The Loss and Damage Fund was envisioned to channel funds from rich economies into those most vulnerable to climate disasters.

While the agreement to create the Loss and Damage Fund last year was undoubtedly momentous, we will see whether this vehicle will be given any teeth in Dubai. If it is left toothless and penniless, the Global South should accept that the North has no intention of taking any responsibility for its historic emissions and has no serious plans to help those in need.

The commitments made in Dubai on the Loss and Damage Fund and action on Oil&Gas will determine whether the goals of the UNFCCC can be met. Will developing countries be made to bear alone the costs of adapting to a rapidly warming planet while the rich burn gasoline and natural gas and utter empty platitudes? Or will the developed world finally take responsibility for its historical emissions?

In essence, COP28 isn’t just another gathering; it’s a milestone event where the international community must confront the harsh truths about our collective (and differentiated) efforts to combat climate emergency.

The post COP28: A reality check appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

COP28 will really test rich nations’ commitment to climate finance. Big Oil & Big Gas will be under severe scrutiny.

There is always a hype build around the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Every Conference of the Parties (COP) is projected as a do-or-die meeting. Success is typically measured by the grandeur of new pledges, with the n=host country basking in the glow of any significant commitments. However, the 28^th COP, which begins on November 30 in Dubai, is unique because it is not so much about new promises (though there will undoubtedly be some) but what happened to the old ones. The question to be answered in Dubai this December is; have the countries kept their promise, and if not, what’s next? Dubai COP, therefore, is the first “official” reality check of the climate crisis. It is also a reality check for the oil and gas industry and for the commitment of the rich world to support poor countries in dealing with climate disasters.

The Paris Climate Accord, adopted in 2015 and signed by 195 countries is a unique treaty. While it has set an international goal to keep temperature increases within 1.5-2°C, it cannot force countries to cut emissions. Countries pledge voluntary commitments to reduce emissions, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), but these are not legally binding, and there is no penalty for non-compliance. What the Paris Agreement has is a process to review pledges every five years, called Global Stocktake (GST), to check where the world stands on climate action. The assumption is that disclosing information will put moral pressure on countries to enhance their commitments. The Dubai COP, therefore, is crucial because the results from the first-ever GST will be discussed here.

While all assessments clearly show that the current emissions trajectory will lead to a 3°C warning by the end of the century, the big question is what kind of message from GST will be delivered in Dubai. Would it be greenwashing, or would it call out countries for vapid and unmet commitments? This is important because the outcome of GST will inform the next round of NDCs that countries need to declare by 2025. These commitments will be implemented through 2025 and thus would decide climate action for the next 10 years. So, the right messaging from COP28 is crucial to unequivocally indicate what countries, developed and developing, are required to do to put the world on track to meet the Paris Agreements goals in the next decade, a decade which will decide whether we will win or lose the climate battle.

Then there’s the elephant in the room. Often touted as a cleaner fuel than coal, oil and natural gas (O&G) in 2022 accounted for 54% of global greenhouse gas emissions; coal accounted for 40%. O&G is the developed world’s fuel of choice. In the EU, for instance, they contribute about 60% of the total energy; coal’s contribution is 10%. The reliance on O&G is even greater at 70% in the US. In contrast, the dependence on coal is higher in emerging economies like India, China, South Africa and Indonesia.

Two years ago, at COP26 in Glasgow, an agreement was reached to phase down coal use. This concession was wrung from countries like India that depend heavily on coal to meet their energy demand. Despite repeated attempts, no such commitments have been made for O&G, although it is abundantly clear that prolonged reliance upon such fuels is entirely incompatible with the 1.5°C goal. Dubai, however, is the perfect venue to make such a commitment.

The UAE is the world’s eighth largest petroleum producer and very mush a petrostates. A recent Guardian expose found that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has the most investment in new petroleum production projects. The CEO of ADNOC is Sultan Al Jabar, the man that the UAE has selected to preside over COP28. So, the stage is set for what the executive director of the International Energy Agency has called a “moment of truth for the (global) oil and gas industry’s efforts on climate”. Would the developed world and the petrostates agree to the O&G phase-down, or would this be another lost opportunity?

Perhaps the most critical issue for developing countries at COP28 is action on the Loss and Demage Fund (LDF), whose creation was agreed to last year at COP27 in Egypt. Recent years have seen a rapid acceleration of climate-related disasters. These impacts are being borne disproportionately by smaller, poorer, and inevitably less developed countries, which are least responsible for the climate crisis. LDF was envisioned to channel funds from rich economies into those most vulnerable to climate disasters.

While the agreement to create the LDF last year was undoubtedly momentous, we will see whether this vehicles will be given any teeth in Dubai. If it is left toothless and penniless, the Global South should accept that the North has no intention of taking any responsibility for its historic emissions and has no serious plans to help those in need.

