Why is single-use plastic being banned in India from July 1?

 The Centre has banned the use of ‘single-use plastic’ from July 1. The Ministry for Environment, Forest and Climate Change had issued a gazette notification last year announcing the ban, and has now defined a list of items that will be banned from next month.

“The manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of following single-use plastic, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene, commodities shall be prohibited with effect from the 1st July, 2022,’’ says the Ministry notification.

What is single-use plastic?

As the name suggests, it refers to plastic items that are used once and discarded. Single-use plastic has among the highest shares of plastic manufactured and used — from packaging of items, to bottles (shampoo, detergents, cosmetics), polythene bags, face masks, coffee cups, cling film, trash bags, food packaging etc.A 2021 report by one of the Australian philanthropic organisations the Minderoo Foundation said single-use plastics account for a third of all plastic produced globally, with 98% manufactured from fossil fuels. Single-use plastic also accounts for the majority of plastic discarded – 130 million metric tonnes globally in 2019 — “all of which is burned, buried in landfills or discarded directly into the environment”, the report said.

On the current trajectory of production, it has been projected that single-use plastic could account for 5-10% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The report found that India features in the top 100 countries of single-use plastic waste generation – at rank 94 (the top three being Singapore, Australia and Oman. With domestic production of 11.8 million metric tonnes annually, and import of 2.9 MMT, India’s net generation of single-use plastic waste is 5.6 MMT, and per capita generation is 4 kg.

What are the items being banned?

The items on which the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have announced a ban are earbuds; balloon sticks; candy and ice-cream sticks; cutlery items including plates, cups, glasses, forks, spoons, knives, trays; sweet boxes; invitation cards; cigarette packs; PVC banners measuring under 100 microns; and polystyrene for decoration.

The Ministry had already banned polythene bags under 75 microns in September 2021, expanding the limit from the earlier 50 microns. From December, the ban will be extended to polythene bags under 120 microns. Ministry officials have explained that the ban is being introduced in phases to give manufacturers time to shift to thicker polythene bags that are easier to recycle. While manufacturers can use the same machine for 50- and 75-micron bags, the machinery will need to be upgraded for 120 microns.

According to the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, there is also a complete ban on sachets using plastic material for storing, packing or selling gutkha, tobacco and pan masala.

Why these items?

Ministry officials have said that the choice for the first set of single-use plastic items for the ban was based on “difficulty of collection, and therefore recycling”.

“The enemy is not that plastic exists per se, but that plastic exists in the environment. When plastic remains in the environment for long periods of time and does not decay, it turns into microplastics – first entering our food sources and then the human body, and this is extremely harmful. We have chosen these items as they are difficult to collect, especially since most are either small, or discarded directly into the environment – like ice-cream sticks. It then becomes difficult to collect for recycling, unlike the much larger items,” said a Ministry official.

Satish Sinha of the environmental group Toxic Links described the items chosen as “low-hanging fruit”. “Of the single-use plastic industry – the production and sale of these items is miniscule. The largest share of single-use plastic is that of packaging – with as much as 95% of single use belong to this category – from toothpaste to shaving cream to frozen foods. The items chosen are of low value and of low turnover and are unlikely to have a big economic impact, which could be a contributing reason. Having said that, we do need to start with something, and it is a beginning,” said Sinha.

How will the ban be enforced?

The ban will be monitored by the CPCB from the Centre, and by the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) that will report to the Centre regularly. Directions have been issued at national, state and local levels — for example, to all petrochemical industries — to not supply raw materials to industries engaged in the banned items.

Directions have also been issued to SPCBs and Pollution Control Committees to modify or revoke consent to operate issued under the Air/Water Act to industries engaged in single-use plastic items. Local authorities have been directed to issue fresh commercial licenses with the condition that SUP items will not be sold on their premises, and existing commercial licences will be cancelled if they are found to be selling these items.

Last week, the CPCB issued one-time certificates to 200 manufacturers of compostable plastic and the BIS passed standards for biodegradable plastic.

Those found violating the ban can be penalised under the Environment Protection Act 1986 – which allows for imprisonment up to 5 years, or a penalty up to Rs 1 lakh, or both.

Violators can also be asked to pay Environmental Damage Compensation by the SPCB. In addition, there are municipal laws on plastic waste, with their own penal codes.

How are other countries dealing with single-use plastic?

Earlier this year, 124 countries, parties to the United Nations Environment Assembly, including India, signed a resolution to draw up an agreement which will in the future make it legally binding for the signatories to address the full life of plastics from production to disposal, to end plastic pollution.

Bangladesh became the first country to ban thin plastic bags in 2002. New Zealand became the latest country to ban plastic bags in July 2019. China issued a ban on plastic bags in 2020 with phased implementation.

As of July 2019, 68 countries have plastic bag bans with varying degrees of enforcement.Eight states in the US have banned single-use plastic bags, beginning with California in 2014. Seattle became the first major US city to ban plastic straws in 2018.

On July 2, 2021, the Directive on Single-Use Plastics took effect in the European Union (EU). The directive bans certain single-use plastics for which alternatives are available; single-use plastic plates, cutlery, straws, balloon sticks and cotton buds cannot be placed on the markets of the EU member states. The same measure applies to cups, food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, and all products made of oxo-degradable plastic.

