Belief v/s Ban

Ipshita Das

“Oh! That’s a fantastic verdict by the Supreme court of India”

“Well, has a ban ever served any purpose?”

“This definitely slams the age- old tradition followed by us”

“How can banning crackers for a day (on Diwali) solve the pollution problem in Delhi?”

“This year Delhi-ites did set an example to adhere to the verdict on not bursting crackers”  

As confusing as the above statements sound; these collectively reflect some of the notions (and emotions) of the people of Delhi on the directive passed by the Supreme court of India on 9th October 2017;“No firecrackers would be sold in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) till October 31”, ten days prior to the holy festival of Diwali which is one of the widely celebrated festivals of India, on the occasion of home-coming of the mythical God in ancient Hindu epic; Lord Ram along with his wife and brother to their native place after defeating Ravana; the primary antagonist.

The age- old tradition called for lighting- up of houses and its surrounding with diyas (a cup shaped oil lamp) and candles, making Rangolis, purchasing new goods and having a feast.

And then came… the primary antagonist of today’s time; the ‘Crackers’

The joy and thrill of the sparkles exuding out of the crackers and fireworks overshadowed the ill-effects of the pollution, disturbance to animals, health issues and environmental damage it caused; so much so that it soon turned into a ritual among people. With passage of time, this practice of cracker and fireworks bursting got associated with warding of the evils spirits and a customary mark of celebration.

It was only in the year 2016, that people woke up in a city engulfed in suspended particulate matter reaching alarming levels to a point where the national capital of the country was considered ill-livable in the world. But did that morning really wake us up? The answer lies amidst the different varied stance taken by people on this particular situation.

The use of crackers has a bigger connotation than just deriving a thrill out of it. Crackers and fireworks acts as a medium to get families together and celebrate this festival, it denotes a gesture of gift exchange between the elderlies and the children, it holds the traditional and religious beliefs of using them to ward off the evil spirits, and on a lighter note; it comes to the rescue to kill the mosquitoes around.

The directive on cracker ban was interpreted as an ‘immediate ban’ on all these gestures, notion and spirit behind the use of cracker among people on that one day of the year. Yes, there is a dire need for people to understand the circumstances under which the directive was intended at but every change takes its due course of time. The good news lies with the fact that there has been a reduction in cracker use this year compared to the previous years and there are people who are making a conscious effort to bring a change with alternative ways of celebrating the festival but the change that we envision among the masses will only begin when the alternative ways of celebration is presented to them. Maybe a state regularization on its usage, maybe demarcating areas for bursting crackers, maybe stricter laws to check the quality of cracker production, maybe thorough checks before grating suppliers on quantity and quality of cracker and fireworks.

The problem is far more deeply rooted to have a ban as a handy or immediate solution to tackle this problem. The practice of crackers and fireworks bursting is intensely entangled with the beliefs of people. To witness change, one needs to begin by acknowledging these strong beliefs associated with this ritual among people and thereafter, work out ways to propose alternate methods to shift from the current practices. One needs to adopt the approach of setting examples of some easy yet relatable and actionable pointers to substitute these practices and with that motive, lay a pathway for the people to shift their practices to a more conscious and inclusive Diwali.

Electric Vehicles, Quo Vadis?

Manish Gautam

Indian government is on a roll. Two years ago at Conference of Parties (COP) 21 at Paris, it surprised the world by setting up its renewable energy generation target of 175 GW by 2022.  This was one of its INDC (now transitioned to NDC) at the Paris COP, the other being the creation of an “additional carbon sink by increasing forestation and tree cover”. Recently the government indicated that it is planning to transition completely to non-hydrocarbon fuels based vehicles, i.e., electric vehicles (EVs). If one believes Mr. Nitin Gadkari, the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, after year 2030 the only vehicles on the Indian roads will be fueled by electricity, or else the government will ‘bulldoze’ the non-electric vehicles.

In year 2001, the total cars registered were numbered 5.3 Million (7.1 Million, combined number for Cars, Jeeps and Taxis). It had increased almost 3 times in 11 years, 17.5 Million (21.5 Million, combined number for Cars, Jeeps and Taxis) in 2012 as per the data on the website of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. This number (combined figures for Cars, Jeeps and Taxis) stood 28.6 Million in 2015. The projection of total number of such vehicles in 2030 is difficult to make considering the factors that will drive such an increase; the prospects of having more than 60 Million carbon-emitting vehicles (of all kinds) is a rather scary thought! Also, it seems unrealistic, by any means that a major chunk of these 60 Million plus vehicles will run on electricity if we take Mr. Gadkari seriously. Amitabh Kant, CEO of the Niti Aayog, provide us a slightly better picture. He estimates that the country will see the sale of 7.3 Million EVs by 2030. Hoping that the adaptation to EVs will be fast even though the market may show some reluctance to embrace it, he projects that the sale of EVs will be 30.81 Million by 2040.

Will the country be able to achieve this target? Some are skeptical. An Economic Times article lists out few obstacles or ‘bumps’ in the road ahead of EVs target –  issues of scaling up and prioritizing of infrastructure needed for the functioning of EVs such as setting up the charging stations. There are few, for instance Amitabh Kant, CEO of Niti Aayog, who are hopeful that the country can finally get rid of hydrocarbon fuels run vehicles and have a zero-emission future. A study carried out by the people from Rocky Mountain Institute and Niti Aayog outlines a vision for country’s efficient mobility by 2030 and it includes EVs in this roadmap. It emphasizes on the “concerted action at the central, state, and local government levels, enhanced coordination among central-government ministries, and collaboration with the private sector will be required for India to realize the full potential of a mobility transformation”.

Two important aspects of this entire discussion of EVs in India are missing or not being given much attention in news and other portals.  Is the electricity needed to run the EVs as ‘clean’ as the purpose of running EVs on the roads?  – the zero carbon footprint of the electricity needed for EVs along with the target of zero emissions from the vehicles? The Draft National Energy Policy does talk about “de-carbonisation through the twin interventions of energy efficiency and renewable energy” where deployment of EVs comes under its Energy Efficiency ambit.  

The other is the question of road congestion. How is the switch to EVs going to solve this problem that has been a nightmare for many? This question has not been addressed, let alone completely understood or analyzed. The RMI-Niti Aayog study try to address this problem that “adding vehicle or congestion fees in congested cities will reduce travel demand met by vehicles”. This solution in the report lacks elaboration and is unconvincing.

A future of transportation in the form of EVs sounds all hunky-dory. The urgent need of the country is to address the problem of having too many vehicles on its roads. Perhaps the zero-emission future lies not only in manufacturing and running millions of EVs but creating an equally efficient public transport system.

(First published in the IYCN Newsletter – August 2017 issue)

 

 

 

Climate Change and The Struggle to Keep Up Cultural Practices

Sharanya Sanjeev*

Is climate change all about raising temperatures we say? We at Climate Tracker are taking a closer and distinctive outlook. Time-tested survival techniques and cultural traditions are falling prey to detrimental human activities. Once joyous occasions, now conservational obligations.

Dhe Village of The Himalayas

Inheriting Indian and Chinese traditions, the present-day Tibet celebrates New Years’ eve called Losar in a unique mix of music, dance, skits, food, and drinks. Dating back to prehistoric times, the festive celebration is marked by offering grains that is used to brew Chhaang, an alcoholic drink like beer.

Climate change has had detrimental effects on this age-old festival and similar traditional practices. Once a fortnight full of merry making has now been reduced to a tradition that the community is battling to conserve for the generations to come.

Amount of snow in these regions have been considerably reduced in the past few years, shrinking the volume of snow-fed water resources. Decline in water levels has affected grazing lands by narrowing their expanse, thereby fatally affecting livestock such as cattle, goats, and sheep.

Ancient Maldivian calendar forecast turning futile

The Nakaiy-monsoon calendar played a crucial role in the lives of Maldivians, accurately predicting best times to fish, travel, cultivate crops, build houses, etc. Comprised of ninety-nine percent water and one percent land, lives of Maldivians surrounded the monsoon calendar’s forecast. Climate change has now made this ancient technique unreliable. Unpredictable weather changes are agonising people, driving them away from their ethos.

Progressively drying lake in Peru

Year after year, the Huacapunco thank their goddess Panchamama, Mother Earth in the Peruvian culture, for the prosperity their land adorned and ask her blessings to offer perennial grant of water. Recent times have proven hard for this tribe. They continue the tradition of dancing at the foot of the lagoon in colourful attires, seeking the goddess’ blessing, but in vain, as the lake gradually drying up with no signs of recuperation.

Making a difference

We, at Climate Tracker, a network of 3000 journalists and photographers track these adverse changes and voice out to save cultures and traditions that are falling victim to human activities. We are publishing a photobook documenting these changes and striving to complete it just in time for the UN Climate Change negotiations

How you can help

Support us by funding this Project where you will aid journalists and photographers visit these communities, engross themselves in their culture and traditions, document climate change effects and publish the photobook by November, 2017.

(Sharanya Sanjeev is part of a youth global organisation – Climate Tracker. Climate Tracker is a group of 3000 journalists and photographers that track climate change, create awareness amongst stakeholders and present our report during the UN Climate change negotiations.)

BONN Ultimatum?

Saumya Chaudhari*

In March this year, the world-renowned physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking revised his Doomsday Clock and declared that humanity only has 100 years before a cataclysmic event destroys life on Earth. He accompanies these apocalyptic predictions with seemingly fantastic solutions for survival. These at best involve, a one-world government and at worst, colonizing other planets for multi-planetary human existence.  One would hope that these possibilities, both terrifying yet exciting, would evoke sincere efforts and accelerate collective global actions to combat disastrous climate change.

In this backdrop, the world once again gathered together in Bonn, Germany (8^th-18^th May, 2017) in the hope of furthering the climate negotiations at Paris and following through with their commitments. Every attempt at climate negotiation begins with countries standing at vastly varied footing, looking towards a commonly acceptable ambition and pace to achieve the same ends. Considering the enormous disparity between the economic and social positioning of all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), arriving at a consensus on many issues at the Conference of Parties (COP) is undoubtedly challenging. However, it is the political considerations of a nation that reinforce this disparity and prevent a magnified outlook and a possible compromise between Parties. Some suggest that politics may be kept aside and a pragmatic approach be adopted in order to arrive at an agreement on an issue of such global importance. However, the recent political shuffle in the United States has visibly held progress of years of climate negotiations at ransom. Creating a vacuum in place of leadership at the Bonn climate talks, the new US government was suddenly seen denying climate science and hinting withdrawal from the Paris agreement altogether. The US, with a record of the largest contingent of diplomats from a single country, was represented by merely seven officials at Bonn with a clear agenda to advance US business and commercial interests.

In the eyes of a lay observer, the tussle at each Conference of Parties (COP) essentially surrounds the incompatible interests of the developing and developed nations. The Paris climate agreement of 12^th December, 2015, was hailed as landmark since it culminated years of attempts by United Nations to forge an international and collective consensus. Nearly 200 nations had signed the agreement. The decision to contain the rise in global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial levels) had been agreed upon by both developed and developing nations alike. In addition, periodic stock-take of progress on national commitments, provision for an adaptation fund for developing nations seeking to combat climate impacts, etc. were settled between all Parties. However, in seventeen months from Paris to Bonn, the positions of countries have altered and the unanimity between the Parties on these issues is less evident.

Put simply, the compromise between the developing and developed nations is essentially one that strikes at the question of equity. The developing countries believe that the major chunk of contribution to the climate change that manifests itself today has been caused by the developed countries due to their reckless economic and technological growth since the industrial revolution. Following this reasoning, they conclude that mitigation efforts today must witness ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibility’ (CBDR) with a focus on the developed countries that have nearly peaked economic and human development indices. This is opposed to the developing nations, some of which continue to languish and others that are inching towards economic goals along with efforts to alleviate poverty, hunger, diseases, and fulfilment of basic human rights for all citizens. As expected, the issue of CBDR is a bone of contention between the two blocks of nations. So is the issue of adaptation fund and technology transfer that puts the onus on the developed nations, firstly, to contribute towards the adaptation strategies of the developing nations; and secondly, to assist their transition to low emission economies by providing innovative technology. Despite having agreed upon these commitments in Paris, the developed countries were seen re-evaluating these at Bonn.

National agendas for progress lie at the heart of active political considerations. At this point it must become clearer why the international climate negotiations are largely at the mercy of the political regimes globally. Political shifts in countries that pivot on certain matters of primary concern to nations may leave other matters that are not perceived as critical unhinged and astray. Despite its urgency for over a decade or two, climate change has failed to occupy this central position in any national agenda. With the rise in global terrorism and the risk to national security, a jingoistic approach to development has overtaken most parts of the world. Many democracies have begun nurturing populist measures instead of measures that foot holistic and sustainable development of the country.  In such a situation, concerns such as adaptation to climate change lack the necessary political wind beneath its wings.

Clearly, political flux cannot be kept mutually exclusive from climate negotiations. However, for concrete results that effectively mitigate climate change, national commitments of Parties at COP cannot be as fickle as politics would render them. Nearly all Nationally Determined Contributions and goals for climate change mitigation fail to legally bind Parties. In the absence of real political will towards collective action, it becomes easy to evade these commitments. Therefore, every climate talk that seeks to build upon the previous efforts may appear more like another fresh start with countries possibly approaching the forum with altered political agendas.

source: World Resources Institute

Being the two largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world as per the World Resources Institute, the US and China usually led the developed and developing fronts at the helm of climate talks. With the US taking a backseat, the mantle has now passed to the European Union. At Bonn, the EU was seen rising to the occasion, taking the lead and seeking future collaboration with China and Canada. At this point it is also worth considering that although EU is in principle a single entity, the positions of the EU member nations are not identical. This may raise doubts about the consistency in their position on climate change as a single entity in the future, especially in light of Brexit.

For any effective progress, it is imperative that the commitments by Parties be made legally binding. Although there exist progress trackers and a framework for periodic reviews on various parameters such as individual efforts, implementation, transparency, adaptation, etc., a system for holding nations accountable for the results is lacking. Goals once agreed upon at COP must be unalterable by Parties despite any political flux or change in the national political regime. Further, any scope of deferring effective action must be eliminated. This usually involves ambiguity surrounding the agreements signed at COP. For instance, the meaning of the term ‘equity’ when applied to global stock-take of progress on national commitments was unsettled. Although the term was first introduced in the Paris talks, it was sought to be interpreted and clarified by the developed nations over a year later at Bonn. Such delays may be averted by timely and thorough discussions and in its absence pose as convenient opportunities to evade compliance. These measures among others may mitigate the effects of ill-conceived political decisions that risk undoing years of global progress. Maybe with some sincere strides in the right direction, we could hope for Mr. Hawking to revise his Doomsday prediction and lend us some more Earth time.

(Saumya Chaudhari is, a law graduate from the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, set to begin her career as an environmental lawyer in Delhi.)

 

The need to keep temperature below 1.5 degrees and the impacts in India

Chaitra Yadavar*

I personally remember sweating an unlimited amount even at 10 am as I stepped out to catch a local train to attend a meeting or to buy something from a grocery shop in May 2016. I didn’t remember it being this hot in the last 3 years. In the local trains, women would be discussing how they wake up in the morning to get ready for office, they would be completely covered in sweat. I used to thank my stars when I heard this as my family used to put the AC on before sleeping. All my friends and me, whoever used to work from home, switched rooms whichever were facing East and started working whichever room was facing West, in the mornings. It was unbearably hot!

I wasn’t surprised when I read that the European Geosciences Union published a study in April 2016 that examined the impact of a 1.5 degree Celsius vs. a 2.0 C temperature increase by the end of the century.

Heat waves would last around a third longer or rain storms would be about a third more intense. Also, the increase in sea level would be approximately a third higher and the percentage of tropical coral reefs at risk of severe degradation would be roughly that much greater.

In 2015, we saw global average temperatures a little over 1℃ above pre-industrial levels (before the industrial era began), and 2016 is proving to be even hotter. In February and March of this year, temperatures were already 1.38℃ above pre-industrial averages.

There are major reasons to be concerned about these factors being in India. South Asia’s vulnerability to these and future disasters is great, principally for reasons of population and poverty. The majority of South Asian countries are low or lower-middle income countries that already struggle to support the daily needs of their growing populations. Because poorer households dedicate more of their budgets to food, they are the most sensitive to weather-related shocks on agriculture that can make daily staple food unaffordable.

The point to remember in this scenario is that majority of the Greenhouse Gas emissions are let out by the first-world countries and the third-world and comparatively poorer countries like India have to suffer its disastrous consequences.

The destruction from flooding could wreak havoc in South Asia’s low-lying and urban areas. Extreme heat is already disrupting the growing season for regions in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Wheat production in the Indian portion of the Indo-Gangetic Plains, a fertile area that also encompasses parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh, may decrease by up to 50 per cent by 2100, harming the hundreds of millions of people who rely on it for sustenance.

The story of 1.5 C

Around 180 countries have so far signed the Paris climate agreement in which they pledged not only to limit the global temperature rise since pre-industrial times to “well below” 2C but to do their very best to keep them to 1.5C.

But as recorded temperatures this year have edged above 1C, scientists believe we are already dangerously close with the 1.5 degree target.

This new study suggests that it will “almost certainly be surpassed”, at least over land, based on the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Other researchers agree that keeping temperatures at the 1.5 figure is going to be a significant, if not impossible, challenge. But if the world is to take the 1.5 target seriously, then a serious discussion needs to be held about the implications of that goal.

After all, this is a global climate agreement. And to many countries, passing those temperature limits could be a disaster.

A ticking heat time-bomb: India

In the past few years in India, at times there is a severity in temperatures, at times it rains in odd months. The unpredictability and large scale loss which climate change has brought about is visible in states like Rajasthan. On May 19 2016, India’s all-time temperature record was smashed in the northern city of Phalodi in the state of Rajasthan. Temperatures soared to 51℃, beating the previous record set in 1956 by 0.4℃. Also, 2015 saw a flood in a city like Udaipur, which was an unheard-of phenomenon in this region!

India is known for its unbearably hot conditions at this time of year, just before the monsoon starts. Temperatures in the high 30s are normal, with local authorities declaring heatwave conditions only once temperatures reach a stifling 45℃.

Much of India is mostly in the grip of a massive drought. Water resources are scarce across the country. Dry conditions make extreme temperatures worse because the heat energy usually taken up by evaporation heats the air instead.

However, a study found a significant increase in the frequency of extreme temperatures and a remarkable trend in the duration of warm spells in India, as the graph below shows. Warm spells, defined as at least six days of extreme temperatures relative to the location and time of year, increased by at least three days per decade over 1951-2010 – the largest trend recorded globally.

Sky rocketing temperatures across northern and southern India have resulted in the deaths of more than 1,242 people though officials warn that the death toll would be much higher since a larger number of heat-related deaths in rural India go unreported.

Most of these deaths are caused by heatstroke and extreme dehydration. Doctors point out that long exposure to extreme heat raises the body temperature to such a high level that it causes the over-heating of an individual’s protein cells negatively impacting the individual’s brain. Many of those dead are known to be daily labourers, who have no choice but to go out everyday in search of their daily bread.

The searing heat wave in Delhi has seen over 200 dead, the majority of whom were homeless.

Indian Meterological Department presently categorises Rajasthan, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Vidarbha, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Telangana, coastal Andhra Pradesh and north Tamil Nadu as experiencing heat wave conditions annually which extend for eight days and more.

A heat wave condition prevails when the temperature rises to 40 degrees Celsius and more. For hill stations, the heat wave conditions are those where the temperature rises to above 30 degrees Celsius.

Dr D S Pai, a scientist at IMD, warned that severe heat wave conditions are resulting in the death of thousands of people every year. He cites the example of how 1,000 people were killed by a heat wave in Andhra Pradesh in 2002 while another 1,000 people died in the state in 2010.

The causes

Glacial melting and increasing deforestation is also adversely impacting weather cycles and is something that is happening in India too.

The report states that the total amount of carbon human beings emit should not exceed 800 gigatons, but by 2011, 531 gigatons had already been emitted.

The effects of this overdose are for everyone to see — a relentless heating up of the atmosphere with sea levels increasingly flooding coastal plains in India and other countries.

Scientists at the Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, associated closely with the drafting of this report, warn that rising temperatures will adversely impact monsoons. Rainfall is expected to increase by 10 per cent between December to February and up to 50 per cent between September and November and the overall monsoon winds are likely to weaken.

According to the report, Monsoon retreat dates are likely to be delayed, resulting in the lengthening in the monsoon season in many regions.

Higher rainfall will not mean an extension of rainy days. Rather, it will see an increase in extreme weather events as happened during the torrential rainfall that hit Uttarakhand in June 2013 and in 2015 and the heavy rainfall that caused flooding of the Jhelum river in Jammu and Kashmir in 2014 causing destruction in a large part of the capital city of Srinagar.

Apprehensive of the rapid rate of glacial melt, the Nepal-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development said that 54,000 glaciers in the Himalayas could create glacial lakes which would rupture their banks and destroy the surrounding infrastructure and agriculture. The bursting of the glacial lake in Kedarnath precipitated the devastation in Uttarakhand.

A similar lake like this has been created by landslides on the Kali Gandaki river in Nepal after the massive earthquake in Kathmandu in April 2016. If the lake breaches, it would result in disastrous downstream flooding which would spread up to several cities in Bihar.

Scientists question how increasing urbanisation will handle future climate problems, especially since cities produce three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions related to household consumption. The current government’s emphasis on ‘urbanising India’ casts heavy doubts on the future of cities and the environment.

A bad monsoon would mean one more year of poor rains and see a decline in food production.

What can be done?

India is already highly vulnerable to the health impacts of oppressive heatwaves and, as climate change continues, this vulnerability will grow. It is therefore important that heat plans are put in place to protect the population. That’s a difficult prospect in places that lack communications infrastructure or widespread access to air conditioning.

In the longer term, this episode shows that the global warming targets agreed in Paris have to be taken seriously, so that unprecedented heatwaves and their deadly impacts don’t become unmanageable in this part of the world.

(Chaitra runs a website on alternative (eco-friendly) methods of celebrating Ganeshotsav : www.greenbappa.in. She also runs an NGO ‘Rupantar’ working on women empowerment and have previously been selected as one of the 30 fellows to attend the ‘Emerging leaders in Multifaith Climate change movement’ in Rome, 2015.)

 

 

The Long Road to Ratification: India Signs Paris Climate Agreemen

This article was originally published by the Center for Global Development.

By Kartikeya Singh and Jennifer Richmond

Since the start of international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), India helped lead the global South in demanding its rightful share of the global carbon budget, while simultaneously wagging a finger at the developed world for creating and exacerbating the climate problem. India has struggled to do so while accounting for the fact that unabated climate change will continue to inflict devastating impacts on the Indian people, especially those who are poorest and most vulnerable. Yet on October 2, India signaled its serious commitment to climate action by ratifying the Paris Climate Agreement, which is the most promising international climate agreement since the hailed success of the Montreal Protocol agreement from 1987.

India’s ratification will shrink the remaining margin needed for the agreement to enter into force. A total of 55 countries, who produce at least 55 percent of global emissions, is required for the agreement to take effect. Currently, 61 parties have ratified, accounting for 47.79 percent of emissions. India adds another 4.1 percent of emissions, bringing the total to 62 parties and 51.89 percent of emissions.

 

Changing discourse and the road ahead

The road to ratification has not been easy for a country of over one billion people, nearly 400 million of whom lack access to reliable electricity and over 20 percent of the country lives under the poverty line ($1.90/day). The timeline here highlights major milestones in India’s domestic and foreign climate-related energy policies. A closer examination of these markers reveals a struggle between ideologies and ground realities.

Historically, India has sought compensation from industrialized countries who exploited cheap, carbon-intensive expansion at the expense of the global South’s opportunities for growth. But in an increasingly hot world where India’s summer heat waves are reaching inhospitable temperatures, continuing to pursue a stalwart position on climate action would not even be self-serving at this point. In May of this year, the state of Rajasthan recorded India’s highest temperature ever: 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit. A recent study projected that parts of South Asia and North Africa are experiencing temperature increases at a rate that may make certain areas uninhabitable by the end of the 21st century. This is exacerbated by other major stressors attributed to climate change, such assea-level rise, desertification, and increasing mortality due to industrial air pollution.

Balancing climate action with growth continues to present a challenge for India’s leadership. Gaining access to energy is key to unlocking economic growth, essential for tackling India’s poverty. India has vast coal reserves and will continue to tap into them to connect millions of citizens to the grid, but the Modi government also aims to increase its mix of renewables to meet 40 percent of the country’s electricity demand by 2030. This makes sense given that India is now the third largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the US (excluding the EU) and is projected to continue growing steadily with a current economic growth rate of 7.5 percent. Ultimately, India’s political will to emerge as a responsible superpower and mounting pressures to abate the worst impacts of a shifting climate have reshaped its posture as a leader in international climate negotiations.

Domestic policy action

India’s educated middle class is rapidly expanding and will require millions of new jobs, nudging the government to create employment opportunities while ensuring secure energy in the context of a climate-constrained world. The Modi government has announced several national missions that promote greater energy security by developing more renewables at scale. India has also realized its potential to save energy, especially among its fleet of coal-fired power plants. India’s energy efficiency programs and the desire to foster a business environment that supports low-carbon technologies, such as electric vehicles, could make it a leader in both these sectors.

Partnerships for progress

India’s proposed actions to address climate change through a web of policies at the national and subnational levels may serve as a blueprint for nations interested in driving clean energy innovations. However, the country cannot do it alone. India has acknowledged that it will need the help of partner countries to achieve its ambitious energy goals. Rather than developing independent agendas, multilateral development institutions and bilateral partnerships should aim to help India meet its impressive targets. Simultaneously, to make these partnerships productive, India should be more transparent about its progress on achieving its targets. India’s commitment to ratify the Paris Climate agreement sends a strong message, but the leadership’s determination to pull off such a comprehensive and long-term effort demands successively concerted action over the next several years.

Climate change, ISIS and Economy of Common Good

Rishab Khanna*

What if I said that the floods in Chennai, crazy storm in Sweden, and the upsurges in the Middle East have only one long-time solution?

Some might say that this is absurd, but I believe that not being able to see the connections and the systemic loopholes is absurd.  Untamed thirst for natural resources, coupled with excessive carbon emissions, has created major crises in many of the economies.

It is no surprise that the developing countries and especially Least Developed Countries have most to lose. The developed countries have been built on the colonial past, during which they not only exploited resources of the developing countries, but also left a lasting imprint on the social and ecological systems, in a way that has continued the neocolonial exploitation.  Many of the developing countries have been controlled through dictatorial regimes which have been often imposed on them by the west.

According to my colleague Peter Riddle, “Whenever we (the Western coalition) have supported a particular group in West Asia to counter another group, that group has become a monster. We supported Israel, and that alienated the whole Arab and Muslim world. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to oust the Soviets, and it became Al-Qaeda, which spawned ISIS”.

However, the G20, or the group of developed nations refused to take responsibility of the historical debt, at the same time, they continue to misguide the world with the arbitrary figure of the GDP. Do more products and services in the economy mean a better life, improvement in the ecological system? Not  necessarily. On the contrary, it could mean more war and increase in destruction of natural resources.  No wonder most countries do not want to stop climate change, or stop the oil trade with ISIS, as it affects the GDP of our world.

Don’t we all wonder, why are we obsessed with quantifying the GDP, when it has not the relation with the quality of life?

In fact, in a survey done by Accenture in Germany and Austria, almost 80 to 90 percent of the respondents said that they wanted a change in the economic system, and almost 67 percent said that they would like to review GDP as the highest goal of the economy.  Then what are we waiting for?

Currently the leaders from emerging countries like India believe that mitigating climate change is a huge sacrifice for us.

President Pranab Mukherjee recently said, “India faces a huge responsibility and challenge in meeting its developmental requirements while remaining committed at the same time to clean energy.” What If there are no contradictions in these goals. What if development goals are only possible with clean energy, with minimal impact on health and environment?

Imagine that the new climate target of the COP 21 agreement for limiting global warming to less than 1.5 degrees of warming becomes part of the common good product of nation, making GDP (Gross Domestic Product) irrelevant.  An increase in the common good product would mean reducing inequality, reduction in emissions and more jobs.

At the corporate level, an increase in the common good balance sheet, would mean fair wages, reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and no revenue coming from the sales of weapons or on patents of live forms.

Our financial return would be the common good return, where investments are creating social impact rather than just blind profit.

The founder of the Economy for the Common Good, Christian Felber, says that working for the common good as the highest goal of the economy is nothing new, as most constitutions of democratic countries refer to the same; however this has not been given the attention it deserves.

The COP 21 agreement is a historical treaty for us, as 196 countries have committed to the path of climate justice, however the political reality is often shaped by the economic rhetoric of blind growth, without creating the right framework for a transparent market which would promote ethical and sustainable production, and until we turn the economy back to its feet, we will struggle to achieve the climate target, 17 SDGs or even peace in the world.

(Rishab is former Board Member of Indian Youth Climate Network -IYCN and is currently working as Programm associate for Ethical Leadership and Sustainable Living at Initiatives of Change, Sweden)

 

A Snapshot from Waste Management at the Indigenous Terra Madre: Segregating Beyond the Bin

Managing waste of 45,000 people

Sanghamitra Nidhi Dutta

Very rarely do we give a thought about the bottle, or that crumpled piece of paper we just tossed into the (sometimes labelled, sometimes not) bin.

As a waste manager for the Indigenous Terra Madre, 2015 (3rd to 7th November, 2015), I can say that there is, indeed, a lot that goes beyond the bin.

The first three days of the event took place at the Convocation Hall of North East Hill University (NEHU). About 120 bins were placed on-site, labelled Biodegradable and Non-biodegrable. They, however failed to serve their purpose initially as their signs were often covered up by oblivious staff while lining with black garbage bags. We managed to remedy that by ensuring that the signs were visible, as well as posting extra signs above the bins, at eye level, categorized into Organic Waste and Inorganics, which was further diverged into Plastic Bottles Only, and Miscellaneous Dry Waste (Plastic bottles excluded).

The kitchen and catering staff for the delegate dining hall were duly informed about the disposal arrangements including the segregation of the waste and were made aware of the compost pit (courtesy of Bethany Society, who also supplied us with Garbage2Gold powder for speeding up the composting process) on the grounds for the organic waste. The leftover food from the hall was collected by a third agency, to be used as feed for livestock.

The dry, inorganic waste from around the venue was accumulated at one area, which would be regularly picked up by the Shillong Municipal Board. Upon emptying of the incoming bins, the waste would immediately be separated into separate corners, assigned for plastic bottles (which made up the biggest chunk of the total dry waste amount, as each individual bottle was of a mere 300ml capacity), paper waste, cardboard and assorted metallic waste.

The execution at NEHU was fairly organized and uncomplicated, with waste being properly disposed of.

The actual food festival took place in Mawphlang, on the 7th of November. Now, managing waste for a food festival is no mean feat, but I (or my teammates, for that matter) certainly wasn’t expecting what awaited us at the site on the day before the main event.

The ideal dimensions for a compost pit is ten feet in length, three feet in width and two feet in depth. Despite explicit instructions for at least three pits of the aforementioned dimensions, what greeted us in Mawphlang was a perfectly cubical pit, eight feet cubed, with a layer of water on the bottom. It was neither safe nor feasible as a composting pit. Upon summoning the Event Manager on to the site, he swore in incredulity, wondering if it was supposed to be a compost pit or a water tank. Engaging workers, we got the one third  of the depth of the pit filled manually overnight.

The stalls were supplied with biodegradable plates made of bark, and forks, spoons and cups made of corn starch. Upon a survey of the thirty six stalls, it was found that none of them were using inorganic materials for serving food. A couple of stalls even took it step further and opted for leaves for plates and leaf spines as spoons.

The central challenge in Mawphlang was the sheer number of people. We had at least, if not more, forty thousand people. That’s roughly sixty to eighty thousand plates, from the stall area alone. The ITM Kitchen and the Taste Workshop in the Heritage Village were also having a busy with people coming in constantly. We were short on housekeeping staff as well as the number of bins that filled up repeatedly in a short periods of time. The signs we put up above every single bin failed, as the crowd was so large, no one probably had the patience or the sight to take notice, leading to incoming bags of mixed waste, which had to be separated by (gloved) hand. This difficult task was taken on by the team as well as the local boys hired for the day, in turns.

The now-six feet deep pit filled up rapidly, with about a quarter of it left, and about three hours of the event still left. Keeping our fingers crossed and hearts strong, we carried on. The flow gradually thinned, and after sundown, it was no longer possible to continue. We sprinkled G2G dust after every two-three feet.

7th November was coming to an end. And when the party ends, the real work begins.

We had to return on the 8th for the final wrap up. The kitchen area of the stalls had left behind huge amounts of organic waste which had to be carried down to the compost pit and ensure there were no (or at least, minimal) inorganic waste mixed in the pile.

It went into the 9th, when the SMB turned up in the morning to collect the dry (well, not so dry; after a point, it’s simply impossible to separate anymore) waste. The Pit was closed up with a layer of soil, and a fence put around it to dissuade people from dumping more waste on top, with a sign declaring the presence of fertilizer, which, according to the experts from Bethany Society, would be ready for use in approximately three months.

The Event Manager, who I’d come to befriend after discovering we shared a birthday, asked me if I had any parting words for him before they went back to Mumbai. I smiled.

“Never, ever manage waste for a food festival.”

Irresponsible Behaviour of Different Agencies Hindered the Participation of a Wastepicker in Climate Negotiations

It is deeply disappointing and disheartening the way Bombay French Consulate and VFS center in Mumbai conducted their business. Our colleague Ms. Asha Sambhaji Doke- wastepicker (we prefer to call her waste manager) from Aurangabad was supposed to travel with us to Paris for Climate Change negotiations. She was a panelist and supposed to speak in many side events. We applied for visa through VFS center. As she was a delegate – observer in United Nations negotiations,  her visa fees was waived. VFS center employees didn’t take care of her file properly, we were told that there is no courier service to Aurangabad, some one has to come and pick up the passport.

In first application the consulate refused the visa on two grounds: not sure whether she will come back, not clear how she will sustain herself there. Irrespective of the fact that both to and fro tickets were given with the application, sponsorship letters, accommodation confirmation were all attached.

It was decided to apply again. This time we paid the visa fees and to our surprise there was a courier service to Aurangabad. And VFS was happy to deliver the passport. For some reason the center didn’t take Biometrics of Asha. They said they were recorded the previous time. Suddenly out of blues after four days, Consulate asked them to provide the Biometric details. She was asked to come to Mumbai for filing the Biometrics. The misery didn’t end there. The Consulate after having her application for almost a week, near to the travel dates, asked us to submit the Sponsorship letter, copy of a colleague’s visa and audit report of sponsoring organisation again and not through email, hard copies only. We rushed and provided the documents to a colleague who reached Consulate five minutes late and they decided not to receive it. On Friday all the documents were submitted the third time. The departure date was 29th December (we plan to postpone it by two days) we have no idea what’s the status. The consulate also asked us how Asha will survive in France as she doesn’t know English. Our response was that many colleagues from India, Kabir Arora, Mansoor and Pratibha Sharma are  traveling with her and there are many translators who have volunteered to help. Her financials were again in question, even after having sponsorship letters. Colleagues from Zero Waste France, Indian Youth Climate Network and WIEGO wrote to consulate, leave aside response, no acknowledgement of email was received. French government is hosting and is the Presidency of the Conference of Parties on Climate Change, instead of being inclusionary in spirit and welcoming to all delegates, they have shown the opposite. It is saddening that we are talking about the poor, who are most vulnerable to climate change,  many through their work are actually mitigating it. And the space for them to share their thoughts, experiences and reflections is shrinking.

Profile of Asha Sambhaji Doke is given below for reference.

Ashabai Doke: Ashabai Doke is a waste manager and green entrepreneur from Aurangabad, India. She is affiliated to Civic Response Team (CRT^) – an organization based in the same city.   As a member of CRT^, Asha manages two recyclable waste shops, and handles over 8 tonnes of material per month. Her efforts contribute to better earnings of over 30 sanitation workers, and more stable livelihoods for three other waste-picker women who are now freed of their bonded labour contracts. She is also the member of Kagad Kach Patra Kashtkari Sanghthana (KKPKS), a trade union, and spokesperson for other persons like her, who made a living from collecting waste materials from dumps.

And so, as she travels far and wide, within the country spreading hope to others who dream of earning an honest living; and abroad,  at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -UNFCCC CoP 21 in Paris, to authorities, colleagues, well-wishers and fellow human beings from far and wide on the struggle of one woman to overcome poverty, and to work together for sustainable & equitable Solid Waste Management solutions and a better, cleaner, more just world for all. CRT^ and KKPKS are both coalition member of Alliance of Indian Wastepickers.

A Whole INDsea of Issues OR Incrementally Nonsensical Difficult and Confusing

Pandora Batra 

Seeing as large international organisations telling individual countries what to do and how to do it hasn’t really worked so far, in the lead up to the COP 21 countries have been asked to provide their own ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.’ (INDCs). These take the form of a report from each of the UNFCCC parties (countries) outlining what they are going to do to reduce CO2 emissions and help their populations adapt to the impacts of climate change.

You may have seen mention of India’s INDCs in the news recently as they were released on Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday (2^nd October, 2015) and have created quite a stir in the Indian and global climate change community.

The main Indian INDCs in the report were:

To reduce the emissions intensity of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 33% to 35% by 2030 from 2005 level.

Translation: rather than making absolute reductions in emissions they are pledging to reduce the amount of GHG emissions released per unit of GDP.  They are saying they will continue to develop but reduce the amount of emissions that this development causes.

To achieve 40% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030.

Translation: “installed capacity” means that lots of solar parks/ wind turbines/ hydro and nuclear power plants will be built but that the actual electricity generated from these non-fossil fuel technologies will be lower due to transmission and and generation losses.

To better adapt by enhancing investments in vulnerable sectors.

To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of co2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

Translation: Plant many trees..but what kind of trees? And newly planted mono-culture trees do not a forest make!

To better adapt, to mobilize domestic and new and additional funding from developed countries and to build capacities for improving research and development (R&D) opportunities and implement the above mitigation and adaptation strategies.

The reactions to India’s INDCs have been varied; Climate Action Tracker  which assesses the ambitiousness of each countries targets places India in the medium category, better than countries like the US and Russia but not as ambitious as countries like Brazil and China. Climate Action Tracker also claims that India is likely to over-achieve on its targets without having to update or implement any new policies. i.e. If India sticks to the targets they had made before the INDCs came out then they will overachieve on the INDC targets. Basically, the INDCs don’t really change anything, they are a nice bit of motivation and publicity but the targets aren’t moving India towards reducing its emissions faster or more efficiently.

What does this mean in global terms? Do the INDCs add up to the 2°C target? Well, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) the answer, simply put, is no. In fact the IEA report stated that “If stronger action is not forthcoming after 2030, the path in the INDC Scenario would be consistent with an average temperature increase of around 2.6 °C by 2100 and 3.5 °C after 2200,”

Contact: Pandora Batra- pandora.batra@hotmail.com