The commitments made in Dubai on LDF and action on O&G will determine whether the goals of UNFCCC can be met. Will developing countries be made to bear alone the costs of adaption to a rapidly warming planet while the rich burn petrol and utter empty platitudes? Or will the developed world finally take responsibility for its historical emissions?

In essence, COP28 isn’t just another gathering; it’s a milestone event where the international community must confront the harsh truths about our collective (and differentiated) efforts to combat climate emergency

The post So, what can Dubai do? appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

About 48% of these emissions come from the use of biomass, such as fuelwood and dung cakes, for cooking and heating.

Air pollution is a pan-India problem. In 2022, the average PM2.5 levels across the country were 10.7 times higher than the WHO standard. This means that almost the entire country breathes air considered unsafe by the WHO. The cost of this pollution is around 1.2 million premature deaths and 3% of GDP. Multiple studies show that air pollution in rural areas is as severe as in urban areas, and about 70% of premature deaths from air pollution happen in villages.

The question thus is: Where does all this PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size) come from? Recent iFOREST research has attempted to answer this question. Using globally accepted methodology and government data, the research shows that India emits approximately 5.2 million tonnes (MT) of PM2.5 annually, excluding dust from natural and manmade sources.

About 48% of these emissions come from the use of biomass, such as fuelwood and dung cakes, for cooking and heating. Open burning of crop residues contributes an additional 6.5%, making biomass burning responsible for 55% of total PM2.5 emissions. Industry and power plants are the second-largest emitters, contributing about 37%. The transport sector, a major focus of air pollution mitigation, contributes about 7% of the total PM2.5 emissions.

But how could this be? How can emissions from all industries and power plants (India has the world’s second-largest fleet of coal-based power plants) and 300 million plus vehicles plying on roads be less than those from the chullahs of the poor? The answer is simple: unlike automobiles and industries where some pollution control devices are used, biomass cookstoves and open burning in fields emit all of their pollutants unconstrained into the air. Thus, PM2.5 emission per kilogram of biomass in cookstoves is tens to hundreds of times more than those from per kg of coal in power plants or diesel in automobiles. This is precisely why rural areas suffer equally from air pollution.

The Regional Emission Inventory in Asia (REAS), an initiative by researchers from Japan to estimate air pollution from Asian countries, provides data on India’s PM2.5 emissions from 1950 to 2015 for specific sectors. iFOREST research, which follows REAS’s methodology, has estimated the emissions for 2021. The analysis of both datasets indicates that the emissions from the industry sector are on an upward trend, while those from the transport sector and power plants peaked in 2010 and have declined marginally.

The most significant emissions decline has happened from residential cooking. PM2.5 emissions from cooking have dropped by 13% or about 0.3 MT during 2010-2021 due to the shift to LPG. Thus, the 50 million households that have shifted to LPG as their primary cooking fuel between 2010 and 2021, thanks to programs like Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), have contributed the most to reducing air pollution.

To address air pollution decisively, we must go beyond “optics” like odd-even, banning construction, spraying water, inducing artificial rains, etc. and focus on energy transition.

Energy transition in the residential sector would provide the biggest gains. Thus, shifting households to LPG, biogas, or electricity for cooking and heating would eliminate 48% of India’s PM2.5 emissions. Doing so would also eliminate 800,000 premature deaths directly caused by exposure to PM2.5 inside the household and enable the country to achieve its commitments under Sustainable Development Goal 7 to provide “clean energy to all by 2030”. While this is a herculean task, it can be achieved with focused policy interventions like PMUY.

Similarly, energy transition in industry, especially MSMEs, and rigorous monitoring and enforcement would be necessary to decrease industrial pollution. On the other hand, a shift to EVs in the automobile sector would be necessary to reduce vehicular pollution.

Lastly, eliminating stubble burning is essential to decrease severe and hazardous pollution days in Delhi-NCR. This practice contributes to PM2.5 emissions equal to those from all of India’s vehicles. Both incentives and penalties should be deployed to eliminate this environmentally damaging practice.

These are the steps for controlling air pollution in the country; anything less would not suffice.

The post What pollutes India?: Biomass burning remains the biggest contributor, but its share is falling because of PMUY appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

Dust aside, biomass burning contributes most to PM2.5-led air pollution countrywide. Households are bigger emitters than farmers. Industry emissions come next

Air pollution is a pervasive issue in India, with the Indo-Gangetic Plain suffering the most severe consequences. The severity of this problem is underscored by recent rankings that place Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai among the world’s 10 most polluted cities. Mumbai’s air quality, for instance, has steadily deteriorated in the last five years, with its air quality index (AQI) frequently surpassing 200, indicating poor conditions, and sometimes even 300, signifying very poor air quality. This trend raises urgent questions about the root causes of this escalating air pollution and why it remains unmitigated.