Vanuatu and the Seychelles have banned plastic straws outright.

Written by Esha Roy

Source: Indian Express, 21/06/22

Green Open Access Rules 2022

 On June 6, 2022 Union Government has notified the Green Open Access Rules 2022, that will accelerate India’s renewable energy programmes.

What are Green Open Access Rules 2022?

• These rules are notified to promote generation, purchase and consumption of green energy including the energy generated through waste-to-energy plants.
• The rules also enable a simplified procedure for open access to green power.
• They also accelerate the renewable energy programmes, with the aim of ensuring access to affordable, sustainable, reliable, and green energy for all.
• These rules will help consumes in demanding green power from DISCOMS (power distribution companies).
• The rules will provide certainty on open access charges, that will be levied on green energy open access consumers.

Green Open Access

According to the rules, green open access is allowed to any consumer. Limit of open access transaction has also been decreased from 1 MW (megawatt) to 100 kW for green energy. This will also enable small consumers to purchase renewable power by means of open access. There will be transparency in approval process of open access applications. According to the rules, approvals are required to be granted in 15 days, otherwise it deemed to have been approved subject. It will be done through a national portal.

Tariff for green energy

Tariff for the green energy will be determined by appropriate commission. It will consist of average pooled power purchase cost of renewable energy, service charges covering prudent cost of distribution licensee and cross-subsidy charges, in order to provide the green energy to the consumers. These rules will streamline overall approval process to grant open access, including improve predictability and timely approval of cash flows for renewable power producers. It will bring uniformity in the application procedure.

Cap on increasing the cross-subsidy surcharge

Rules provides for cap on increasing cross-subsidy surcharges and do away with additional surcharge. It will incentivise the consumers to go green as well addresses the issues pressing the growth of open access in India. Consumers will receive certificates if they consume green power.

What is the IPCC, and why are its Assessment Reports important?

 The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a dire assessment and warning in its latest report released on Monday (April 4), revealing what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said was “a litany of broken climate promises” by governments and corporations. “It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world,” Guterres said.

The climate change panel

The IPCC is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Its main activity is to prepare Assessment Reports, special reports, and methodology reports assessing the state of knowledge of climate change. However, the IPCC does not itself engage in scientific research. Instead, it asks scientists from around the world to go through all the relevant scientific literature related to climate change and draw up the logical conclusions.

Assessment Reports

The IPCC’s Assessment Reports (ARs), which are produced every few years, are the most comprehensive and widely accepted scientific evaluations of the state of the Earth’s climate. They form the basis for government policies to tackle climate change, and provide the scientific foundation for the international climate change negotiations.

Six Assessment Reports have been published so far, the sixth report (AR6) coming in three parts — the first in August 2021, the second in February 2022, and the third on Monday.

The first part of AR6 flagged more intense and frequent heat-waves, increased incidents of extreme rainfall, a dangerous rise in sea-levels, prolonged droughts, and melting glaciers — and said that 1.5 degrees Celsius warming was much closer than was thought earlier, and also inevitable.

The second part warned that multiple climate change-induced disasters were likely in the next two decades even if strong action was taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

What previous reports have said

* The first Assessment Report (1990) noted that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global temperatures have risen by 0.3 to 0.6 degree Celsius in the last 100 years. In the business-as-usual scenario, temperatures were likely to increase by 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels by 2025, and 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. Sea levels were likely to rise by 65 cm by 2100.

This report formed the basis for the negotiation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, known as the Rio Summit.

* The second Assessment Report (1995) revised the projected rise in global temperatures to 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and sea-level rise to 50 cm, in light of more evidence. Global rise in temperature by 0.3 to 0.6 degree Celsius since the late 19th century was “unlikely to be entirely natural in origin”, it said.

AR2 was the scientific underpinning for the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. * The third Assessment Report (2001) revised the projected rise in global temperatures to 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100 compared to 1990. The projected rate of warming was unprecedented in the last 10,000 years, it said. The report predicted increased rainfall on average, and that by 2100, sea levels were likely to rise by as much as 80 cm from 1990 levels.

Glaciers would retreat during the 21st century, and the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events would increase, it said. The report presented new and stronger evidence to show global warming was mostly attributable to human activities.

* The fourth Assessment Report (2007) said greenhouse gas emissions increased by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004, and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in 2005 (379 ppm) were the most in 650,000 years. In the worst-case scenario, global temperatures could rise 4.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 from pre-industrial levels, and sea levels could be 60 cm higher than 1990 levels.

The report won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for IPCC. It was the scientific input for the 2009 Copenhagen climate meeting.

* The fifth Assessment Report (2014) said more than half the temperature rise since 1950 was attributable to human activities, and that the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrThe rise in global temperatures by 2100 could be as high as 4.8 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times, and more frequent and longer heat waves were “virtually certain”. A “large fraction of species” faced extinction, and food security would be undermined, it said.

AR5 formed the scientific basis for negotiations of the Paris Agreement in 2015.ous oxide were “unprecedented” in the last 800,000 years.

Written by Amitabh Sinha

Source: Indian Express, 5/04/22

Is nuclear energy good for the climate?

 Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it’s a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

The latest figures on global carbon dioxide emissions call into question the world’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis. CO2 emissions are set to soar 4.9% in 2021, compared with the previous year, according to a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), a group of scientists that track emissions.

In 2020, emissions dropped 5.4% due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns. Most observers expected a rebound this year — but not to such an extent. The energy sector continues to be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with a share of 40% — and rising.

But what about nuclear? Supporters of the controversial energy source say it’s a climate-friendly way to generate electricity. At the very least, it’s something we could use until we’re able to develop comprehensive alternatives. In recent weeks, particularly during the COP26 climate summit, advocates have been creating a stir online with statements like “if you’re against nuclear energy, you’re against climate protection” and “nuclear energy is about to make a comeback.” But is there anything to it?

Is nuclear power a zero-emissions energy source?

No. Nuclear energy is also responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, no energy source is completely free of emissions, but more on that later.

When it comes to nuclear, uranium extraction, transport and processing produces emissions. The long and complex construction process of nuclear power plants also releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned sites. And, last but not least, nuclear waste also has to be transported and stored under strict conditions — here, too, emissions must be taken into account.

And yet, interest groups claim nuclear energy is emission-free. Among them is Austrian consulting firm ENCO. In late 2020, it released a study prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy that looked favorably at the possible future role of nuclear in the Netherlands.

“The main factors for its choice were reliability and security of supply, with no CO2 emission,” it read. ENCO was founded by experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it regularly works with stakeholders in the nuclear sector, so it’s not entirely free of vested interests.

At COP26, environmental initiative Scientists for Future (S4F) presented a paper on nuclear energy and the climate. The group came to a very different conclusion. “Taking into account the current overall energy system, nuclear energy is by no means CO2 neutral,” they said.

Ben Wealer of the Technical University of Berlin, one of the report’s authors, told DW that proponents of nuclear energy “fail to take into account many factors,” including those sources of emissions outlined above. All the studies reviewed by DW said the same thing: Nuclear power is not emissions-free.

How much CO2 does nuclear power produce?

Results vary significantly, depending on whether we only consider the process of electricity generation, or take into account the entire life cycle of a nuclear power plant. A report released in 2014 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, estimated a range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

It’s long been assumed that nuclear plants generate an average of 66 grams of CO2/kWh — though Wealer believes the actual figure is much higher. New power plants, for example, generate more CO2 during construction than those built in previous decades, due to stricter safety regulations.

Studies that include the entire life cycle of nuclear power plants, from uranium extraction to nuclear waste storage, are rare, with some researchers pointing out that data is still lacking. In one life cycle study, the Netherlands-based World Information Service on Energy (WISE) calculated that nuclear plants produce 117 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. It should be noted, however, that WISE is an anti-nuclear group, so is not entirely unbiased.

However, other studies have come up with similar results when considering entire life cycles. Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California’s Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables.

How climate-friendly is nuclear compared to other energies?

If the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant is included in the calculation, nuclear energy certainly comes out ahead of fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. But the picture is drastically different when compared with renewable energy.

According to new but still unpublished data from the state-run German Environment Agency (UBA) as well as the WISE figures, nuclear power releases 3.5 times more CO2 per kilowatt-hour than photovoltaic solar panel systems. Compared with onshore wind power, that figure jumps to 13 times more CO2. When up against electricity from hydropower installations, nuclear generates 29 times more carbon.

Could we rely on nuclear energy to help stop global warming?

Around the world, nuclear energy representatives, as well as some politicians, have called for the expansion of atomic power. In Germany, for example, the right-wing populist AfD party has backed nuclear power plants, calling them “modern and clean.” The AfD has called for a return to the energy source, which Germany has pledged to phase out completely by the end of 2022.

Other countries have also supported plans to build new nuclear plants, arguing that the energy sector will be even more damaging for the climate without it. But Wealer from Berlin’s Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

“The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically,” he said. “In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available.”

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

“Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build,” he said. “When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. “And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won’t be able to make a significant contribution,” added Schneider.

“Nuclear power is not being considered at the current time as one of the key global solutions to climate change,” said Antony Froggatt, deputy director of the environment and society program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House in London.

He said a combination of excessive costs, environmental consequences and lack of public support were all arguments against nuclear power.

Nuclear funding could go toward renewables

Due to the high costs associated with nuclear energy, it also blocks important financial resources that could instead be used to develop renewable energy, said Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear expert and activist with environment NGO Greenpeace in the Netherlands. Those renewables would provide more energy that is both faster and cheaper than nuclear, he said.

“Every dollar invested in nuclear energy is therefore a dollar diverted from true urgent climate action. In that sense, nuclear power is not climate-friendly,” he said.

In addition, nuclear energy itself has been affected by climate change. During the world’s increasingly hot summers, several nuclear power plants have already had to be temporarily shut down or taken off the grid. Power plants depend on nearby water sources to cool their reactors, and with many rivers drying up, those sources of water are no longer guaranteed.

The much vaunted “renaissance of nuclear power” is anything but when all the facts are taken into consideration, Mycle Schneider told DW. He said the nuclear industry has been shrinking for years.

“In the last 20 years, 95 nuclear power plants have gone online and 98 have been shut down. If you take China out of the equation, the number of nuclear power plants has shrunk by 50 reactors in the last two decades,” Schneider added. “The nuclear industry is not thriving.”

