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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Climate Change

1. Global Warming and Issues
2. All about Pollution

  • 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.

  • What to consider before India takes ‘net-zero’ pledge

    There are several issues with the adoption of net zero-emission targets. One of the most important being the lack of equity. This article deals with this issue.

    About net-zero emission targets

    • The “net zero” idea is inspired by an IPCC report that calls for global net emissions – GHG emissions minus removal of GHGs through various means to reach zero by mid-century.
    • This builds on a clause in the Paris Climate Agreement, calling for a balance between sources and sinks of emissions by the second half of the century.
    • It is worth underscoring that none of this implies that each country has to reach net-zero by 2050.
    • Net-zero announcements signals a progressive direction of travel and has the apparent merit of presenting a simple and singular benchmark for assessing the performance of a country.

    3 Issues with net zero targets

    • First, it potentially allows countries to keep emitting today while relying on yet-to-be-developed and costly technologies to absorb emissions tomorrow.
    • Second, its focus on long-term targets displaces attention from meaningful short-term actions that are credible and accountable.
    • Third., it calls into question concerns of equity and fairness.

    Balancing the concerns of developing and developed countries

    • The Paris Agreement, while urging global peaking as soon as possible, explicitly recognises that peaking will take longer for developing countries.
    • The Paris Agreement calls for achieving balance in developing and developed nation “on the basis of equity” and in the context of “sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”.
    • Therefore, the Paris Agreement does not advocate uptake of net-zero targets across developed and developing countries, as currently being advocated by many countries.
    • Rather, the emphasis in the agreement on equity, sustainable development and poverty eradication suggests a thoughtful balancing of responsibilities between developed and developing countries.

    Factors India should consider before taking zero-emission target

    • Our first nationally determined contribution (NDC) submitted under the Paris Agreement has been rated by observers as compatible with a 2 degrees Celsius trajectory.
    • We are ahead of schedule in meeting our contribution.
    • Now, India will need to decide whether to join a growing number of countries (over 120 at last count) that have pledged to reach “net zero” emissions by 2050.
    • But it is not clear that enhancing mitigation action can definitively deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, given that our emissions are still rising, and our development needs are considerable.
    • There is a possibility that a not fully thought-through mid-century net-zero target would compromise sustainable development.
    • Moreover, such a major shift in our negotiating position will have implications for the future, including our ability to leverage additional finance and technology to help shift to low-carbon development pathways.
    • Our 2 degrees Celsius compatible NDC, bolstered by the Prime Minister’s announcement in 2019 that we would achieve 450 GW of renewables by 2030, could be strengthened.
    • Building on this track record suggests an alternate and equally, if not more, compelling, way to indicate climate ambition in the future than uncritically taking on a net-zero target.

    Way forward

    • We would benefit from taking stock of our actions and focusing on near-term transitions.
    • This will allow us to meet and even over-comply with our 2030 target while also ensuring concomitant developmental benefits, such as developing a vibrant renewable industry.
    • We can start putting in place the policies and institutions necessary to move us in the right direction for the longer-term and also better understand the implications of net-zero scenarios before making a net-zero pledge.
    • It would also be in India’s interest to link any future pledge to the achievement of near-term action by industrialised countries.
    • That would be fair and consistent with the principles of the UNFCCC.

    Consider the question “Growing number of countries have been setting net-zero emission target. In light of this, examine the issues India should consider before setting itself the net zero emission targets.”

    Conclusion

    India, like others, have a responsibility to the international community, we also have a responsibility to our citizens to be deliberate and thoughtful about a decision as consequential as India’s climate pledge.

  • Working towards climate justice in a non-ideal world

    The new U.S. administration has renewed its commitment to climate actions by reconvening the Major Economies Forum. This has several implications for India and the developing countries. The article deals with this issue.

    Reconvening MEF and its implications for developing countries

    • The election of Joe Biden as U.S. President has catapulted climate change to the top of the global agenda.
    • Interestingly, the U.S. is not just striding back to the Obama signature achievement of the Paris Accord with its voluntary commitments but also to the Bush days [which was not necessarily voluntary].
    • This change is best evidenced by the presidential call to reconvene the Major Economies Forum (MEF).
    • The MEF, which was first convened in March 2009, originated in the Bush-era U.S. efforts to rope in major emitters.
    • It was also to push a way forward on climate change without heed to the principle of differentiated responsibilities and recognition of historical responsibilities.
    • These two are hallowed principles of the climate discourse given the decades of staying power of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

    Changing approach implications for India

    • All countries have been told to commit to net zero (GHG emissions) by 2050 with credible plans to ensure meeting this domestic target.
    • Taking a cue from the new U.S. Administration, the UN Secretary-General has even called on countries to declare national climate emergencies apart from building a coalition for a carbon-neutral world by 2050.
    • As of today, countries representing around 65% of global CO2 emissions have already agreed to this.
    • These plans and their implementation will, undoubtedly, be subject to international reviews and verification.
    • Historical responsibilities and differentiation have no place in this discourse; but neither does the level of development.
    • India can easily be in the crosshairs of such a discourse no matter its extraordinarily small carbon footprint in per-capita terms and huge development imperatives.

    Possibility of carbon border levies

    • Adding to the challenges is the distinct possibility of the EU imposing carbon border levies on those who do not take on high carbon cut-down targets and do so unilaterally if there is no global agreement.
    • While as of now the U.S. Administration appears ambivalent on these border levies, the possibility of their coming around cannot be ruled out.
    • In such a scenario, World Trade Organization rules that presently exclude the use of tariffs on environmental grounds will certainly get modified.

    A fund pay-in idea

    • To deal with the issue of climate finance, Raghuram Rajan has recently put forward a proposal for India to consider.
    • The proposal calls on countries to pay into a global fund amounts based on their carbon emissions over and above the global per-capita average of five tons.
    • This obviously disincentives coal in a big way while incentivising renewables.
    • Those above the global average would pay, while those below would receive the monies.
    • While this would suggest a certain equity, it may be unacceptable to the developed countries even though Mr. Rajan has gone along with the drumbeat to forget historical responsibility.
    • For India, such a proposal may appear attractive as India today has per capita CO2 emission of only 2 tons and is a global record setter in pushing renewables.
    • The long-term implications of such a proposal require examination in detail, quite apart from factoring in the twists and turns that negotiations could give to such an idea.
    • And then, of course, there are alternatives such as emission trading. 

    Implications for developing countries

    • The proposal of fund pay-in allows practical considerations to trump fairness by not only giving a short shrift to historical responsibility but also denying priority access to the remaining carbon space for developing countries.
    • In that sense, it double penalises them while giving developed countries a certain free pass.
    • Here it bears noting that more than 75% of the carbon space available to humankind to keep global temperature rises to 1.5° C has already been taken up by the developed world and China.

    Consider the question “As the world seeks to tackle the climate change through climate action, delivering climate justice should also be the priority. In light of this, discuss the challenges faced by the developing countries in this regard.”

    Conclusion

    Climate justice is an imperative for India, which needs to leverage its green and pro-nature commitment to ensure carbon and policy space for its developmental and global aspirations. India’s diplomatic and negotiating efforts must be quickly geared to that end.

  • Adaptation, not mitigation, should inform India’s climate strategy

    The article discusses issues such as China’s changing stance, climate finance and adoption of targets.

    The 26th COP to the UNFCCC

    • Countries Across the world are gearing up for the 26th Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    • At the forthcoming COP countries will be expected to increase the nationally determined commitments they made as part of that agreement.
    • Those original commitments would put the planet on track towards a 3 degrees centigrade temperature rise by the end of the current millennium.
    • 3-degree centigrade is far beyond the 1.5-degree limit that science considers to be a relatively safe threshold.

    Countries declaring carbon neutrality targets

    • The European Union (EU), the UK, Japan and South Korea have announced more ambitious targets.
    • The EU and the UK have pledged to reduce their carbon emissions by 55 per cent in 2030 with 2000 as the base year
    • They have also pledged to achieve “carbon neutrality” or zero carbon emissions by 2050.
    • China has announced that it will achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and this has been welcomed by other major economies.

    Delinking from China

    • It is anticipated that the Biden administration may engage with China to come up with a template for COP-26.
    • That template did not take into account India’s interests despite China being part of the BASIC group of Brazil, South Africa, China and India.
    • BASIC, as major emerging economies, had been taking coordinated positions at multilateral climate negotiations.
    • Going forward, India must delink itself from China, let BASIC become a consultative forum only and reconstruct a larger coalition of developing countries whose climate change goals are more aligned with its own.
    • After Paris, BASIC has lost whatever rationale it originally possessed.

    Course of action for India: Adaptation is the key

    • There will be some important international conferences before COP-26, where major efforts are expected to set down an agenda for that meeting.
    • Biden has called for a summit of major emitting nations on April 22.
    • In June there will be a G-7 summit of western countries and Japan to which India has been invited.
    • The UK has let it be known that climate change would be at the top of the summit agenda.
    • What should India’s stance be at these meetings?
    • Both for India and other developing countries, it is important that mitigation does not overshadow other key elements of the Paris Climate agreement.
    • There has been step-motherly treatment of adaptation, which is a bigger challenge for most developing countries than mitigation is.
    • Adaptation should have equal billing with mitigation whenever and wherever climate change action is being deliberated upon.
    • India may find itself under pressure to commit to decisions that limit rather than enhance its development prospects.
    • One should not yield to pressures to declare a peaking year for India’s carbon emissions or to follow China into declaring a target year for carbon neutrality.
    • There is a relentless effort by the US and Western European countries to include climate change on the UN Security Council (UNSC) agenda.
    • At a recent UNSC meeting, this was strongly opposed by Russia and by India.
    • We will need to work out a persuasive case for opposing it since a large number of countries seem to believe that climate change is indeed a security issue and needs to be treated as such.
    • The potentially menacing intent behind it should be exposed.

    Climate finance falling short

    • The developed countries had committed themselves to providing $100 billion a year in climate finance to developing countries up to 2020.
    • There was a pledge to increase the size of this funding significantly in the period 2021-2025.
    • Even by the very accommodative accounting methods used by the OECD, the actual flows have fallen far short, being only $79 billion in 2018.
    •  Our own ministry of finance has estimated that there has been only a billion dollars in new and additional finance transferred to developing countries annually against the $100 billion pledge.
    • It is therefore important for India to highlight the finance component.
    • This will also enable the mobilisation of other developing countries, in particular small and medium countries and small island developing states.
    • These countries look up to India to provide intellectual leadership in a domain that is often quite technical and complex.

    Consider the question “What are the factors India should highlight and focus on as it heads to the 26th COP to the UNFCCC?”

    Conclusion

    It is evident that India needs to fashion a fresh strategy on climate change negotiations to safeguard its interests, contribute to a global climate regime that enhances and does not diminish India’s development prospects and helps the country both to adapt to climate change that is already taking place and to accelerate its transition to a low carbon growth trajectory.

  • Climate and consciousness

    Two recent events: floods in Uttarakhand and Texas cold snap serves as reminders of the devastation climate change could unleash. What we need is climate action. The article deals with this issue.

    Fingerprints of global warming in Uttarakhand floods and Texas cold snap

    • The melting of the Himalayan glaciers that prompted the floods and landslides in Uttarakhand have the fingerprints of global warming.
    • The United States has already witnessed many deadly avalanches since the beginning of 2021.
    • Furthermore, as glacier cover is replaced by water or land, the amount of light reflected decreases, aggravating warming.
    • The extreme cold weather in Texas, like the double-digit negative temperatures seen in Germany earlier this year, is connected to Arctic-peninsula warming, at a rate almost twice the global average.

    Global warming causing the movement of cold air

    • Usually, there is a collection of winds around the Arctic keeping the cold locked far to the north.
    • But global warming has caused gaps in these protective winds, allowing intensely cold air to move south — a phenomenon that is accelerating.

    India needs to announce carbon neutrality target

    • When the public connects cause and effect, responses are usually swift.
    • Global warming is still seen as a danger that lies over the horizon.
    • For India, the third-largest carbon emitter after China and the United States, a decisive switch is needed from highly polluting coal and petroleum to cleaner and renewable power sources.
    • China has announced carbon neutrality by 2060, Japan and South Korea by 2050, but India is yet to announce a target.
    • HSBC ranks India at the top among 67 nations in climate vulnerability (2018), Germanwatch ranks India fifth among 181 nations in terms of climate risks (2020).
    • But public spending does not reflect these perils.

    Including policies for climate mitigation in the Budget

    • A vital step should be explicitly including policies for climate mitigation in the government budget.
    • Growth targets should include timelines for switching to cleaner energy.
    • The government needs to launch a major campaign to mobilise climate finance.
    • India’s Central and State governments must increase allocations for risk reduction, such as better defences against floods, or agricultural innovations to withstand droughts.

    Neglect of warnings and lack of policy response

    •  The Uttarakhand government and the Centre have been diluting, instead of strengthening, climate safeguards for hydroelectric and road projects.
    • Studies had flagged ice loss across the Himalayas, and the dangers to densely populated catchments, but policy response has been lacking.
    • Similarly, Kerala ignored a landmark study calling for regulation of mining, quarrying and dam construction in ecologically sensitive places, which contributed to the massive floods and landslides in 2018 and 2019.

    Consider the question ” Frequent occurrences of the extreme weather events serve as the warning for more climate actions, yet there is a lack of policy actions. In light of this, suggest the measures India should take.”

    Conclusion

    Events like Uttarakhand and Texas should be treated as lessons to change people’s minds and for the public to demand urgent action.