Air pollution is a pervasive issue in India, with the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP)suffering the most severe Consequences. The severity of this problem is underscored by recent rankings that place Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai among the world, ‘s 10 most polluted cities. Mumbai, ‘s air quality for instance, has steadily deteriorated in the last five years, with its air quality index (AQI) Frequently surpassing 200, indicating poor Conditions, and sometimes even 300, signifying very poor air quality, This trend raises urgent questions about the root causes of this escalating air pollutions and why it remains unmitigated.

Colleagues and I  in a comprehensive study put together data From Various Sources to develop an inventory of air pollutants in India, focusing on PM2.5, which are particles less than 2.5 microns in size and a primary concern for the country. High exposure to various PM2.5 is detrimental to health, affecting various bodily systems, particularly the respiratory system and increasing the risk of diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular ailments. 

Our research indicates that India emits approximately 5.2 million tones’ of PM2.5 annually, not accounting for bust form land and construction. Astonishingly,82 0/0 of this comes from biomass burning and industrial activities. 

Biomass burning is the leading cause of PM2.5 emissions in India, with residential fuel and burning of agricultural residue accounting for over half of these emissions. The reason biomass burning contributes such a massive share is that their emissions are unfiltered. Unlike automobiles and industries where some pollution control devices are used, biomass cookstoves and open burning in fields emit all their pollutants unconstrained into the air. 

Some notable sources of biomass-related emissions are:

Cooking | Biomass-firewood, dung cakes -residues and charcoal – is the primary cooking fuel around 500 million people, mainly in rural areas, contributing 38.7 /0 of PM2.5 emissions. Although programmers like PM Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) have reduced biomass usage, the transition to cleaner fuels must be expedited to significantly cut down on both indoor and outdoor air pollution. 

Heating | Often overlooked, biomass used for heating especially during winters, is a significant pollution source. Two-thirds of Indian households -about 860 million people in rural and urban areas – rely on biomass for heating. Emissions from this source exceed those from the power and transport sectors. so if the Delhi government wants to reduce air pollution during winter. It should ensure there is no burning construction and spraying water on roads. 

Crop Residue Burundi | This practice Contributed about 7/ of PM2.5 emissions. Equal to the emissions form all of India, s vehicles. About 100 million tones of crop residues are burnt year. Whit a third of this occurred within a 30-day period across Punjab, Haryana. Up and Rajasthan in October and November. This intense burning significantly esca-lates pollution levels in cities like Delhi to hazardous pollution days. 

It is essential to underscore that a bulk of biomass used for heating and crop residue burning takes place during winter. This. along with adverse meteorological conditions in IGP. Pushes the pollution to dangerous IeveI in winter. 

Industry invisible | Industries. often neglected in discussions on air pollution, are the second-largest source of PM2.5, contributing 29% of the emissions and are the leading cause of pollution in cities like Mumbai and Kolkata. While larger industries have adopted adequate pollution controls, countless smaller enterprises have not. Sectors like brick kilns, metal, food processing, and agro-based industries are some of the key ones that need stringent oversight. 

Likewise, the power sector, accounting for 8% of PM2.5, must adhere to emission norms, as about 60% of power plants still fail to meet the strict standards set in 2015. 

Automobile Focus: Vehicles, which have been a focal point of pollution control efforts over the past two decades, contribute only 7% of PM2.5 emissions. While in cities, this number could be a little higher, emissions from biomass. This is precisely why vehicle restriction schemes like odd-even have a minimal impact on improving air quality in cities like Delhi. 

The analysis clearly demonstrates the need for substantial actions to shift households away from biomass fuels for cooking and heating through programmes such as PMUY. Under the Sustainable Development Goals, India has committed to providing clean fuel to every household by 2030; achieving this target would be the biggest action in controlling air pollution. Furthermore, the burning of crop residues must not be tolerated. Both incentives and penalities should be used to eliminate this practice as this will bring the quickest result on air quality. Lastly, there must be a concerted effort to decrease industrial pollution throught rigorous monitoring and enforcement. These strategies must take precedence as they represent the primary sources of air pollution.  

The post Clean air? Target cooking, not cars appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

Article The transformative potential of decarbonisation is that it can meet socio-economic goals better than current development pathways.

The Paris Agreement that India signed alongside 195 other countries in 2015 came into effect on 4 November 2016. Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement refers to the goal of achieving ‘Net Zero’ through a “balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”.

To fulfil the obligations under the Paris Agreement, in November 2021, at the 26^th Conference of Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged that India would reach net zero emissions by 2070 and meet 50 per cent of its electricity requirements from renewable sources by the year 2030. In the words of Dr Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, “India is pioneering a new model of economic development that could avoid the carbon-intensive approaches that many countries have pursued in the past – and provide a blueprint for other developing economies”. Clearly, in the eyes of the world, India is in a position where it can act as a leader in climate action and pave the way for that development that follows an alternative model to that of the industrialised western countries and China. We can demonstrate that the process of economic growth need not come at the cost of our environment or indeed the health of our citizens.

To safeguard the well-being of humanity, Article 2 of the Paris Agreement refers to two temperature thresholds. While the globe cannot, under any circumstances, cross 2 degrees Celsius (C) of warming, the Agreement binds countries to attempt as far as possible to stay within 1.5C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made it clear what staying within 1.5C would entail. Global carbon emissions have to drop drastically – from their current level of 36 gigatons each year, to zero or near-zero by the middle of this century (i.e. around the year 2050). The IPCC makes it clear that this target is achievable through a combination of reducing fossil fuel use and increasing the speed of carbon removal from the atmosphere. More importantly, it also makes clear that the consequences of crossing 1.5C will result in unbearable impacts on humans and nature.

The cost of not achieving Net Zero

These impacts are not things that will only occur far in the future as conditions that our grandchildren and their children will experience; they are already manifesting. India has warmed by around 0.7C since 1900. This is not evenly distributed – some cities like Kolkata have seen 4.5C of average temperature rise due to a combination of urban heat island effects and changes in the amount of vegetation in and around the city. The Himalayas, which are a highly vulnerable landscape that provides incalculable ecosystem services such as delivering melt water to perennial rivers and ensuring that rain-bearing winds from the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean reach a condensation point before crossing over to China, underwent maximum warming of 2.5C from 1950 to 1999 and could experience a maximum temperature rise of 9C by 2100. This would be accompanied by decades of catastrophic flooding in the Gangetic region and eventually water scarcity in the entire northern half of India. Indian Ocean cyclones are increasing in volume and intensity, while the historically calm Arabian Sea has started producing cyclones more frequently than before, as citizens in Mumbai and the rest of the Western Coast of India can attest to.

The impact of the warming on the economy and livelihoods is equally alarming. By one estimate, if global warming crosses 2C, India’s GDP will be 3 per cent lower in 2100 than it would have been otherwise. If it crosses 4C, India will lose around 13 per cent of GDP. However, these estimates are limited to the loss in labour productivity. Global warming also causes and exacerbates extreme weather events such as cyclones and heatwaves. Between 1998 and 2007, India lost $20 billion to climate change impacts. Those losses more than doubled over the next decade – we lost $45 billion between 2007-2017, with the agriculture sector being the worst hit.

If the cost of these weather extremes is included, India’s GDP is already 25 per cent lower than it could have been, and it could lose up to 90 per cent by the end of the century. By 2050, climate-caused economic loss to India could total $6 trillion, according to a Deloitte report in 2021. A separate estimate for ‘slow-onset’ losses such as coastal erosion and flooding indicates that India could lose $4 trillion to flooding through the rest of this century, with an additional 28.6 million people exposed to flood risk across six Indian port cities – Chennai, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Surat and Visakhapatnam. Finally, climate will also impact jobs. It is estimated that India could account for about 34 million of the projected 80 million global job losses from heat stress by 2030. The Reserve Bank of India’s latest report suggests that up to 4.5 per cent of India’s GDP could be at risk by 2030 owing to lost labour hours from extreme heat and humidity. These trends suggest terrifying implications if they are allowed to continue.

If the cost of these weather extremes is included, India’s GDP is already 25 per cent lower than it could have been, and it could lose up to 90 per cent by the end of the century. By 2050, climate-caused economic loss to India could total $6 trillion, according to a Deloitte report in 2021. A separate estimate for ‘slow-onset’ losses such as coastal erosion and flooding indicates that India could lose $4 trillion to flooding through the rest of this century, with an additional 28.6 million people exposed to flood risk across six Indian port cities – Chennai, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Surat and Visakhapatnam. Finally, climate will also impact jobs. It is estimated that India could account for about 34 million of the projected 80 million global job losses from heat stress by 2030. The Reserve Bank of India’s latest report suggests that up to 4.5 per cent of India’s GDP could be at risk by 2030 owing to lost labour hours from extreme heat and humidity. These trends suggest terrifying implications if they are allowed to continue.

Technology is available and growth will be exponential

Despite this urgency, the misconception persists that Net Zero is unrealistic. Some energy historians point out that neither coal, oil nor natural gas managed to cross more than 50 per cent of energy market share in their first 60 years, and conclude that renewable energy cannot dominate the market within 30 years. These historians ignore the historical and present nature of energy markets, the speed of technological development and the already-emerging future trajectory of energy markets that promise to be cleaner.

The past two decades have seen a revolution in renewable energy technologies – solar costs have fallen 90 per cent over the past decade. Building new solar power in India is now cheaper than building a new coal plant, and is quickly becoming cheaper than running existing coal plants. While renewable energy needs electricity storage to be as reliable as coal power, Moody’s projects that wind and solar, including storage cost, will be competitive with coal in India in 2025.