Written by Joscha Weber

Source: Indian Express, 1/12/21

Time for a global ban on satellite destruction tests

 Russia is a top-rung space power. In terms of technological capabilities, it ranks alongside the US and even surpasses it in some areas. The Russian establishment has a highly sophisticated understanding of the space domain. Moscow’s intellectual horsepower in space science, economics and strategy is outstanding. The Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, have demonstrated no less responsibility towards the preservation and protection of space for human activities than any other power. That is what makes Moscow’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test surprising.

On 16 November, Russia destroyed one of its old satellites by causing a tail-on collision with an ASAT rocket it had fired, at an altitude slightly higher than that of the International and Chinese space stations. The thousands of pieces of debris that resulted now pose a risk to space-stationed astronauts, other spacecraft that occupy low-earth orbits and launch vehicles destined for higher orbits. Space debris move faster than bullets and even tiny bits have enough kinetic energy to severely damage spacecraft. The lower the elevation of the fragments from earth, the sooner the junk will fall back upon the planet and burn up in the atmosphere. Debris at higher altitudes can remain in space for years and decades before falling down.

Space is vast, but the probability of collision increases with the number of objects in orbit. Junk from the Russian test is expected to intersect with the International Space Station’s (ISS) orbit 31 times a day, before spreading out further.

Clearly, debris pose a risk for all spacefarers, including Russian cosmonauts and satellites. I find it difficult to understand why the otherwise space-smart Russians would do such a thing. First, Russia did not really need to test this direct-ascent ASAT, given that it has far more sophisticated missile interception capacity. Furthermore, in recent years, it has demonstrated advanced co- orbital ASAT capabilities, manoeuvring its spacecraft into close proximity to target satellites. Second, even if it wished to carry out a direct-ascent ASAT test for political signalling, it could have done so at lower, relatively safer altitudes. When India carried out its Mission Shakti ASAT test in 2019, the Indian Space Research Organisation launched the target satellite at an altitude of 274km (and much lower than that of the ISS) before destroying it a couple of months later. That test created fewer bits of trackable debris, and today only one of the few hundred objects remains detectable in orbit. All ASAT tests create debris, not all of which are trackable, but it is possible for responsible spacefaring nations to minimize negative externalities to the extent possible.

Russia’s behaviour is thus a puzzle. While it is possible that its defence establishment acted without consulting its space agency, it is hard to accept that such a test would have received political authorization without the country’s top space agency being in the loop. We must therefore assume that the Kremlin made a considered decision that knowingly hurts the interests of all spacefaring nations. Whatever Russia’s political and strategic objective, the poisoning of the pond harms everyone.

There is now an urgent case for a strict international ASAT non-proliferation and test-ban treaty. The norms that kept space clean for decades can no longer be relied upon. There are approximately two dozen countries that possess ballistic missiles or satellite launch capability that jeopardize human access to space. If a major space power like Russia could do it, what of desperado regimes that have nothing to lose in space?

Incidentally, just two weeks before the Russian test, the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with international security and disarmament, set up a new working group to develop principles and rules for the military use of space. Initiated by the UK, the institution of the working group was supported by a vast majority of nations. Russia and China voted against, but only because they are in favour of an alternative mechanism for preventing an arms race in space, and for hard treaty obligations against space weapons that the US is opposed to. India abstained. But as the working group begins its deliberations, New Delhi must weigh in strongly on the side of a strict ban on anti-satellite weapons.

As a country that already possesses ASAT capability, it is in India’s interest to deter other countries from acquiring it. To be clear: our successful 2019 test does not automatically mean India has operational ASAT weapons. There is still some way to go. Even so, it is inconceivable that we can easily carry out another destructive test without hurting our own interests in one way or another. At this stage, it is far better to push for a treaty that might prevent India’s adversaries from further developing space weapons. A treaty will not prevent anyone—including India—from developing more advanced ASAT weapons. But it will make it harder, and prohibit destructive testing.

Space offers Indian entrepreneurs and businesses an opportunity to create another engine of growth. It is in our interest not to allow garbage to come in the way of our success.

Nitin Pai is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy

Source: Mintepaper, 21/11/21

Right Livelihood Award 2021

 Right Livelihood Award 2021 was conferred to Delhi-based environmental organisation “Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE)”. This award is also known as “Sweden’s alternative Nobel Prize”

Highlights

• LIFE has received the award for its “grassroots approach to empower vulnerable communities in protecting their livelihoods and claiming their right for a clean environment.”
• Other awardees include:

1. Cameroonian women rights activist Marthe Wandou,
2. Environmental activist from Russia, Vladimir Slivyak and
3. Indigenous rights defender from Canada, Freda Huson.

About Right Livelihood Award

Right Livelihood Award was established by Ole von Uexkull who happens to be the executive director of Right Livelihood. The award honours and supports people in solving global problems. It comprises of a cash prize of 1 million Swedish crowns and a long-term support that highlights and expands Laureates’ work.

How Awardees are shortlisted?

Awardees are shortlisted by the jury of Stockholm-based Right Livelihood.

Why LIFE received this award?

LIFE received the Award for its innovative legal work of empowering communities to protect their resources following the “environmental democracy in India.” According to Right Livelihood, despite a robust environmental protection law framework in India, access to justice for those planning to protect remaining forests and biodiversity in India is often limited. Thus, to bridge this gap, LIFE was founded.

About LIFE

LIFE was founded in 2005 by lawyers Ritwick Dutta and Rahul. It has been fighting against India’s most significant environmental threats. Some of the examples of environmental threats include construction of a large-scale bauxite mine in the Odisha and hydro-power project in Arunachal Pradesh. LIFE helps in stopping such construction.

State of the Global Climate 2020 Report

 The World Meteorological Organisation recently released the “State of the Global Climate 2020” report.

Key Findings of the Report

• 2011-2020 was the warmest decade in record.
• COVID-19 and extreme weather events were double blow to millions in the world.
• The Cyclone Amphan is the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the North Indian Ocean. The Cyclone made a landfall in May 2020 near India-Bangladesh border. The economic losses in India due to the cyclone is approximately 14 billion USD.
• 2020 is one of the three warmest years on record.
• The increase in global average temperature as of 2020 was 1.2 degree Celsius as compared to the pre-industrial levels. Pre-industrial levels refer to the period before 1850. The increase has occurred despite the cooling effect of La-Nina in 2020.
• India had one of its two wettest monsoon seasons since 1994. The average rainfall between June and September was 9% above the long-term average.
• Around 2,000 deaths were reported during monsoon seasons due to flooding, landslides and heavy rains.
• The global average carbon dioxide concentrations have exceeded 410 parts per million. This is 148% higher than the pre-industrial levels.

Current Scenario

Only 59 countries that represent 54% of global emissions have framed their net-zero targets. Of these only six countries have legislations on net-zero emissions. Seven countries were categorised as “critically insufficient”. The pledges of these countries will lead to four degrees increase in temperatures. This includes US and Russia.

India, Bhutan, Costa Rica and Philippines are compliant with Paris Agreement according to Climate Action Tracker.

About the Report

The World Meteorological Organisation is publishing the report since 1993. The report mainly documents indicators of climate system such as increasing land and ocean temperatures, greenhouse gas concentrations, melting ice, sea-level increase, glacier retreat and extreme weather.

The report also highlights the impacts of climate change on socio-economic development, food security, migration and marine ecosystems.

Way Forward

• According to the United Nations, the report is a warning call. The countries should commit to Net Zero emissions by 2050 as early as possible.
• The United Nations is also pushing its member countries to submit an action plan well ahead of COP26. The action plan should be ambitious enough to cut global emissions by 45% by 2030 as compared to 2010 levels.

What is Forest fire Season?

 In April 2021, Uttarakhand recorded 361 forest fire incidents in just five days. During this period, over 567 hectares of forests have been destroyed. This includes 380 hectares of reserve forest areas. Though forest fire seasons occur every year, the damaged caused this year is high.

What is a forest fire season?

Every year forest fires begin in mid-February in the state of Uttarakhand. This happens on the onset of spring when the trees shed their dry leaves. Also, during this period the soil loses moisture due to increase in temperature. The forest season continues till June.
However, this year, the forest fires that began in October 2020 are still burning even in April 2021.

What causes forest fires?

The three main factors that cause forest fires are oxygen, fuel load and temperature. The dry leaves are the main fuel for the forest fires. They are in higher quantity during this period of time as compared to the rest of the year.

Also, the surface of hilly areas gets dried faster than the plains. This is mainly due to the lower accumulation of rainwater in the hills.

Current Scenario in Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand has 38,000 square kilo metres of forests. This is around 71% of its geographical area. Since 2000, the forest fires have affected more than 48,000 hectares. (Uttarakhand was formed in 2000).

As the forest fires began to increase in the state, the Chief Minster of Uttarakhand Tirath Singh Rawat sought help from the Union Minister Amit Shah. To this, the centre has sent two MI-17 helicopters to fight forest fires. These helicopters have been deployed in the Kumaon and Garhwal regions.

Way Forward

The Van Panchayats should be given incentives and rights to protect forest areas. The Forest Act, 1988 dissociates local community with forests. The local community villagers do not initiate dousing fires in the absence of a sense of belonging. More water holes should be developed to recharge groundwater and to maintain moisture in the soil.

The ecological concerns around river-linking projects

 The controversy over the river-linking project is not new; it’s a part of a larger development versus ecology debate that India faces with every big project. But in an era of climate crisis, which has a multi-sectoral impact, addressing ecological concerns is crucial and ensure long-term safety and benefits.

This week, the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh governments signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to start work on the country’s first major project interlinking two rain-fed rivers, Ken and Betwa. The agreement was signed 18 years after the project was first conceived as a part of country’s programme to interlink rivers to provide water to areas facing scarcity. The project is expected to ensure drinking water to 6.2 million people and irrigate one million hectares of land in 13 districts across both states, the majority of which fall in the water-starved Bundelkhand region, which has seen back-to-back droughts in the last decade.

Experts have flagged two concerns. First, project proponents fail to take into account the fact that the water crisis is not just a natural one; it’s partly man-made. The region’s granite topography does not allow rainwater to seep in and recharge the groundwater table, but this problem has been aggravated by policies that support faulty cropping patterns, encourage groundwater exploitation, degrade the soil and hack away at forest cover. Second, the project may submerge 6,107 hectares of the old and biodiverse forests of the Panna Tiger Reserve and Ken Ghariyal Sanctuary. This can impact water availability, rainfall patterns and destroy local ecosystems. Instead, the government could have pushed for low-cost, local interventions such as renovating and building water harvesting systems, desilting reservoirs and lakes and working towards a change in cropping patterns.

The controversy over the river-linking project is not new; it’s a part of a larger development versus ecology debate that India faces with every big project. But in an era of climate crisis, which has a multi-sectoral impact, addressing ecological concerns is crucial and ensure long-term safety and benefits.

Source: Hindustan Times, 25/03/21

Mass Migration of Blue Earthworms in Meghalaya

 

Key Facts

• The blue earthworms, measuring up to 1.6 feet in length, migrate up and down to 300 metres in the East Khasi Hills of the state.
• Uphill migration of the earthworms starts in April-May. With the onset of monsoon, they emerge from the rivers and streams.
• Downhill migration occurs during September-October when the vegetation starts to dry and temperature & humidity drop.
• The locals in the state beat them when they observe these earthworms because of they play a major role in enhancing the fertility of soil.
• Further, it helps in shifting the locals to ecologically sustainable organic farming.

Concerns

There are some areas in the state where the unsustainable land-use practices have drastically reduced the population of earthworms. The damage has been caused mostly by the stone quarry and heavy earth-cutting. The factors including the developmental activities, erratic weather patterns, predation, and climate change results into the mass migrations of earthworms.

Blue earthworm

The scientific name of the blue earthworm is Perionyx excavates. It is also called as composting worms, blues, or Indian blues. The species is known for its ability to create the fine worm castings so quick. The species have become popular in North America recently where it is used for composting purposes. Scientists believe that its origins are in the Himalayan mountains. It is also suited for vermicomposting in tropical and subtropical regions.

Large hydro projects risk Himalayan communities

 The Uttarakhand tragedy is a moment to review support for Himalayan dams and construction-based economy.The impact of the February 7 flash floods in Uttarakhand is still being estimated while rescue and relief operations remain challenged and the death toll rises. The tragedy has brought into sharp focus the environmental risks to the Himalayan people and to the region’s development. This is a moment for all our decision-makers in state governments, courts and Parliament to review their support for Himalayan dams.In recent years, the central government’s unconditional push on renewable energy (RE) has motivated the Himalayan states to seek RE status for the hydropower sector. In March 2019, the Cabinet granted this status to all hydropower projects, effectively removing the earlier policy distinction between projects up to 25 MW and larger ones. This decision came after the standing committee of the ministry of power observed that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of hydropower stations “is even lesser than solar projects” and that the “net effect of hydro projects has always been positive for the surrounding”.

This position signals grave risks for all Himalayan communities, as it could make this ecologically sensitive region the densest hydropower zone in the world. As the committee report shows, the reassessment of large dams as RE has been done with the sole aim of attracting energy finance for hydropower development in the Himalayan region, stated to be “abundant” in water resources.

Globally, climate policy debates now take energy transition as a given. The spatial aspects of this ongoing global energy transition, especially the participation of state governments in electricity decarbonisation, are crucial to understand. Energy transition policies and projects are creating new “clean energy” geographies and new energy politics around RE.

India’s re-engagement with large hydro is one such regional dynamic. It has drawn small, border Himalayan states into global and national climate and energy discourses. As the representative of Uttarakhand stated to the parliamentary committee, “Solar energy, wind energy or any other form of renewable energy is always going to be smaller. For us, as a state in the Himalayas, hydro is our main stake.”

The ambitions of the Indian Himalayan states to seize the energy transition narrative illustrates what climate scholars identify as a shift from “burden-sharing to opportunity-sharing” in climate policies. The parliamentary committee report details several attempts by state representatives to persuade national policymakers to recognise that India’s energy transition pathways necessarily include the politically delegitimised and ecologically damaging large hydro.

Governments anticipate a number of developmental benefits of energy transition such as cheaper, reliable energy for economic development, revenues from export of “green” fuel, access to international development finance, and increased local business opportunities. These are referred to as “co-benefits” in climate policy discourses. Co-benefits are crucial to justify the exemptions, concessions and incentives given upfront by states to attract private investments for large-scale RE projects. These discourses have been applied to policymaking in the “Himachal model” of private hydro-development. The state’s policies guarantee purchase of power, easy and cheap land transfers and exemptions from local consent.

The hydro sector is still dominated by public sector units due to their access to long-term finance and State guarantees.

Despite several policy changes, the share of the private sector has remained low as compared to private investments in the coal power sector. The committee report shows the Himalayan state representatives and the hydropower bureaucracy stating unambiguously that the RE status and accompanied incentives are needed to attract private investments to the sector. The RE tag is a means to create new investment opportunities in the hydro sector for financial elites and energy capital.

The social and environmental risks of large dams are well-documented. Although the committee’s report records that “geological surprises” resulting from weak Himalayan geology, “lack of technology or expertise, natural calamities like landslides, floods, and cloud bursts etc cause severe setbacks in construction schedules”, the committee didn’t see these as problems that require in-depth examination. Instead, the report dedicates its attention to reducing the financial risk to existing and potential dam-builders.

In an effort to attract investments from the private sector that is reluctant to venture into “remote” Himalayan locations, government agencies are willing to undertake construction of “enabling infrastructure” at public cost. Himalayan road construction, that has a serious impact, should be seen as an integral part of incentivising private hydro-development in this region.

The standing committee report is an excellent example of the opportunistic use of RE and how the development of private hydro-finance overtakes the assessment of social and environmental risks of dams.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli are with the Centre for Policy Research

Source: Hindustan Times, 19/02/21

Climate refugees and Assam’s future

 As the All-Assam Students Union released the confidential report on Clause 6 of Assam Accord in August last year, it was evident from a first reading that the report had all the intentions of securing the long-standing aspirations of the indigenous people of Assam. However, on closer inspection, certain issues do appear unaddressed, one of which is of “climate refugees”.

The phenomenon of climate change does not need an introduction. Today, across the world, people are aware of the adverse effects of climate change. In 2019, United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report which forecasts a sobering picture of the challenges from rising sea levels due to climate change. The report predicts that the global mean sea levels will most likely rise between 0.95 feet (0.29 m) and 3.61 feet (1.1 m) by the end of this century. This rising sea level coupled with storm surges, severe cyclones and extreme weather events will force millions of people to leave their homes and move to safer places — this creates the problem of climate refugees, which is something the world today and, more particularly, India needs to seriously contemplate on.

The concept of climate refugees was first introduced by Lester Brown of the World Watch Institute in the 1970s, wherein he used the term environmental refugees to denote the forced migration of people due to environmental degradation and natural disasters. Despite several criticism, one of the best works on this issue was done by Norman Myers, a British environmentalist, who made several predictions as to the number of environmental or climate refugees worldwide. In 2002, Myers predicted that climate refugees from Bangladesh alone might outnumber all current numbers of refugees worldwide — the reasons behind this being the low-lying topography of the country, and a large number of people living in the volatile Gangetic delta region. In March 2018, a World Bank report revealed that the number of Bangladeshis displaced by the varied impacts of climate change could reach 13.3 million by 2050. These displaced people will seek shelter internally, as well as in neighbouring countries like India.

In India, the primary point of concern regarding the climate refugees is not only their migration but also the non-recognition of climate refugees under the Indian law. In fact, even under the international refugee law, no proper recognition is accorded to the climate refugees. Article 1A (1) of the 1951 Convention applies the term “refugee”, first, to any person considered a refugee under earlier international arrangements. Then, Article 1A (2), read now together with the 1967 Protocol and without time or geographical limits, offers a general definition of the refugee as including any person who is outside their country or origin and unable or unwilling to return there or to avail themselves of its protection, owing to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group (an additional ground not found in the UNHCR Statute), or political opinion. The definition itself views the term refugee narrowly from a persecution point of view, disregarding any other factor which may induce migration — like climate change.

This non-recognition of climate refugees both at the national and international levels complicates the problem as there is no clarity on the course of action to deal with such refugees and also on who shall be responsible for their protection and rehabilitation. From several studies and research reports, it is undisputedly clear that climate refugees as a phenomenon exists and is growing considerably, affecting countries worldwide including India. If the sea levels in Bangladesh rise, as it has been predicted, undoubtedly there will be large-scale migration from the country towards India seeking refuge. Without a proper legal or policy framework in place, dealing with such a crisis would be challenging, and politicisation of the issue cannot be ruled out.

From a humanitarian point of view India would have no alternative but to accept and rehabilitate the refugees. Such sudden settlement and rehabilitation drive of refugees has the possibility of a fresh conflict between the refugees and indigenous people, especially in states like Assam, which not only shares a boundary with Bangladesh but has also witnessed an unabated influx of migrants and refugees since the beginning of the 20th century. Assam has witnessed several violent conflicts in the past between the indigenous people and the immigrants — be it the Nellie massacre or the ethnic riots in Bodoland. However, what is noteworthy here is that indigenous people have also been on the receiving end in many such conflicts, which often is not highlighted.

In Mayong region of Morigaon district, nearly 200-odd Bodo tribal families have been living in relief camps for years — most of whom have been uprooted from their lands due to conflicts with immigrants. Similarly, many Garo villagers were uprooted from their native villages in Dhubri district by the immigrant population. This phenomenon of natives losing their rights over their land can be seen in the names of the villages and the current demographics. Several villages across Brahmaputra Valley still bear names of the tribe which inhabited them like — Kachari gaon, Lalung gaon and so on. On a closer look, one would often see that there is no person from these tribes left in the villages which are now dominated by mostly immigrants and refugees, or industries in some cases.

At this point of time, when a mass migration of climate refugees is imminent, safeguards to the fragile indigenous population becomes necessary to avoid future conflicts in the region. This is where Clause 6 of the Assam Accord coupled with several other safeguards like conferring ST status to the six indigenous communities of Assam can come into play. The committee on Clause 6 has already made several necessary recommendations for the protection of indigenous people in Assam, but what is required now is a constitutional guarantee of these recommendations under Article 371B — which is already dedicated for special provisions to the state of Assam. Besides this, an expansion of the ambit of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution by conferring Sixth Schedule status to other major tribes of the state, including Mishing, Rabha, Tiwa, Amri Karbi, Sonowal Kachari, Deuri etc., would secure the land, cultural and political rights of these numerically small tribal groups in the event of a major climate migration.

An inevitable event like climate migration has to be addressed by legislative and policy measures — making sure that the refugees get their due rights of settlement and rehabilitation; also ensuring the rights of indigenous people over the land and resources so as to avoid future conflicts between the groups. To ensure this, Indian lawmakers need to come up with a climate refugee framework, and alongside ensure the implementation of the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord with a constitutional guarantee.

(Abhishek Chakravarty is an Assistant Professor of Law at Sai University and faculty at Daksha Fellowship)

Source: Indian Express, 28/01/21

How to pollution-proof doorstep delivery

 The near-death blow dealt by the COVID-19 pandemic to global economies notwithstanding, e-commerce companies have not just thrived but have witnessed a much higher growth rate. According to the India Brand Equity Foundation, e-commerce companies registered a growth of 31 per cent in the third quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The consequent increase in demand for e-commerce deliveries has had an impact on the environment in urban areas and will inevitably lead to rise in emissions and air pollution.

To reduce this environmental impact, e-commerce companies need to promote zero-local-emission delivery strategies. While “true” zero emission vehicles are still some distance away — even electric vehicles (EVs) are ultimately powered by the grid fuelled primarily by thermal power plants — the realisation of zero local emissions will go a long way in reducing air pollution in major cities.

On an average, major e-commerce players in India such as Amazon, Flipkart and Bigbasket deliver around 1.5–2 lakh orders per day; 65 per cent of this demand comes from just five cities, namely, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Bengaluru. This demand increases significantly, by 1.5 times, during the festive season. For instance, according to a report in Business Insider, Flipkart witnessed a 10-fold increase in shipments during the Diwali festival sale this year compared to the same period last year.

Though there are no conclusive numbers yet, the increased sales of commercial vehicles, such as mini-trucks and pick-up vans, during the pandemic is proof that the e-commerce industry helped the automobile sector stay afloat when it was struggling because of hugely decreased demand. However, these are mostly conventional vehicles and may lead to environmental impacts in the long run. According to a World Economic Forum study on the future of the last-mile delivery, the increase in demand will lead to an increase in emissions by 32 per cent globally.

Introduction of electric vehicles (EVs) and non-motorised transport (NMT; walking and cycling), and optimising delivery trips are a few of the solutions for realising sustainable last-mile deliveries in urban areas. Flipkart and Amazon have recently announced plans to introduce EVs in their delivery fleet. While Flipkart aims to convert 40 per cent of its fleet to EVs, Amazon plans to introduce 10,000 EVs in India in the near future. However, the introduction of EVs comes with challenges as electric transportation is still an evolving segment and not a run-of-the-mill solution. In addition, the introduction of NMT needs strategic implementation and planning.

A major challenge is that most of the e-commerce companies outsource the logistics and last-mile delivery. These delivery service providers need to convert their fleet to clean vehicles. Additionally, the location of warehouses pose a challenge, with a majority of them situated in the outskirts due to affordable rentals.

Return deliveries (in case the addressee is not available or when goods are exchanged) add to the cost of operation, increasing the man-hours and the travel/trip length per order. The different categories of delivery slots (priority, same day, free, etc.) also complicate trip planning.

Delivery service providers need to convert their fleets to clean vehicles; private players can play a vital role in minimising the potential air pollution from this sector. DOT, a Delhi-based start-up, provides EVs to Swiggy, Amazon, and Bigbasket for last-mile delivery. Further, leased EVs can be a viable option for both delivery service providers and e-commerce companies. The latter can even forge tie-ups with EV manufacturers to directly lease the required fleets.

The peripheral location of warehouses provides an opportunity for not only EV implementation but also traffic reduction within cities, ultimately reducing emissions. Within cities, strategically located warehouses shared by multiple e-commerce players can make EV introduction financially viable through sharing of land and charging infrastructure cost, streamlining the flow of heavy and light commercial vehicles, efficient fleet utilisation, and ease of operation for delivery service providers.

A potential solution to reduce the travel required by delivery executives is to set up a pickup point network, with smart lockers every 1 km or so, considering the location-wise number of shipments. Bus stops, shopping malls, etc. could be used as potential locations for such lockers. Such a network can also open up the option of NMT delivery to the consumer’s doorstep. Gated communities can install lockers at the entrance to avoid travel inside their premises.

Cities need to understand delivery movements, as well as the location of warehouses, consolidation centres, and delivery hotspots to prioritise sustainable last-mile delivery. Further, assessing the socio-economic and environmental impacts of urban last-mile deliveries and freight movement will help cities develop sustainable transport policies. Zero-emissions vehicles (electric or non-motorised vehicles), off-peak-hour deliveries, centralised pick-up points, and a network of freight hubs throughout a city are some of the solutions to meet the growing demand of urban last-mile deliveries. Finally, to realise long-term sustainable mobility, cities need to develop urban freight policies with an emphasis on strategic interventions in last-mile delivery.

By Trupti Deshpande and Anantha Lakshmi Paladugula

The writers work in the area of environment and the ecosystem at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank