💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Climate Change

1. Global Warming and Issues
2. All about Pollution

  • Delhi’s air quality deteriorates, again

    Air quality to oscillate between poor to very poor

    • Delhi’s air quality deteriorated from ‘moderate’ to ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ on April 29.
    • It will be oscillating between ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ for the next three days, according to the SAFAR-System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting and Research.
    • Delhi’s air typically worsens in October-November and improves by March-April.

    What is the cause

    • Current weather conditions are not unfavourable, unlike in winter.
    • Hence, apart from local emissions, the deterioration in air quality is being attributed to an increase in fire counts, mostly due to burning of wheat crop stubble in northern India.
    • Deteriorating air quality is worrying amid an increasing number of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and deaths.

    Quality classification

    • An AQI between 0-50 is considered ‘good.
    • An AQI between 51-100 is considered satisfactory.
    • An AQI between 101-200 is considered moderate.
    • An AQI between 201-300 is considered poor.
    • An AQI between 301-400 is considered very poor.
    • An AQI between 401-500 is considered severe.
    • Above 500 is the ‘severe-plus’ or ‘emergency’ category.

  • Major oil and gas producers form Net Zero Producers’ Forum

    About the Net Zero Producers’ forum

    • Five of the world’s major oil and gas producers are working together to ‘develop pragmatic net-zero emission strategies’.
    • Qatar, the US, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Norway, collectively responsible for 40% of global oil and gas production, will come together to form a cooperative forum that will develop pragmatic net zero-emission strategies.
    • Energy producers are faced with unique responsibilities to furnish the world with energy but the climate crisis requires serious leadership and a strong alliance to deliver a path to net-zero.

    Strategies and technologies

    • The Net Zero Producers’ Forum will consider strategies and technologies which include methane abatement, circular carbon economy approach, development and deployment of clean energy and carbon capture and storage technologies, diversification from reliance on hydrocarbon revenues etc.

    Source:

    https://www.energy.gov/articles/joint-statement-establishing-net-zero-producers-forum-between-energy-ministries-canada

  • Limited sops make scrappage policy for vehicles unattractive

    Why the Vehicle Scrappage Policy is unattractive

    • The policy proposes to de-register vehicles that fail fitness tests or are unable to renew registrations after 15-20 years of use.
    • Limited incentives and poor cost economics for trucks in the Vehicle Scrappage Policy, coupled with lack of addressable volumes for other segments is unlikely to drive freight transporters to replace their old vehicles with new ones, said a Crisil report.
    • Though the scrappage volume of buses, PVs and two-wheelers is expected to be limited as well, the policy’s impact on new commercial vehicle (CV) sales could be sizeable, based on addressable volume, ratings agency Crisil Research said in its report.
    • The potential benefit from scrapping a 15-year-old, entry-level small car will be ₹70,000, whereas its resale value is around ₹95,000. That makes scrapping unattractive, Crisil said in the report.

  • Eastern India most vulnerable to climate change, says study

    About the report

    • Published this week, the report on ‘Climate vulnerability assessment for adaptation planning in India using a common framework’ was conducted in 2019-2020 across 29 States.
    • It was part of a capacity building programme under the National Mission on Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem and National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change.
    • The report was prepared by IISc, IIT-Mandi and IIT-Guwahati.

    Major findings

    • Along with Chhattisgarh in central India, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Odisha, Assam, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, and West Bengal are the eight most vulnerable States.
    • These eight most vulnerable States require prioritisation of adaptation interventions.
    • Jharkhand, with the highest vulnerability indices VI of 0.674, topped the list of States most vulnerable to climate change.
    • The major drivers for the vulnerability of all the States included lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, lack of crop insurance, marginal and small operational land holding, low density of health workers, low participation of women in the workforce, yield variability of food grains, and a high proportion of the population below the poverty line.
    • Tamil Nadu and Kerala are among seven States that are the least vulnerable but there’s more to it meets the eye.
    • However, the vulnerability indices (VIs) for these seven States range from the lowest of 0.419 for Maharashtra to 0.468 for Uttarakhand, which is on the higher side.

  • India-U.S. climate partnership

    Leaders Summit on Climate

    • Leaders Summit on Climate included 40 heads of state and government.
    • At the summit, President of the United State and Indian Prime Minister launched the ‘India-U.S. climate and clean energy Agenda 2030 partnership’. 
    • The goal of the partnership are given below:
    • 1) Mobilise finance and speed clean energy deployment.
    • 2) Demonstrate and scale innovative clean technologies needed to decarbonise sectors, including industry, transportation, power, and buildings.
    • 3) Build capacity to measure, manage, and adapt to the risks of climate-related impacts.

    India’s progress on NDC

    • Despite development challenges, India has taken many bold steps on clean energy, energy efficiency, afforestation and bio-diversity.
    • That is among the few countries whose NDCs are 2-degree-Celsius compatible.
    •  India is targeting a 2030 GDP emissions intensity ( i.e., volume of emissions per unit of GDP) that is 33%-35% below 2005 levels.
    • It also seeks to have 40% of power generated from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
    •  India’s per capita carbon footprint is 60% lower than the global average.

  • A fresh push for green hydrogen

    Green hydrogen could help significantly in India’s transition to low carbon future. However, there are several challenges in ramping up its manufacturing. The article suggests measures to deal with these challenges.

    Increasing the production of green hydrogen

    • India will soon join 15 other countries in the hydrogen club as it prepares to launch the National Hydrogen Energy Mission (NHEM). 
    • India will soon join 15 other countries in the hydrogen club as it prepares to launch the National Hydrogen Energy Mission (NHEM). 
    • In 2030, according to an analysis by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), green hydrogen demand could be up to 1 million tonnes in India across application in sectors such as ammonia, steel, methanol, transport and energy storage. 

    Dealing with challenges

    Several challenges in scaling up to commercial-scale operations persist. Following are five recommendations.

    1) Decentralise green hydrogen production

    • Decentralised hydrogen production must be promoted through open access of renewable power to an electrolyser (which splits water to form H2 and O2 using electricity).
    • Currently, most renewable energy resources that can produce low-cost electricity are situated far from potential demand centres.
    • Producing oxygen at such locations and then shipped, it would significantly erode the economics of it.
    • A more viable option would be wheeling electricity directly from the solar plant.
    • However, the electricity tariffs could double when supplying open-access power across State boundaries.
    • Therefore, operationalising open access in letter and spirit, as envisioned in the Electricity Act, 2003, must be an early focus.

    2)  Ensure access to round-the-clock renewable power

    • To minimise intermittency associated with renewable energy, for a given level of hydrogen production capacity, a green hydrogen facility will store hydrogen to ensure continuous hydrogen supply.
    • Therefore, as we scale up to the target of having 450 GW of renewable energy by 2030, aligning hydrogen production needs with broader electricity demand in the economy would be critical.

    3) Blending green hydrogen in industrial sector

    • We must take steps to blend green hydrogen in existing processes, especially the industrial sector.
    • Improving the reliability of hydrogen supply by augmenting green hydrogen with conventionally produced hydrogen will significantly improve the economics of the fuel.
    • This will also help build a technical understanding of the processes involved in handling hydrogen on a large scale.

    4) Facilitate investment

    • Policymakers must facilitate investments in early-stage piloting and the research and development needed to advance the technology for use in India.
    • The growing interest in hydrogen is triggered by the anticipated steep decline in electrolyser costs.
    • Public funding will have to lead the way, but the private sector, too, has significant gains to be made by securing its energy future.

    5) Focus on domestic manufacturing

    •  India must learn from the experience of the National Solar Mission and focus on domestic manufacturing.
    • Establishing an end-to-end electrolyser manufacturing facility would require measures extending beyond the existing performance-linked incentive programme.
    • India needs to secure supplies of raw materials that are needed for this technology.
    • Further, major institutions like the DRDO, BARC and CSIR laboratories have been developing electrolyser and fuel-cell technologies.

    Consider the question “Even before it has reached any scale, green hydrogen has been anointed the flag-bearer of India’s low-carbon transition. In lights of this, examine the challenges India faces in scaling up its green hydrogen production and suggest the ways to deal with these challenges.”

    Conclusion

    Hydrogen may be lighter than air, but it will take some heavy lifting to get the ecosystem in place.

  • Places in news: Thwaites Glacier

    The melting of Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier – also called the “Doomsday Glacier”– has long been a cause of concern because of its high potential of speeding up the global sea-level rise happening due to climate change.

    Thwaites Glacier

    • Called the Thwaites Glacier, it is 120 km wide at its broadest, fast-moving, and melting fast over the years.
    • Because of its size (1.9 lakh square km), it contains enough water to raise the world sea level by more than half a meter.
    • Studies have found the amount of ice flowing out of it has nearly doubled over the past 30 years.
    • Thwaites’s melting already contributes 4% to global sea-level rise each year. It is estimated that it would collapse into the sea in 200-900 years.
    • Thwaites is important for Antarctica as it slows the ice behind it from freely flowing into the ocean. Because of the risk it faces — and poses — Thwaites is often called the Doomsday Glacier.

    What have previous studies said?

    • A 2019 study by New York University had discovered a fast-growing cavity in the glacier. Then last year, researchers detected warm water at a vital point below the glacier.
    • The study reported water at just two degrees above freezing point at Thwaites’s “grounding zone” or “grounding line”.
    • The grounding line is the place below a glacier at which the ice transitions between resting fully on bedrock and floating on the ocean as an ice shelf.
    • The location of the line is a pointer to the rate of retreat of a glacier.
    • When glaciers melt and lose weight, they float off the land where they used to be situated. When this happens, the grounding line retreats.
    • That exposes more of a glacier’s underside to seawater, increasing the melting rate resulting in the glacier speeding up, stretching out, and thinning, causing the grounding line to retreat ever further.

    What has the new study revealed?

    • The recent Gothenburg study used an uncrewed submarine to go under the Thwaites glacier front to make observations.
    • The submersible called “Ran” measured among other things the strength, temperature, salinity and oxygen content of the ocean currents that go under the glacier.
    • There is a deep connection to the east through which deepwater flows from Pine Island Bay, a connection that was previously thought to be blocked by an underwater ridge.

    Why this is a cause of worry?

    • The warm water is approaching the pinning points of the glacier from all sides, impacting these locations where the ice is connected to the seabed and where the ice sheet finds stability.
    • This has the potential to make things worse for Thwaites, whose ice shelf is already retreating.

  • Deconstructing declarations of carbon-neutrality

    Against the global clamour for the declaration of carbon neutrality, India must consider several factors and their implications. The article highlights these factors.

    Countries declaring carbon-neutral
    targets

    • At the latest count by the non-profit Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), at the beginning of April, 32 countries had declared, in some documented form.
    • The impetus for such declarations arises from Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement.
    • It is evident that the balance of emissions and removal of greenhouse gases is not sought on a country-wise basis but for the world as a whole.
    • Both developed country governments and civil society outfits commonly state this as an individual commitment by all countries.
    • The text of the Paris Agreement clearly indicates, based on considerations of equity and differentiation, that this is a global goal.

    2 critical and related issues

    • The first is the compatibility of the intent of Article 4.1 and Article 2.
    • 1) Is the achievement of carbon neutrality compatible with achieving the 1.5°C or 2°C goals?
    • And whether the mid-century carbon neutrality goals of developed countries are compatible with Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement which focuses on equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

    The current pledges fall short of achieving the targets

    • Three-way compatibility between temperature goals, carbon neutrality, and equity is not only not guaranteed, but cannot be achieved for the 1.5°C temperature goal at all.
    • Even for the 2°C goal, the current pledges are highly inadequate.
    • This conclusion is based on the global carbon budget.
    • According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report to restrict temperature rise less than 1.5° with 50% world can emit total 480 Giga-tonnes (billion tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) from 2018 onwards.
    • At the current rate of emissions of about 42 GtCO2eq per year, this budget would be consumed in 12 years.
    • To keep within the 480 Gt budget, at a steady linear rate of decline, global carbon neutrality must be reached by 2039.
    • For a 50% probability of restricting temperature rise to below 2°C, the world can emit 1,400 GtCO2eq, that provides considerably greater room for manoeuvre.

    Emission of the U.S. and Europe

    • Emissions in the U.S. peaked in 2005 and have declined at an average rate of 1.1% from then till 2017.
    • Even if it did reach net-zero by 2050 at a steady linear rate of reduction, which is unprecedented, its cumulative emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be 106 GtCO2, which is 22% of the total remaining carbon budget for the whole world. [480 GtCO2 total]
    • This is so high that unless others reduced emissions at even faster rates, the world would most certainly cross 1.5°C warming.
    • Similarly, the European Union, to keep to its fair share of the remaining carbon budget would have to reach net-zero by 2033, with a constant annual reduction in emissions.
    • If the EU reaches net-zero only by 2050 it would consume at least 71 GtCO2, well above its fair share.
    • Regrettably, a section of the climate policy modelling literature has promoted the illusion that this three-way compatibility is feasible through speculative “negative emissions”
    • They have also been promoting the other illusion that not resorting to any serious emissions increase at all is the means to guarantee the successful development of the Third World.

    Why India should avoid net neutrality target

    • For one, India has to stay focused on development — both as its immediate need as well as its aspirational goal.
    • While sustainability is desirable, the question of how low India’s future low-carbon development can be is highly uncertain.
    • India’s current low carbon footprint is a consequence of the utter poverty and deprivation of a majority of its population, and not by virtue of sustainability.
    • Second, India does not owe a carbon debt to the world for excessive use in the past.
    • India’s emissions (not considering land use and land use change and forest-related emissions) are no more than 3.5% of global cumulative emissions prior to 1990 and about 5% since till 2018.
    • Any self-sacrificial declaration of carbon neutrality today in the current international scenario would be a wasted gesture reducing the burden of the developed world and transferring it to the backs of the Indian people.

    Consider the question “What are the factor India needs to consider about joining the global chorus on carbon neutrality targets.”

    Conclusion

    India’s approach to eventual net-zero emissions is contingent on deep first world emissions reductions and an adequate and unambiguous global carbon budget. Meanwhile, India must reject any attempt to restrict its options and be led into a low-development trap, based on pseudo-scientific narratives.

  • What is net-zero, and what are India’s objections?

    In its bid to reclaim the global climate leadership (stalled since Trump) the US is widely expected to commit itself to a net-zero emission target for 2050 at the virtual Climate Leaders’ Summit convened by Prez Joe Biden.

    Net-Zero Goal

    • Net-zero, which is also referred to as carbon-neutrality, does not mean that a country would bring down its emissions to zero.
    • Rather, net-zero is a state in which a country’s emissions are compensated by absorption and removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
    • Absorption of the emissions can be increased by creating more carbon sinks such as forests, while the removal of gases from the atmosphere requires futuristic technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
    • This way, it is even possible for a country to have negative emissions, if the absorption and removal exceed the actual emissions.
    • A good example is Bhutan which is often described as carbon-negative because it absorbs more than it emits.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2016:

    Q.With reference to the Agreement at the UNFCCC Meeting in Paris in 2015, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. The Agreement was signed by all the member countries of the UN and it will go into effect in 2017.
    2. The Agreement aims to limit the greenhouse gas emissions so that the rise in average global temperature by the end of this century does not exceed 20C or even 1.50C above pre-industrial levels.
    3. Developed countries acknowledged their historical responsibility in global warming and committed to donate S 1000 billion a year from 2020 to help developing countries to cope with climate change.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below.

    (a)    1 and 3 only

    (b)    2 only

    (c)    2 and 3 only

    (d)    1, 2 and 3

    The global target

    • The goal of carbon neutrality is only the latest formulation of a discussion going on for decades, on having a long-term goal.
    • A very active campaign has been going on for the last two years to get every country to sign on to a net-zero goal for 2050.
    • It is being argued that global carbon neutrality by 2050 is the only way to achieve the Paris Agreement target of keeping the planet’s temperature from rising beyond 2°C compared to pre-industrial times.
    • Current policies and actions being taken to reduce emissions would not even be able to prevent a 3–4°C rise by the turn of the century.
    • Long-term targets ensure predictability, and continuity, in the policies and actions of the countries. But there has never been a consensus on what this goal should be.

    Going beyond emission reduction

    • Earlier, the discussions used to be on emission-reduction targets, for 2050 or 2070, for rich and developed countries.
    • These unregulated emissions over several decades are mainly responsible for global warming and consequent climate change.
    • The net-zero formulation does not assign any emission reduction targets to any country.
    • Theoretically, a country can become carbon-neutral at its current level of emissions, or even by increasing its emissions, if it is able to absorb or remove more.

    Global actions for net-zero

    • Several other countries, including the UK and France, have already enacted laws promising to achieve a net-zero emission scenario by the middle of the century.
    • The EU is working a similar Europe-wide law, while many other countries including Canada, South Korea, Japan and Germany have expressed their intention to commit themselves to a net-zero future.
    • Even China has promised to go net-zero by 2060.
    • India, the world’s third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, after the US and China, is the only major player holding out.

    India’s position is unique

    • India is the only one opposing this target because it is likely to be the most impacted by it.
    • Over the next two to three decades, India’s emissions are likely to grow at the fastest pace in the world, as it presses for higher growth to pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
    • No amount of afforestation or reforestation would be able to compensate for the increased emissions.
    • Most of the carbon removal technologies right now are either unreliable or very expensive.

    Why does India object to net-zero emissions?

    • The net-zero goals do not figure in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the new global architecture to fight climate change.
    • The Paris Agreement only requires every signatory to take the best climate action it can.
    • Countries need to set five- or ten-year climate targets for themselves, and demonstrably show they have achieved them.
    • Implementation of the Paris Agreement has begun only this year.
    • Most of the countries have submitted targets for the 2025 or 2030 period.
    • India has been arguing that instead of opening up a parallel discussion on net-zero targets outside of the Paris Agreement framework, countries must focus on delivering on what they have already promised.

    India is already doing more

    • India is hoping to lead by example. It is well on its way to achieving its three targets under the Paris Agreement and looks likely to overachieve them.
    • Several studies have shown that India is the only G-20 country whose climate actions are compliant with the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperatures from rising beyond 2°C.
    • Even the actions of the EU, which is seen as the most progressive on climate change, and the US are assessed as “insufficient”.
    • In other words, India is already doing more, relatively speaking, on climate than many other countries.

    Fuss over developed countries contribution

    • New Delhi also repeatedly points to the fact that the developed nations have never delivered on their past promises and commitments.
    • No major country achieved the emission-cut targets assigned to them under the Kyoto Protocol, the climate regime preceding the Paris Agreement.
    • Some openly walked out of the Kyoto Protocol, without any consequences.
    • None of the countries has delivered on the promises they made for 2020.
    • Even worse is their track record on their commitment to providing money, and technology, to developing and poor countries to help them deal with the impacts of climate change.

    India’s way forward

    • India has been arguing that the 2050 carbon-neutrality promise might meet a similar fate, although some countries are now finding themselves in law.
    • It has been insisting that the developed countries should, instead, take more ambitious climate actions now, to compensate for the unfulfilled earlier promises.
    • At the same time, it has been saying that it does not rule out the possibility of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 or 2060.
    • Just that, it does not want to make an international commitment so much in advance.

    Back2Basics: Paris Agreement

    • The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.
    • Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
    • To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate-neutral world by mid-century.
    • It is a landmark process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.

    The action plan

    • Implementation of the Paris Agreement requires economic and social transformation, based on the best available science.
    • The Agreement works on a 5- year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries.
    • By 2020, countries submit their plans for climate action known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

    [Burning Issue] Five Years of Paris Agreement

  • Net-zero emissions target is unjust for developing countries

    The article explains why the net-zero emission targets are unjust for developing countries like India.

    Understanding climate justice

    • The principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) based on historical responsibility have been the bedrock of climate actions under the UNFCCC ever since 1992.
    • Based on these principles in Paris Agreement, developed countries promised to deliver higher finance commitment by 2025 and a more facilitative technology regime, apart from leading mitigation actions.
    • Developing countries agreed to take legal obligation that entails undertaking domestic mitigation measures and reporting on their implementation as part of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
    • These are also the central pillars on which India’s call for climate justice is premised.

    How India is leading by example

    • Indian government introduced climate sensitivity in domestic policies.
    • Climate sensitivity is reflected in interventions like energy for all, housing for all, health insurance and crop insurance, action like the “Clean India” and “give it up” campaigns, popularising yoga and sustainable lifestyle practices.
    • Together, these initiatives ensure climate justice to the vulnerable and poor sections that are worst hit by climate change.
    • While the rich were cajoled to move towards sustainable living, the poor were provided with the safety nets to fight climate change.

    Addressig 3 aspects of climate justice

    • In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguished three forms of justice, namely distributive, commutative and corrective. 
    • With the onset of the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement, it would be useful to take stock of how well the global community is addressing these three aspects of justice.

    1) Distributive justice

    • Distributive justice pertains to how resources should be distributed in terms of principles of equality, equity and merit.
    • For climate change, the most important resource is the global carbon space.
    • The developed countries continue to corner a lion’s share of the carbon space for their luxurious consumption while they goad developing countries to cut their emissions emanating from even basic needs.
    • Therefore, the focus should be on ensuring ambitious climate action by developed countries in the near-term to ensure distributive climate justice.

    2) Commutative justice

    • In the climate change discourse, commutative justice refers to the honouring of past commitments in good faith.
    • The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 was a historic turning point with legally binding targets for industrialised countries to reduce overall GHG emissions.
    • However, the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that commits developed country parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 18 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 only entered into force in December 2020, just one day before its expiry.
    • These targets unambitious and grossly inadequate to meet the principal objective of UNFCCC.
    • Also, several developed countries backtracked and refused to take on any targets in the second commitment period.
    • The developed country delivery of finance, technology transfer, and capacity building support to developing countries is also not up to the mark.
    • The fulfilment of these past commitments would be a critical precursor to any enhancement of climate ambition by developing countries.

    3) Corrective justice

    • Corrective justice pertains to the righting of wrongs.
    • Climate justice demands that every individual who is born on this earth has a right to development and dignified living.
    • For this, developed countries need to repay the climate debt by shouldering greater mitigation responsibilities and providing finance, technology and capacity-building support.

    Consider the question “Why net zero emission targets are considered to be unjust for developing countries?”

    Conclusion

    So, while many herald the call for net zero by 2050 as a positive signal in avoiding runaway climate breakdown, in reality it delays climate action by developed countries and is being used to evade historical responsibility and transfer burdens to developing countries.