This itself is driven by the battery/ storage revolution coming to India, which could drop costs by 60 per cent in the next decade. This is a continuation of the global trend, which has seen Li-ion batteries become 97 per cent cheaper since 1991, with further room to drop. In addition to making electricity generation cheaper, the battery revolution would drop the cost of electric transportation in India – in about five years, electric vehicles (EVs) are estimated to account for 15 per cent of India’s scooter market, with the share doubling in about 10 years. The savings on fuel imports for transportation will be immense – USD 2.5 trillion by 2047 if the government’s (admittedly ambitious) targets are met. Investment in the battery producing capacity of the Indian industry can further generate huge income for the country.

Likewise, green hydrogen, the key to decarbonising heavy industries, is at a tipping point. Like EVs, electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen in areas without access to cheap electricity has been in practice since the 1950s. In fact, one of India’s first urea plants – the Fertiliser Corporation of India’s Nangal plant – employed electrolysis to produce hydrogen until it switched to hydrocarbons in the 1970s due to shortages of power in the Bhakra grid. But with cheaper renewable energy, green hydrogen is now a reality.

Crucial to remember is that even if India lacks certain technologies, for instance that used in creating commercially viable sodium ion batteries (SIBs), the Paris Agreement can be leveraged for technology transfer, and countries have started to cooperate on technology development.

Transition is possible and desirable in India

If we already have the technology, why are we not decarbonising yet? In a broad sense, we are. Current renewables capacity addition globally is way above the International Energy Agency’s predictions from even five years ago, a trend clearly visible in India. For instance, renewables accounted for 4 per cent of new capacity addition in India in 2001; between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2023, they accounted for over 82 per cent.

Likewise, India has embarked on ambitious missions to competitively produce EVs, batteries, photovoltaic cells and hydrogen fuel. We are at the beginning of a revolution comparable to computers and the internet in the 1970s and 1980s, or smartphone ownership in the 2000s. The good news is that this transition is a win-win for India in terms of growth and jobs.

The other side of the question with respect to decarbonisation is what to do with existing energy generators that are major sources of carbon emissions, i.e., coal power plants. A coal plant’s operational life is 30-35 years. The Central Electricity Authority’s Tariff Regulations actually specify the ‘useful life’ of a coal plant is 25 years. If we adhere to this specification, a coal power plant built in India today should – on a purely technical/ technological basis – be retired by 2050 at the latest. But in practice, the lives of these plants are extended and regulators approve tariffs for older plants at their discretion – a discretion that has expanded to become a standard practice. To keep a plant going beyond 30 years, it needs significant repairs and upgrades, which are effectively a new capital investment at ratepayer cost. Beyond the useful life, coal power plants’ cost of operation exceeds the value they generate. Considering that the cost effectiveness of installing around-the-clock renewables is already competing with that of new coal plants, investments in new coal plants could rapidly become ‘non-performing assets’ (NPAs). A recent study has estimated that even in the existing coal fleet, the non-performing (‘stranded’) assets could be up to $40 billion.

No wonder the government recently put future coal expansion on an indefinite pause. It has already covered half the distance towards the inevitable – a deadline to shut down all coal power in India. But the challenge is a just transition – a transition that will compensate and strengthen workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on coal, oil and gas.

In sum, there are technologies that are ready to deploy right now, for which the barrier is neither technical nor cost, but policy priorities. But these policy challenges are a cause for action, not panic. No one expects us to reach Net Zero tomorrow. But the right policies need to be implemented now so that they can take full effect over 30 years.

Co-benefits are high

If we see decarbonisation as a technology-and-policy question, it requires decisions about the allocation of costs and benefits. The fossil fuel economy has delivered many benefits, including national development. Decarbonisation will bring some costs, especially for those who are dependent on fossil fuels for jobs and growth and those currently able to access cheap energy. But there has been evidence for a while that this development is not well distributed and directed.

For instance, the externalities of fossil fuel energy are disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable. Communities around coal mines and power plants are exposed to horrifying levels of air pollution, which in turn cause lung and heart disease. Cement and steel manufacturing similarly combine broad development benefits with high health impacts on workers and nearby communities. More Indians own cars today than 50 years ago, but our city air has become unbreathable. A recent Lancet-published study puts a shocking number on “premature deaths and morbidity attributable to air pollution” – US$ 36.8 billion in economic losses to India (or 1.4 per cent of GDP) in 2019 alone.

When people emphasise the cost of transition, they are missing the benefits – to health, energy access, employment, and domestic industry. This is true of those who believe development is fine as it is, as well as those who argue that development is a bad word. The transformative potential of decarbonisation is that it can meet socio-economic goals better than current development pathways. Similar to fossil fuel growth, the investment has to be made upfront, but unlike with fuel-based energy, with renewables, it is the benefits that will accumulate over decades rather than costs and detriments.

Conclusion

If we act on these realities, India can move beyond asking for a few million in climate finance and unlock trillions of dollars in investments. The IMF indicates $3 trillion in climate investment opportunities in India through 2030. Deloitte considers that the right policies can turn India’s projected $6 trillion loss from climate change into a $11 trillion return on climate investments, including by exporting decarbonisation to the developing world. Benefits from investment into climate-allied industries, such as those that produce EVs, batteries, solar panels and hydrogen, could push returns on investment even beyond Deloitte’s predictions.

Implicit in these estimates is that India moves decisively on climate change in every sector of the economy. In the following articles in this series, we shall outline sector-specific roadmaps to achieve carbon neutrality or net zero emissions.

The post Net Zero is a win-win appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

The year 2023 has witnessed significant upheavals in the Himalayas. The Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) in Sikkim that swept away humans, houses, bridges and a dam was the latest in a series of unsettling reports throughout the year. First came the sinking of Joshimath but it was soon overshadowed by devastating losses in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh during the monsoon season; unprecedented rainfall and widespread landslides caused significant loss of life and property, particularly in Himachal.

But these are only the first days of climate change. As global warming accelerates, we will see an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. In the Himalayas, this will translate to cloudbursts and accelerated glacial melt. These will lead to more landslides and avalanches, while glacial lakes will grow in both size and number.

Paired with the region’s elevated seismic risk, we see a perfect storm brewing in the Himalayas. The failure to consider this interplay of geological, hydrological, and meteorological hazards in the scramble to construct hydropower projects resulted in the tragedy in Sikkim.

As the complete picture of how this tragedy unfolded emerges, we know the following:

● Around midnight of October 3-4, the South Lhonak Lake’s embankment broke, creating a GLOF. This lake has tripled in size in the last three decades due to rapid melting of Lhonak glaciers, in turn due to global warming.

● An earthquake of 6.2 magnitude occurred in western Nepal at 14:51 hrs on October 3, which was felt even in Delhi. Scientists are investigating whether this earthquake could have led to a landslide/avalanche or weakened the lake’s embankment, starting a GLOF.

● Sikkim also received high rainfall from October 2 through to October 5. As per ICIMOD, on the night of October 3, there was heavy rainfall near the lake. This, too, could have caused the GLOF.

 About 50km downstream of South Lhonak Lake is the Teesta III dam at Chungthang. This massive rock-filled dam is Sikkim’s biggest hydel project. According to Teesta III chairman, on October 3, at 23:58 hrs, operators were informed by Indo-Tibetan Border Police about the GLOF. By 00:10 hours on October 4, a swell of water flooded the dam’s reservoir lake and washed away most of the dam before they could open the sluice gates.

● The dam’s spillway was not designed to accommodate high flow due to GLOF, and there was no functional early warning system for GLOF at South Lhonak Lake.

● The dam break led to massive flooding downstream, destroying roads, bridges, water and power lines, inundating towns and districts. Around 50 have died, and scores are missing. The economic losses will be thousands of crores. The destroyed dam itself cost about ₹14,000 crore. This dam was also hit by the 2011 earthquake, which destroyed a large part of the construction and claimed the lives of 40 workers.

● Wenow know that none of the early warning sensors installed for the critical glacial lakes in Sikkim in 2013, 2016 and even last month survived long enough to forewarn residents downstream.

● This, even though GLOF was identified as a significant risk to Teesta III. Back in 2005, the carrying capacity study of Teesta basin – based on which the environment ministry cleared Teesta III – had noted that the region was “quite susceptible to disastrous hazards due to Glacial Lake Outburst Floods”.

Multiple hazards thus were recognised for Teesta III, but risks were neither adequately assessed nor a mitigation strategy designed. This is how this highrisk project received clearance from multiple regulating agencies despite opposition from the local community and environmental groups. At the time, even clearance conditions did not mandate an early warning system or modifications in the dam’s design, to account for the possibility of a GLOF.

This problem is not unique to Teesta III. Big infrastructure projects in the Himalayas are neither vetted through a stringent risk assessment process nor designed to mitigate multiple risks and eventualities. As climate change continues, extreme events will become ever more common. The only way to prepare for these is by factoring in all risks at the project design stage and creating institutions that can make independent decisions based on risk assessments.

In this context, we must urgently re-evaluate the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environment Clearance procedures. The existing EIA/EC framework has repeatedly shown inadequacies in handling high-risk projects. EIA reports often overlook comprehensive risk evaluations, and impacts of climate change are rarely factored in. Moreover, impact assessments are absent of advanced methodologies and technologies.

The existing EC approach must be equipped to address the challenges and unpredictability of the climate crisis, especially in the Himalayas. Additionally, for objectivity in the decision-making process, it is equally essential to establish independent bodies to conduct such assessments to inform decisions. For the Himalayas, we need a Trans-Himalayan Environmental Assessment and ManagementAgency staffed with experts from Himalayan states and UTs.

In the Himalayas 87 hydroelectric projects are operational, 30 are under construction with more on the horizon. The task is twofold: ensure these mega projects don’t exacerbate environmental problems, and then, safeguard valuable assets against multiple threats. This is the challenge that demands balance.

The post GLOF’s Sikkim shocker: Much before the flooding, local & green groups had flagged risks appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

G20 के शीर्ष पर भारत का कार्यकाल एक परिवर्तन एजेंडे के लिए याद किया जायगा जो यथास्थिति को चुनौती देता है और वैश्विक सहयोग की पुनरकल्पना करता है

The post दुनिया में सहयोग बढ़ाने की पहल appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

India’s presidency has done something unprecedented: it has brought the Global South into the spotlight—where the world’s majority live, the challenges they face, and the opportunities they offer for a sustainable and prosperous world.

In a world marked by the rivalries of great powers and the urgent need for collaborative action, the G20 has become a stage where realpolitik unfolds in real time. And yet, this forum—which accounts for 85 per cent of global GDP, 75 per cent of trade and an overwhelming majority of climate-warming pollutants—offers hope for cooperative action to shape the global future. India’s G20 presidency, with its mix of geopolitical challenges and transformative potential, marks an important moment in the forum’s history.

India has received this presidency during a particularly tumultuous period in world politics. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has strained relations between the West and Russia to levels not seen since the Cold War, if not worse. Likewise, Sino-US relations are historically low, and Sino-Indian ties have hit a nadir. These conflicts, coupled with the lingering economic effects of Covid-19 and the increasing frequency of climate disasters, have started to hurt global economies.

Given this backdrop, the absence of a consensus document from recent ministerial meetings under India’s G-20 is not unexpected. There are doubts about whether the current summit in Delhi can yield a joint communiqué, given the substantial divide between Russia, China, and developed countries. However, the current divide does not overshadow India’s achievements during its presidency. India’s term at the helm of the G-20 will be remembered for its agenda of challenging the status quo and reimagining global cooperation.

India’s presidency has done something unprecedented: it has brought the Global South into the spotlight—where the world’s majority live, the challenges they face, and the opportunities they offer for a sustainable and prosperous world. By advocating for the African Union’s inclusion in the G-20, India is reshaping the conversation, ensuring that the voices of the Global South are not just heard but amplified. Beyond dialogue, the call for channelling more funds to these regions for climate action and sustainable development goals marks a significant shift in priorities. India has provided these nations with a space at the proverbial table, one that the future G-20 can’t ignore.

Demanding Financial Fairness

Often referred to as the ‘Finance G-20,’ India’s presidency has explicitly called for a fundamental reform to establish a fairer global financial system that benefits all. The stark reality of the current international financial arrangement is that poor African countries pay four times more interest on loans than the US and up to eight times more than wealthy European countries. India’s concrete proposals on debt crisis management, multilateral development bank reforms, and international financial architecture have accelerated a long-overdue conversation on creating a more equitable financial future.

Climate Action & Accountability

Under India’s guidance, climate action has gained renewed momentum. Emphasising lifestyle impacts on climate, India has underscored the importance of individual responsibility and people-centred solutions. This is especially important considering that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population is responsible for twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as the poorer 50% of the world. Through initiatives like Mission LiFE, India has challenged the developed world’s consumption and pollution habits, pressing for a democratisation of climate action.

Besides, India’s G-20 will also be remembered for its inclusivity within and outside the country. In line with its presidency theme—’Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,’ or ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’—India has conducted over 220 meetings in 60 cities in all 28 states and 8 union territories, involving voices from all corners of the globe and within India itself. It has also showcased India in a new light as a diverse and dynamic nation eager to bridge divides and foster collaboration.

One important thing to remember is that in international diplomacy, progress is at a canter rather than a gallop, built around continuity. So a presidency alone is not sufficient to push an agenda. India, therefore, will have to work with other countries to get its transformative agenda implemented over time. Fortunately, India’s presidency is the second in a line of four consecutive presidencies allotted to emerging economies—an occurrence not slated to happen for another two decades. India therefore, has a great opportunity to work closely with Brazil and South Africa, the next two presidencies, to advance the agendas of the Global South.

India’s G-20 presidency will be remembered not just for its momentary milestones but for its audacity to envision and shape a more equitable and sustainable global future. Under India’s guidance, the roadmap appears promising, with pathways to financial equity, digital inclusivity, and environmental sustainability shining brightly. And while the ink may still be wet on its term, the true implications of India’s presidency will unfold in the years to come.

The post What it means for global diplomacy appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.

Extreme rainfall contributes to severe flooding, but the bigger problem is the mismanagement of the stormwater system.

As the deluge subsides and the city dusts itself off, we find ourselves once more asking how we got here. Last weekend, Delhi witnessed over 100 mm of rainfall each day, leading to extensive waterlogging, road cave-ins, collapsed homes, and gridlocked traffic. As citizens struggled, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal quickly attributed the crisis to extreme rainfall, contending that the city’s drainage system wasn’t designed to handle such an “unprecedented” downpour. The Public Works Department (PWD) concurred, pointing out that Delhi’s drainage network can carry a maximum of 50 mm of rainfall in 24 hours and is in dire need of major reconstruction. But are these assertions accurate? Is the issue of waterlogging solely a consequence of extreme rain and inadequate infrastructure, or are there other factors contributing to this annual predicament? It is vital to scrutinize these assertions lest they be accepted as unquestionable truth.

Let’s consider the rainfall. Was the downpour on the 8th and 9th of July truly “unprecedented”? Rainfall data from the past 30 years reveals an increase in the frequency of heavy (64.5-115.5 mm of rain in 24 hours) and very heavy (115.6-204.4 mm) rainfall events in the city. In fact, in the last few years, there has been an upsurge in incidences of heavy rain. As we all have short memories, it is worth remembering that in 2021 Delhi had seven episodes of heavy and very heavy rains that caused similar levels of flooding. Moreover, the total rainfall in 2021 was 1512 mm — more than double the usual amount and the second highest on record. Hence, the most recent rains cannot truly be considered “unprecedented” for the city. Delhi has been experiencing them increasingly over the last decade, and these extreme rain events will continue due to global warming. The problem is despite this knowledge, the Delhi government has taken little action. Instead, it tells us now that the problem is the city’s old, creaking drainage network. But is Delhi’s drainage system so inadequate that it can handle only 50 mm of rainfall? Consequently, does Delhi need to rebuild its entire drainage network, given the increasing frequency of heavy rain?

To answer this question, I will refer to the most recent Drainage Master Plan (DMP) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, prepared and submitted by IIT-Delhi in 2018. Despite being rejected by the Delhi government in 2021 as “non-actionable” and “too theoretical,” this report is our most reliable source of recent information and modelling results. So, what does this report contain that led the state government to dismiss it?

First of all, contrary to the Delhi government’s perspective, the DMP does not advocate for multi-crore mega-projects to construct a new drainage system for the city. Instead, it highlights mismanagement as the core issue and firmly recommends improvements in the existing drainage network to alleviate flooding. The main findings and recommendations of the DMP, which the Delhi government termed as theoretical, are as follows:

• The rampant encroachment of stormwater drains has reduced the carrying capacity, and hence special drives should be initiated to remove them.
• Authorities routinely dump sewage into storm drains, which heightens siltation. Additionally, residents often connect their rooftop drains to the sewage network due to a lack of local-level stormwater drains in the city. Prioritizing the construction of colony-level storm drains should help address this problem.
• Serious efforts should be made to stop the rampant disposal of garbage, road dust and construction waste into storm drains.
• A considerable amount is spent on pre-monsoon drain cleaning each year, yet no transparent verification system exists. A certification system should be implemented for the desilting exercise.
• Utilities are often laid inside storm drains, and pillars for elevated roads/metros are built within them, severely reducing the drains’ capacity. These constructions should be prohibited.
• The city’s drains are poorly designed, poorly aligned and badly constructed. Their efficiency can be significantly enhanced by improving the slope, alignment and cross-sections.
• Many water bodies have become redundant and need to be rejuvenated to play a key role in flood reduction by acting as detention and recharge basins.
• Rainwater harvesting in parks and open spaces will act as sponges and reduce flooding.
• Delhi’s drainage system is owned by 11 departments/agencies. About two-thirds of the drains are under the control of the state government, about 25% are with municipal corporations, and the remaining are with central government agencies such as Delhi Development Authority. Hence, one agency should be made responsible and accountable for the drains.

It’s clear that DMP’s recommended improvement can be made swiftly and inexpensively. While DMP didn’t rule out the construction of new drainage systems to adapt to changing rainfall patterns, it advised that improvements should precede any new construction.

Despite being practical, actionable, and frankly common sense, these recommendations were rejected, ostensibly because they lacked “actionable” large-scale projects. Consequently, five years later, PWD has engaged a new consultant to develop a fresh DMP, which will take another year to compile, and who knows how many more years to implement. Until then, the citizens of Delhi should anticipate more excuses and empty promises while hoping for deliverance from the rain gods.

The post Sarkari Brains & Urban Drains appeared first on iFOREST - International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology.