Delhi’s old car muddle

The Delhi government has taken a U-turn from its initiative to deny fuel and impound diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years, largely due to public backlash. The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which had given this direction, has now decided to postpone this action to November.

But I’m somewhat amused by this entire episode. I am amused by the sudden public outrage over this directive as many seem to believe this is a new crackdown. But here’s the fact: these vehicles were banned in Delhi nearly seven years ago, on October 30, 2018, when the Delhi government began enforcing a Supreme Court-backed order that prohibits such vehicles not just from operating, but even from being parked or being present in the city. The latest directive was merely an attempt to enforce an old order using a new method.

In fact, law-abiding citizens have been selling their older vehicles ever since the 2018 law. Take my case. I sold my well-maintained 10-year-old Bharat Stage IV diesel car — barely run for 100,000 km — in 2022. It went to a tour operator in Punjab at a bargain price so generous that he still sends me Diwali sweets. I didn’t want to part with the car, but the law left me no choice. And I wasn’t alone. Over the past seven years, lakhs of Delhiites have sold their vehicles to comply with the ban. Of course, the majority of these vehicles have not gone to scrapyards as intended; instead, they’ve been relocated to other parts of the country, polluting their environments instead.

So, why has the Delhi government decided to enforce the refuelling restriction now, seven years after banning these vehicles? More specifically, why has the CAQM issued this direction at this moment? Do they have data showing that the original ban has been ineffective? The answer is no. The fact is, the entire air quality action plan being enforced by the Delhi government and agencies like CAQM is bereft of data. There is no evidence showing the impact of the vehicle ban on air quality — or even tracking the enforcement of the ban itself.

Take the case of enforcement. There is no formal vehicle deregistration system in Delhi. Even when vehicles are scrapped, they remain technically “registered” with the Regional Transport Office (RTO). Owners are expected to voluntarily deregister their vehicles — a process so tedious that few attempt it. This bureaucratic blind spot means the government has no reliable data on how many vehicles remain on Delhi’s roads, let alone how much pollution they continue to cause. And that’s the crux of the issue — an absence of governance systems to enforce or evaluate its actions.

The CAQM’s decision to block fuel sales, therefore, is not driven by scientific insight or robust data. Delhi has spent years creating the illusion of action without building the capacity to measure impact. Despite the relentless headlines on Delhi’s air pollution, there is no data showing whether banning vehicles or halting construction during winter has improved air quality. We’re acting in a blindfolded manner, hoping that symbolic policies will solve real problems.

And that brings us to the real question: does banning 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles help? The honest answer: not much.

Vehicles contribute less than 10 percent of Delhi’s PM 2.5 emissions. Of that, the majority comes from two- and three-wheelers. But we know that banning two-wheelers is a political hot potato and therefore difficult to enforce. That means cars — which contribute less than 5 percent to Delhi’s PM 2.5 problem — are the main focus of the ban. The impact of banning cars on air quality, therefore, will be minimal.

This is exactly why the much-hyped odd-even vehicle rationing scheme failed. It ignored the science of air pollution and tried to project political will through traffic gimmicks. Banning cars based on age and denying them fuel is another version of the same performative theatre.

In fact, these policies will do more harm than good to the environment. They prematurely dispose vehicles, pushing people to buy new ones, thereby boosting automobile sales and adding more vehicles to the road. In addition, every new vehicle carries a hidden environmental cost in terms of emissions from raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics.

Rather than fixing arbitrary age limits, a sensible vehicle retirement policy would be based on fitness. Around the world, vehicles are allowed to operate as long as they pass periodic fitness checks, including emissions testing. A 15-year-old car that is well maintained and meets pollution standards is less harmful than a new one, if we consider the environmental impact of a vehicle’s full lifecycle.

But the problem is that India lacks the necessary infrastructure to make this happen. There’s no robust inspection and certification (I&C) system, no reliable pollution testing, and no systematic registration-deregistration process for vehicles. Nor do we have an effective network of End-of-Life Vehicle collection and recycling centres. If we’re serious about reducing vehicular pollution, we must invest in a credible and modern vehicle lifecycle management system.

Let me be very clear: banning polluting vehicles is a good idea. Old, polluting vehicles must be phased out. But they must be banned through a structured, evidence-based, and environmentally sound policy regime — not ad hoc decisions. In the absence of systems, such bans serve more as virtue signalling than pollution control. The air will not get cleaner because you made life harder for a few car owners. It will get cleaner when you treat clean air not as a slogan, but as a regional economy-wide problem — one that needs a long-term plan, and scientific and institutional investment. 

 

Virtue Signalling Doesn’t Control Pollution

Public outrage has muted Delhi’s drive to push out old cars. Bigger problem is that clean air policies are fashioned without scientific insight or robust data. Some actually hurt the environment

Public backlash has forced Delhi govt to walk back from its initiative to impound ‘end of life’ vehicles. But before this, the sudden outrage over the directive to stop refuelling diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years was somewhat amusing. Many seemed to believe this was a new crackdown.

But these vehicles were banned in Delhi nearly seven years ago, on Oct 30, 2018, when govt began enforcing a Supreme Court backed order that prohibits such vehicles not just from operating, but even from being parked or present in the city. So, the fuel denial directive was merely an attempt to enforce an old order using a new method.

In fact, law-abiding citizens have been selling their older vehicles ever since the 2018 law. I sold my well-maintained 10 years old Bharat Stage IV diesel car (barely run for 100,000 km) in 2022. It went to a tour operator in Punjab at a bargain price so generous that he still sends me Diwali sweets.

Over the past seven years, lakhs of Delhiites have sold their vehicles to comply with the ban. Of course, the majority of these vehicles have not gone to scrap yards as intended; instead, they’ve been relocated to other parts of the country, polluting their environments instead.

So, why did Delhi govt decide to enforce the refuelling restriction seven years after banning these vehicles? Did the Commission for Air Quality Management have data showing that the original ban had been ineffective? No. There entire air quality action plan being enforced by Delhi govt and agencies like CAQM is bereft of data. There is no evidence showing the impact of vehicle ban on air quality, or even tracking the enforcement of the ban itself.

There is no formal vehicle deregistration system in Delhi. In effect, end-of-life vehicles are permanently technically ‘registered’ with the Regional Transport Office. Owners are expected to voluntarily deregister their vehicles – a process so tedious that few attempt it. This bureaucratic blind spot means govt has no reliable data on how many vehicles remain on Delhi’s roads, let alone how much pollution they continue to cause.

CAQM’s decision to block fuel sales, therefore, was not driven by scientific insight or robust data. Delhi has spent years creating the illusion of action without building the capacity to measure impact. Despite the relentless headlines on its air pollution, there is no data showing whether banning vehicles or halting construction during winters has improved air quality. We’re acting blindfolded, hoping that symbolic policies will solve real problems.

That brings us to the real question: does banning 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles help? Not much. Vehicles contribute less than 10% of Delhi’s PM2.5 emissions. Of that, the majority comes from two- and three-wheelers. But banning two-wheelers is a political hot potato and therefore difficult to enforce. That means cars (which contribute less than 5% to Delhi’s PM2.5 problem) are the main focus of the ban, even though the impact of banning cars on air quality would be minimal.

This is exactly why the much-hyped odd-even vehicle rationing scheme failed. It ignored the science of air pollution and tried to project political will through traffic gimmicks. Banning cars based on age and denying them fuel is another version of the same performative theatre.

Such policies do more harm than good to the environment. Prematurely disposing of vehicles, pushing people to buy new ones, boosts automobile sales and adds more vehicles to the road. In addition, every new vehicle carries a hidden environmental cost in terms of emissions from raw materials, manufacturing and logistics.

Rather than fixing arbitrary age limits, a sensible vehicle retirement policy would be based on fitness. Around the world, vehicles are allowed to operate as long as they pass periodic fitness checks, including emissions testing. A 15-year-old car that is well-maintained and meets pollution standards is less harmful than a new one, if we consider the environmental impact of a vehicle’s full life cycle.

But the problem is that India lacks the necessary infra to make this happen. There’s no robust inspection and certification system, no reliable pollution testing, and no systematic registration or deregistration process for vehicles. Nor do we have an effective network of end-of-life vehicle collection and recycling centres. If we’re serious about reducing vehicular pollution, we must invest in a credible and modern vehicle lifecycle management system.

To be clear, banning polluting vehicles is a good idea. Old, polluting vehicles must be phased out. But they must be banned through a structured, evidence-based, and environmentally sound policy regime, not ad hoc decisions. In the absence of systems, such bans serve more as virtue signalling than pollution control.

The air will not get cleaner because you make life harder for car owners. It will get cleaner when you treat clean air not as a slogan, but as a system – one that needs long-term, scientific, and institutional investment.

 

 

The material question

Plastic pollution needs industrial transformation, not just environmental regulations.

On World Environment Day this year, hundreds — if not thousands — of events were organised across India to address plastic pollution, echoing the day’s official theme: “Beat Plastic Pollution”. A quick scan of social media reveals that the primary focus of these events was on eliminating polythene bags, reducing littering, improving collection and segregation, and promoting recycling and reuse.

But the sobering reality is this: Despite decades of effort, globally, only 9% of plastic waste is recycled, 50% ends up in landfills, 19% is incinerated, and the remaining 22% is either littered or openly burnt — polluting land, water, and air. Even in advanced economies, plastics largely end up in landfills or incinerators —very little is actually recycled.

In India, where plastic consumption is surging, the challenge is particularly acute due to weak waste management infrastructure. While the plastic recycling rate is relatively high — about 40% — much of this is downcycling into low-value products that re-enter the waste stream relatively quickly. As a result, India is now considered the world’s top producer of unmanaged plastic waste. So, can we truly “beat” plastic pollution by just improving recycling and reuse?

First, it is important to understand the profound disconnect between the inherent nature of plastic and the products manufactured from it. Plastic is, quite literally, a “forever material”, It can take decades to centuries to decompose, and even then, it never truly disappears. Instead, it fragments into progressively smaller pieces, ultimately becoming microplastics — insidious particles now linked to serious health ailments, including cancer.Yet, this “forever material” is predominantly used for short-life products — items designed to be used and discarded within days. These are what we commonly refer to as single-use plastics (SUPs), used mostly for packaging.

From thin plastic bags to food wrappers, bottles, and sachets, plastic packaging dominates our lives — and our garbage bins. It is cheap to produce but expensive to collect and recycle, leading to widespread littering. In India, the use of plastic packaging has ballooned. Today, 60% of all plastic is used for packaging — far higher than the global average of 40%. What’s more, this segment is growing at 8-9% annually, faster than overall plastic use at around 6%. If current trends continue, India’s plastic packaging consumption will nearly double — from 11 million tonnes in 2022 to 20 million tonnes by 2030. Of this, about 70% will be single-use packaging for the food, beverage, and personal/home care sectors.

Regulating plastic packaging

India has been a trend-setter in regulating SUPs. It banned polythene bags thinner than 20 microns in as early as 1999. By 2011, this threshold increased to 40 microns, and municipal authorities were tasked with setting up waste collection centres. The Plastic Waste Management Rules of 2016 further expanded regulations, raising the minimum thickness to 50 microns, extending rules to rural areas, and introducing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework to make plastic producers responsible for waste collection and recycling. In 2022, 19 specific SUP items were banned, and EPR guidelines mandated the recycling of 60-80% of plastic waste by 2027-28. However, the results of all these efforts have been modest. Banned SUPs, including thin plastic bags, are still sold, and plastic producers and recyclers have been found gaming the EPR system by inflating recycling rates.The reason these rules have not delivered is that they have often been enacted in haste, without preparing the ground for transition. For instance, many states banned SUPs with just 90 days’ notice to the industry. Expecting a multi-billion-dollar industry that employs millions of workers to transform overnight is unrealistic.

If there’s one lesson from our 25-year struggle with plastic regulation, it is this: bans and regulations alone will not work. What we need is a well-planned industrial transformation in the plastic and packaging industry.Reducing plastic pollution, therefore, is not just a matter of increasing recycling and reuse; it requires building an entirely new industrial ecosystem. This calls for an integrated industrial, regulatory, and investment road map grounded in five strategic pillars

National plastic strategy: India needs a long-term National Plastic Strategy focused on developing and investing in alternatives to plastics, reducing single-use plastic packaging, cutting plastic demand, and enabling a circular plastic economy.

Packaging policy and standards: A clear policy and enforceable standards for packaging, based on lifecycle assessments, must be developed. These should encourage alternatives, improve recyclability, and reduce overall packaging demand.

Investment in recycling and innovation: Plastic recycling in India is dominated by underfunded and technologically outdated micro, small, and medium enterprises. We need large-scale investments in advanced recycling — including chemical recycling, depolymerisation, and other next-generation methods. This must be backed by dedicated research and development funding to support innovation in recycling processes.

Infrastructure and capacity upgrades: A strong emphasis should be placed on improving existing waste management infrastructure for segregation, sorting, and recycling.

Behavioural change and social awareness: Managing plastic waste requires behavioural shifts in how we buy, consume, and dispose of products. This means investing in public awareness campaigns, school education, and nudging industries to adopt more responsible packaging practices. Ultimately, fighting plastic pollution is not just a technical challenge — it is a cultural one.

The plastic crisis is deeply embedded in our economy, infrastructure, and daily habits. If we continue to treat it solely as an environmental problem, we’ll be stuck in an endless loop of regulations, bans, enforcement failures, and symbolic themes on World Environment Day.

Cooling: Necessity and Emergency

AC temperature cap, while not a game-changer, opens the door to much-needed conversations on an urgent developmental need

The Indian government is reportedly contemplating to limit air conditioner (AC) temperature settings between 20°C and 28°C. This seem like a minor technical move, but it marks an important symbolic step in reshaping our approach to cooling. While it will not, by itself, lead to a significant reduction in energy use — and will face major implementation challenges on the ground — it sends a critical signal about the growing impact of cooling on India’s energy grid, environmental footprint and climate ambitions.

Cooling is the fastest-growing energy-consuming sector in India. With economic growth, rising urbanisation, and more intense and frequent heat waves, demand for air conditioning is surging. Last year, about 15 million ACs were sold in the country — up from just 7.5 million units in 2022. As a result, cooling now accounts for a significant share of electricity consumption, and this is expected to rise exponentially. In Delhi, for example, ACs now account for nearly 40 per cent of the city’s annual electricity use — a figure that rises to 50-60 per cent during summer months, even though only about 30 per cent of households own an AC.

Even with modest penetration, ACs are already a major driver of peak electricity demand, prompting the installation of new coal-fired power plants just to meet summertime surges. In a country heavily reliant on coal, this directly undermines efforts to reduce emissions and meet climate targets. Additionally, the grid — under pressure from this rising load — is becoming increasingly vulnerable to stress and blackouts.

This growth in AC use is particularly problematic because it relies primarily on vapour compression technology — the most energy-intensive and environmentally damaging cooling method. The climate cost of an AC extends well beyond electricity. Most ACs in India use hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants — super greenhouse gases with global warming potentials hundreds or even thousands of times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2). Due to frequent leakage and poor servicing practices, these gases are typically refilled every two to three years (in parts of Delhi it is every year).

A typical 1.5-2.0 ton AC contains around 2 kg of HFCs, which, if released, equates to roughly 1.5 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Add to that the emissions linked to the unit’s annual electricity use — about 1.5 tonnes of CO2 — and the total climate impact comes to around 2.25 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually. For context, the average car in India emits about 2.0 tonnes of CO2 per year. Running and maintaining a single AC is among the most climate-damaging individual activities.

Yet cooling is no longer a luxury. It has become a basic need. It is essential for health, productivity, and even social stability. Research shows that hot, sleepless nights are linked to increased aggression and violence. For the poor and vulnerable, the lack of cooling is not just uncomfortable, it can be fatal. The challenge, therefore, is to make cooling both accessible and sustainable. India cannot afford billions of energy-guzzling ACs. This will break the grid and the environment. What we need is a complete reimagining of how we keep our homes, offices, and cities cool in ways that serve all people.

This begins with the built environment. Buildings and urban layouts must be designed to stay cool naturally, using high-insulating building materials, shaded façades, reflective roofs, cross-ventilation, and landscaping. Cities must be made cooler through more green spaces, water bodies, reduced asphalt, and materials that lower heat absorption. India must invest in alternatives like centralised cooling and district cooling systems (DCS) — networks that supply chilled water through pipes to buildings, which can then be used for cooling. These systems minimise the need for harmful refrigerants. Studies also show that DCS can reduce cooling demand by 30-40 per cent and cut electricity bills in half. Large-scale district cooling projects are now being planned. Hyderabad Pharma City, for example, aims to install one of the largest DCS facilities in Asia.

At the same time, India must accelerate the development and deployment of super-efficient ACs. They promise up to five times more efficiency than today’s best five-star-rated models. These innovations must be fast-tracked through targeted subsidies, smart regulations, and market transformation programmes to ensure both affordability and wide-scale adoption.

Finally, cooling must be made inclusive. While the rich rely on air conditioners, the majority of India’s population remains vulnerable to extreme heat with little or no access to cooling. Ironically, ACs disproportionately affect the poor through overloaded grids, blackouts, and intensified urban heat islands. We must develop cooling solutions for the poor — low-cost technologies that consume less energy. Public cooling shelters must be established in high-heat, high-poverty areas. Policies must prioritise access for those most at risk — street vendors, workers, slum dwellers, and the elderly. Solutions like shared cooling spaces should be built into urban planning.

The AC temperature cap, while not a game-changer on its own, opens the door to a more urgent conversation. Cooling is now a developmental necessity — but also an environmental and energy emergency. How we choose to cool will shape not only our physical comfort but also our economic resilience and environmental future.

 

SUMMER: NO HAPPY ENDING

Heat Action Plans across cities will fail because they are not backed by money & they don’t factor in local conditions. Heatwaves must be classified as natural disasters, with legally binding solutions.

The heatwave of 2024 had a devastating impact in most parts of the country. While we will never know the exact number of fatalities, thanks to factors like underreporting and the narrow criteria for recording heat-related deaths, anecdotal evidence suggests they must be in thousands.

For example, in just three days, between June 18 and 20, Delhi Police recovered more than 50 bodies, mostly homeless individuals, as extreme heat swept across the city.

This year’s heatwave is also predicted to be severe. IMD has forecast higher-than-usual temperatures from April to June, with increased heatwave days across large parts of the country. The question is: How prepared are we to deal with the deadly impact of extreme heat in 2025?

First, awareness of heatwaves has increased significantly in recent years. Consequently, GOI has responded on two fronts to support states and cities in developing action plans. Ministry of health and family welfare has released a National Action Plan on Heat-Related Illnesses to capacitate hospitals to manage heat-affected patients.

Additionally, the National Heat-Related Illness and Death Surveillance system has been put in place to track health impacts. However, its data is generally not made public. For instance, we still do not have official figures for heat-related deaths in 2024.

NDMA, on the other hand, is assisting states, districts and cities in developing Heat Action Plans (HAPs). Recently, NDMA has asked all states, including those in the Himalayas, to develop HAPs and implement preventive measures. Reportedly, NDMA plans to introduce 300 more HAPs at the city level. HAPs are now the primary tool for mitigating the impact of heatwaves in cities and districts. But how effectively are these action plans being implemented, and can they save lives and livelihoods?

To find the answer, my colleagues and I undertook a comprehensive assessment of HAPs in nine cities and five districts, including Delhi, Gorakhpur, Vellore, Bhubaneswar and Surat. Our assessment reveals serious shortcomings in the design and implementation of HAPs. Here are the three key findings:

  • HAPs are generic action plans. They fail to consider local factors such as urban heat islands, critical infra, resource availability, and other built environment factors. Hence, most HAPs cannot accurately assess how heatwaves will affect people, infra and essential services. Without localised impact assessments, authorities cannot correctly map vulnerable populations or prepare for cascading failures in critical infra such as water supply, energy, transportation, and public health services. This is precisely what happened in 2024 in many cities when electricity and water supply failed and hospitals were overburdened.
  • Addressing heatwaves requires upgraded infra — cooling shelters, water access points, emergency medical facilities and 24/7 electricity supply — as well as additional resources and personnel. No Indian city has mapped out its resource requirements. Consequently, cities have not allocated dedicated funds for HAP implementation. For example, Delhi’s HAP does not have a budget, rendering it little more than paperwork.
  • The impact of heatwaves can be mitigated by reducing urban heat islands and promoting cool buildings. But NDMA guidelines lack a clear framework for integrating these strategies into HAPs. No Indian city has developed a comprehensive cooling strategy that includes building code revisions, sustainable urban design, and expanded access to cool public spaces.

From the study, it is clear that our approach to heatwave mitigation requires an urgent overhaul. We, therefore, have recommended three immediate steps for policymakers:

New classification system needed | The current definition of heatwaves is based solely on maximum day-time temperatures, ignoring crucial factors like humidity and night-time temperatures.Last year’s experience suggests that high night-time temperatures may have caused significant harm, as people could not recover from the day-time heat stress.

Similarly, the “Feels Like” temperature, which combines heat and humidity to provide a more accurate measure of heat stress, is not considered when issuing warnings. For instance, from June 20 to 26 last year, Delhi experienced seven consecutive days with a “Feels Like” temperature exceeding 50°C, which is considered hazardous. However, because the maximum day-time temperature remained below 40°C, IMD did not classify these days as official heatwave days. We need a new classification system that incorporates high day-time and night-time temperatures and the “Feels Like” temperature to trigger early warnings effectively.

Heatwaves as natural disasters | Unlike cyclones and floods, heatwaves are not officially classified as natural disasters under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. This prevents states from accessing crucial disaster relief funds. Recognising heatwaves as natural disasters will unlock resources and improve coordination across agencies.

Focused & legally binding solutions | NDMA must revise its guidelines to make HAPs actionable, city-specific and legally binding. This includes defining financial provisions, mandating infra upgrades, and integrating heat mitigation into urban planning. Cities must move beyond vague recommendations and develop real Heat and Cooling Action Plans (HCAPs) that focus on reducing temperatures, providing sustainable cooling solutions, and ensuring rescue and relief from the heat.

As the climate crisis intensifies, half-measures will no longer suffice. Heatwaves are now among the deadliest natural hazards facing the country. Without immediate and comprehensive reforms, the next heatwave will bring not just unbearable temperatures but also another avoidable tragedy.

A missed opportunity for social justice in mining regions

Urgent reforms required to make District Mineral Foundations an instrument for social justice.

The District Mineral Foundation (DMF) was conceived as a transformative institution to ensure those who bear the brunt of mining activities also share its benefits. Set up in March 2015 under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the DMF is designed to channel mining revenues to improve the lives and livelihoods of affected communities. However, a detailed assessment of 23 states and key DMF districts by me and my colleagues paints a concerning picture.

While DMFs have collected over Rs 1.03 lakh crore, only about 40% has been utilised. Worse, much of this spending has been directed towards capital-intensive projects — roads, bridges, buildings, parking lots, and water pipelines — that should ideally be funded by state and central government budgets. The projects that matter most to mining-affected communities — livelihoods, skills, education, health, and support for small businesses — have received minimal investments.

With India’s continued economic growth and increasing mineral demand for the energy transition and net-zero goals, this fund will continue to expand. Our projections indicate Rs 2.5-3 lakh crore could be collected over the next 10 years. If this money is utilised prudently, it can transform the lives of millions of India’s poorest people. We must therefore ask: Will the DMF be yet another noble initiative that failed to deliver, or will it evolve into a truly participatory and people-centric institution?

Intent vs reality

DMFs came into being after decade-long discussions on the issue of “resource curse”. The fact that India’s richest mining districts are inhabited by some of its poorest people prompted the government to set up the DMF as a non-profit trust. Mining firms are required to contribute an amount equal to 10-30% of the royalty to DMFs for investments to improve the lives of affected people. In September 2015, the government launched the Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana (PMKKKY) to guide DMFs on planning, prioritising, and utilising the funds.

DMFs are present in 645 districts, but the funds are largely concentrated in 50. In fact, the top 21 districts, which have each collected at least Rs 1,000 crore, account for nearly two-thirds of the total DMF accruals. These districts are largely tribal-dominated with high multi-dimensional poverty.

Our assessment shows that the biggest challenge with DMF implementation is governance. DMFs in all districts essentially function as extensions of the district collectorate, with district collectors/magistrates chairing both the governing council (GC) and managing committee (MC), undermining the accountability of the institution. The GC and MC are also dominated by officials, MPs, and state legislators, with minimal representation of the affected communities despite legal provisions for their participation. Worse still, none of the districts have identified mining-affected people, making it easier for DMF projects to be dictated by district administrations rather than community needs.

Investment planning is also unstructured in most districts. While annual and perspective planning is mandated under the PMKKKY, no DMF has developed a structured annual plan or published a five-year perspective plan. Most projects are approved in an ad-hoc manner without thorough need assessments involving gram sabhas, another legal infringement.

The failure of the institution has translated into the misallocation of funds. As mentioned above, infrastructure projects have received the largest share of DMF spending, locking the districts into expensive servicing and maintenance.

Consider Jharkhand, where over 40% of the funds have been allocated to large piped drinking water projects. But these projects are plagued by delays and operational inefficiencies, with little investment in decentralised water management solutions that could sustainably serve affected communities. Similarly, in Chhattisgarh, a significant portion of education funds has been spent on building schools and hostels, but without corresponding investments in teachers, learning material, or digital education infrastructure.

The lack of investment in human capital is particularly concerning. Our analysis shows that less than 5% of DMF funds have been spent on employment generation initiatives. In mining districts like Dhanbad and Kendujhar, where thousands of workers have lost livelihoods due to mechanisation and mine closures, DMFs have failed to provide meaningful alternatives.

Need for urgent reform

Despite the shortcomings, the DMF remains the only hope to alleviate poverty and bring development to mining-affected regions. To make it an effective instrument for social justice, the following reforms are critical:

Reform governance: DMFs should be independent, community-led institutions rather than extensions of district administrations. Mining-affected communities must have at least one-third representation in the GC and MC.

Participatory planning: All DMFs should be required to develop five-year perspective plans based on comprehensive community consultations. These should align with district development goals but prioritise the needs of the people.

Fund utilisation in high-priority sectors: The revised PMKKKY guidelines should be strictly enforced to ensure at least 70% of DMF funds are spent on critical needs like healthcare, education, livelihoods, and skill development. State governments must be held accountable for aligning their DMF spending with national guidelines.

Independent oversight: DMFs should be subject to mandatory social audits and financial reviews by independent agencies. The Comptroller and Auditor General should conduct periodic evaluations of DMF spending and impact.

Endowment fund: Many coal-mining districts are facing a future of declining production. DMFs should create endowment funds to support economic diversification and just transition strategies for workers and communities affected by mine closures.

Improve transparency and accountability: Every DMF should maintain an up-to-date website with real-time information on fund allocations, expenditures, and project progress. A grievance redress mechanism should be established to address community concerns about DMF spending.

A decade after its creation, the DMF remains a work in progress. The problem is not a lack of funds but a lack of vision and political will to ensure the DMF serves its intended purpose. For the DMF to truly fulfil its mandate, we need urgent, systemic changes that put communities at the centre of decision-making. Anything less would be a betrayal of the very people the DMF was meant to serve.

The Mahakumbh of environment

Given the powerful sway of faith, it must work together with science and technology to repair humanity’s broken relationship with nature.

Faith must unite with science to heal humanity’s bond with nature.

The Mahakumbh Mela 2025 has left an indelible mark on history. According to official data, more than 650 million people participated in this monumental event — equivalent to the combined population of the US and Indonesia, the third- and fourth-most populous countries in the world. This staggering figure cements the Mahakumbh as the largest human gathering ever recorded. Yet, beyond the numbers lies an experience that cannot be explained through statistics — the palpable energy of faith, the profound sense of unity, and a seemingly primal instinct that drew millions across thousands of kilometres for a fleeting moment of spiritual renewal. To witness the Mahakumbh was to feel humanity at its most elemental.

However, the event was not without its challenges. Many devotees died in a tragic stampede, logistical hurdles tested organisers, and concerns about water quality lingered. Still, the Mahakumbh concluded with remarkable order, safety, and a surprising degree of environmental care.

The grounds were strikingly free of plastic litter, open defecation, or festering garbage piles. Thousands of mobile toilets and three temporary sewage treatment plants were installed to ensure proper sanitation. Additionally, the mela was illuminated with solar power and single-use plastics were banned.

Even more astonishingly, there were no disease outbreaks, which might have been expected at a gathering of such magnitude. Charity and compassion were evident everywhere, with numerous organisations providing shelter and food to countless pilgrims. It is difficult to imagine any other nation managing such a colossal convergence with similar care and generosity. But as the last pilgrims depart, a pressing question looms: Can such a gathering of faith endure in a world increasingly battered by climate change and environmental degradation?

The fact is that the Ganga and Yamuna are already under grave threats. Despite four decades of river-cleaning efforts through the Ganga Action Plan (started in 1986), Yamuna Action Plan (1993) and the Namami Gange Programme (2014), a little more than half of the sewage entering the rivers is treated, while chemical-laden agricultural run-off continues to degrade water quality. On top of this, melting glaciers in the Himalayas, coupled with erratic rainfall — accelerated by global warming — is projected to further reduce both the quality and quantity of water in these rivers and their tributaries. These persistent and emerging environmental concerns raise serious doubts about the continuity of a tradition that has thrived for millennia.

This tension between reverence and sustainability took centre stage at a groundbreaking conclave during the Mahakumbh Mela on February 16. Titled “Faith of Kumbh and Climate Change,” the conclave brought together religious leaders, scientists, policymakers, and civil society to discuss the role of faith in addressing climate and environmental crises. Topics such as environmental management during religious congregations and greener places of worship were also explored.

The initiative, organised by the environment department of the Uttar Pradesh government and iFOREST, sought to merge the sacred with the sustainable, recognising that religious leaders and faith-based organisations — armed with moral authority and vast grassroots networks — could be vital allies in combatting climate change and environmental degradation.

The power of faith

India is a deeply religious country, and faith holds an unparalleled sway over the majority of its people. It has shaped, and continues to shape, values and behaviours in ways that science and government policies have struggled to achieve.

The fact is that the teachings of all major religions provide guidance on environmental preservation. Hinduism and other Indic faiths consider nature divine, making its protection a sacred duty. Abrahamic religions, too, emphasise stewardship over God’s creation. But these teachings are rarely reinterpreted for the present or emphasised in sermons and religious gatherings. While some spiritual leaders have championed environmental causes, sustainability remains a low priority for most faith-based institutions. Imagine, however, if every sermon and religious gathering urged followers to shun plastic, conserve water, plant trees, install renewable energy, and embrace sustainable lifestyles. Such shifts, rooted in religious duty, could ignite a grassroots revolution.

At the conclave, this potential of faith-based organisations in raising environmental awareness, educating communities, and driving meaningful action garnered support from all. The need to integrate science with religious teachings to tackle the environmental crisis was also endorsed. Many religious leaders also emphasised the necessity of making the Mahakumbh more sustainable. As one prominent spiritual leader pointed out: “If we do not care for the environment, the Mahakumbh of the future will take place on the sands of Prayagraj, not in the waters of the Triveni.”

The Mahakumbh Declaration

A key outcome of the conclave was the Mahakumbh Declaration on Climate Change. Under this, the UP government has pledged to “green” religious institutions and congregations across the state. The state envisions temples, mosques, and shrines becoming models of sustainability. The state’s pledge includes funding faith-based organisations to promote environmental and climate education, campaigns, and practices.

It is important to recognise that the environmental crisis, including the climate crisis, is not just a technological or economic challenge but also deeply spiritual. It reflects humanity’s broken relationship with nature, a disconnect that faith, science, and technology must work together to repair. And in this, faith may well be our most powerful ally.

बाकू में क्यों नहीं बन पाई बात, भारत ने लगाया हेरफेर का आरोप

अजरबैजान के बाकू में हालिया संयुक्त राष्ट्र जलवायु सम्मेलन (COP 29) में जो जलवायु वित्तपोषण समझौता हुआ, उससे इतिहास की एक बड़ी प्रसिद्ध बात याद आती है। 1942 में महात्मा गांधी ने क्रिप्स मिशन की आलोचना करते हुए इसके प्रस्ताव को डूबते हुए किसी बैंक में आया ‘एक आने का चेक’ बताया था। दोनों बातों में बस एक फर्क है- महात्मा गांधी ने इस मिशन के प्रस्ताव को एक आने का चेक कहकर रिजेक्ट कर दिया था, जबकि आलोचना के बावजूद कॉप के वित्तपोषण समझौते को भारत सहित कई देशों ने अपना लिया है। यह मंजूरी बताती है कि जलवायु संकट दूर करने में संयुक्त राष्ट्र फ्रेमवर्क कन्वेंशन ऑन क्लाइमेट चेंज (UNFCCC) सहित बाकी दुनिया ने जो कोशिशें की हैं, वे बड़े लेवल पर फेल हो गई हैं।

नहीं मानी मांग

बाकू सम्मेलन में विकासशील देशों ने 2030 तक क्लाइमेट इमरजेंसी से निपटने के लिए विकसित देशों से सालाना 1.3 ट्रिलियन डॉलर मांगे थे। प्रस्ताव में कम से कम 500 बिलियन डॉलर की सरकारी रकम शामिल थी, बाकी प्राइवेट सेक्टर से रियायती दरों पर दिए जाने की मांग थी। दो हफ्तों की विवादास्पद बातचीत के बाद अंतिम समझौते में विकसित देशों ने 2035 तक केवल 300 बिलियन डॉलर सालाना देने की बात कही। इसमें सरकारी पैसे का कोई जिक्र नहीं है, बल्कि यह लिखा है कि यह किसी भी स्रोत से आ सकता है।

धुंधला वादा

पैसे जुटाने के स्रोतों के मामले में यह समझौता बेहद धुंधला वादा करता है। इससे भी खराब बात यह है कि यह समझौता विकसित देशों को विश्व बैंक जैसे मल्टिलैटरल डिवेलपमेंट बैंकों से जलवायु संबंधी कर्ज को मनी पूल के हिस्से के रूप में शामिल करने की अनुमति देता है। यानी विकसित देशों पर 2035 तक वर्तमान 100 बिलियन डॉलर सालाना से ज्यादा धनराशि देने का कोई दायित्व नहीं है।

क्या करेंगे ट्रंप 

इस समझौते का राजनीतिक भविष्य भी अनिश्चित है, क्योंकि इस बात की बहुत कम संभावना है कि बाइडन प्रशासन ने जलवायु को लेकर जो भी प्रतिबद्धताएं की हैं, उनका ट्रंप एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन भी सम्मान करेगा। लब्बोलुआब यह है कि बाकू समझौता बताता है कि विकसित देश जलवायु परिवर्तन के समाधान से अपना हाथ झाड़ना चाहते हैं और जलवायु संकट की बढ़ती लागतों का सारा बोझ विकासशील देशों पर थोपना चाहते हैं।

गलत उम्मीद

वैसे, इन सब चीजों से बहुत ताज्जुब नहीं होना चाहिए। 2009 में विकसित देशों ने 2020 तक क्लाइमेट फाइनेंस में सालाना 100 अरब डॉलर देने का वादा किया था, मगर पूरा किया 2022 तक। इसमें भी लगभग 70% हिस्सा मार्केट की महंगी दरों पर दिया कर्ज था। इससे विकासशील राष्ट्रों पर कर्ज का बोझ और भी बढ़ गया। उन देशों से खरबों डॉलर की उम्मीद करना हमेशा से ही अवास्तविक था, जो अरबों डॉलर देने में ही आनाकानी कर रहे थे। अब विकासशील देशों को क्लाइमेट फाइनेंस को लेकर नए उपाय करने होंगे।

कमजोरों से वसूली

अब वैश्विक वित्तीय प्रणाली में मौलिक सुधारों की जरूरत है ताकि विकासशील देश जलवायु संकट से निपटने के काबिल बन सकें और सभी देशों को ठीक से सहयोग देने के लायक बनाने के लिए UNFCCC में सुधार किया जा सके। आज की वैश्विक वित्तीय प्रणाली कमजोर देशों के खिलाफ है। उदाहरण के लिए, गरीब अफ्रीकी देश कर्ज पर जिन ब्याज दरों का भुगतान करते हैं वे अमेरिका द्वारा भुगतान की जाने वाली दरों से चार गुना अधिक और धनी यूरोपीय देशों द्वारा भुगतान की जाने वाली दरों से आठ गुना अधिक हैं।

बढ़ता बोझ

संयुक्त राष्ट्र पर्यावरण कार्यक्रम की एक रिपोर्ट बताती है कि जलवायु संबंधी चुनौतियों ने पहले ही 25 कमजोर विकासशील देशों को मिलने वाला कर्ज महंगा कर रखा है। इन देशों को सिर्फ सरकारी कर्ज पर 10 वर्षों में अतिरिक्त 40 बिलियन डॉलर के ब्याज का भुगतान करना होता है। इसका मतलब है कि विकासशील देश आज के जलवायु जोखिमों के चलते धनी देशों और उनके बैंकों को करोड़ों डॉलर अलग से दे रहे हैं। यह बोझ अगले दशक में दोगुना हो जाएगा। यानी इन देशों पर जलवायु संबंधी चुनौतियों का फायदा उठाया जा रहा है।

ठंडा पड़ा अजेंडा 

इस अन्याय को दूर करने के लिए भारत ने अपनी G20 अध्यक्षता के दौरान कई बेहतरीन प्रस्ताव दिए थे। इसके अलावा वर्षों से कई और प्रस्ताव वैश्विक संस्थानों के अजेंडे में हैं। ये सुधार लागू होंगे, तभी विकासशील देशों की विकसित देशों पर असंगत, अन्यापूर्ण और अपर्याप्त धन की निर्भरता कम होगी और वे अपने संसाधनों का उपयोग करके राहत पा सकेंगे।

भारत का आरोप 

वैसे, UNFCCC के भीतर भी सुधार जरूरी हैं। बाकू में भारत ने COP अध्यक्षता और UNFCCC सचिवालय पर वित्त समझौते को अपनाने में होने वाली प्रक्रिया में हेरफेर करने का आरोप लगाया, जो संस्थान में गहरे अविश्वास को दर्शाता है। इसके अलावा UNFCCC की कार्यवाही में फॉसिल फ्यूल बिजनेस के बढ़ते प्रभाव से इसकी विश्वसनीयता और प्रासंगिकता को खतरा है। सचाई यह है कि UNFCCC अब केवल जानकारी जुटाने, उनका हिसाब करके आगे बढ़ाने का ही मंच रह गया है।

कई फ्रेमवर्क बने

अब ऐसे में किया क्या जाए? एक तो UNFCCC को छोटी-छोटी ऐसी मीटिंगों में बदला जाए, जहां समाधान निकले और जहां देश अपने वादों के लिए जवाबदेह हों। किसी सिंगल ग्लोबल फ्रेमवर्क पर निर्भर रहने की जगह अगर वाकई बदलाव लाना है तो ऊर्जा, परिवहन, कृषि, उद्योग वगैरह पर कई वैश्विक और क्षेत्रीय मंच बनाने होंगे।

ब्राजील पर दारोमदार

बाकू सम्मेलन ने इंटरनैशनल क्लाइमेट फ्रेमवर्क कमजोरियां तो दिखाई ही हैं, यह भी उजागर किया है कि इसे लेकर देशों के बीच कितना गहरा अविश्वास है। अब सारा दारोमदार COP30 के मेजबान ब्राजील पर है कि वह भरोसा बहाल करते हुए सार्थक प्रगति करे। ऐसा इसलिए भी, क्योंकि जलवायु परिवर्तन के खिलाफ जो लड़ाई चल रही है, वह ठोस सुधारों के बगैर पूरी नहीं होनी है, अलबत्ता निष्क्रिय होने का उस पर जोखिम जरूर है।

The COP cop out that should surprise no one

Baku conference has shown up the glaring inadequacy of the international climate framework and the deep mistrust among nations. Bad news for the fight against climate change

Mahatma Gandhi’s famous critique of the Cripps Mission in 1942—describing its proposal as “a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank”—perfectly captures the essence of the climate finance deal adopted at COP29, the recent UN climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. However, there is one crucial difference: while Cripp’s figurative cheque was decisively rejected, the Baku finance deal, despite criticism from several nations, including India, was adopted. This highlights the broader failures of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and global efforts to address the climate crisis.

The Baku conference began with developing countries demanding $1.3 trillion in annual funding from developed nations by 2030 to tackle the climate emergency. Their proposal called for at least $500 billion in public funding, with the remainder provided as concessional private finance.

Yet, after two weeks of contentious negotiations, developed countries committed to only $300 billion annually by 2035, with no binding pledge for public funding. Instead, the deal vaguely promises to source funds from “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources.”

Worse still, the agreement permits developed countries to include climate-related loans from multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, as part of the funding pool. This means developed nations are under no obligation to increase funding beyond the current $100 billion annually until 2035. Moreover, they retain the freedom to count virtually any climate-related financial flow to developing countries as part of their contributions.

The political future of this deal is equally uncertain, as there is little chance that the incoming Trump administration will honour the commitments made by the Biden administration.

In essence, the Baku deal offers little more than a continuation of the status quo, allowing developed nations to sidestep meaningful financial obligations while leaving developing countries to shoulder the escalating costs of the climate crisis.

However, this is not surprising. In 2009, developed countries pledged $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020. They met this target in 2022, and even then, nearly 70% of the funds were provided as loans at market rates, burdening developing nations with debt. Expecting trillions from nations that struggled to deliver billions was always unrealistic. So, how should developing countries secure meaningful climate finance?

The path forward requires fundamental  reforms in the  global financial system to empower developing countries to deal with the climate crisis and revamping the UNFCCC to enable effective international collaboration.

The current global financial system is stacked against vulnerable nations. Poor African countries, for instance, pay interest rates on loans that are four times higher than those paid by the U.S. and up to eight times higher than those paid by wealthy European countries. This disparity is being exacerbated by the climate crisis.

A report by the UN Environment Programme, Climate Change and the Cost of Capital in Developing Countries, found that climate vulnerability has already increased the average cost of debt in 25 vulnerable developing countries by 117 basis points. This translates to an additional $40 billion in interest payments over 10 years on government debt in these countries alone. This means developing nations are currently paying hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy countries and their banks due to climate risks. The report predicts that this financial burden will double over the next decade. In effect, the current financial system is profiting from their climate vulnerability.

To address this injustice, several proposals, including those advanced during India’s G20 presidency, have been on the agenda for years. These include measures like debt crisis management, multilateral development bank reforms, risk mitigation programmes, and blended finance strategies. Implementing these reforms would enable developing countries to invest more in mitigation and adaptation using their own resources.   

Reforms within the UNFCCC are equally urgent. At Baku, India accused the COP Presidency and the UNFCCC Secretariat of manipulating the process to secure the adoption of the finance deal, reflecting a deep trust deficit in the institution. Additionally, the growing influence of the fossil fuel industry in UNFCCC proceedings threatens its credibility and relevance.

The reality is that under the Paris Agreement, all countries are now on their own to mitigate, adapt and pay for the costs of climate impacts. The UNFCCC is now simply a platform to collect, synthesize and disseminate information. It doesn’t have the tools to drive global collective action to combat climate change. So, persisting with UNFCCC in the present form is counterproductive.

There are many ideas on the table including making UNFCCC a smaller solution-driven forum where countries report their progress and are held accountable to their pledges. Other suggestions include establishing multiple sectoral and regional platforms, such as on energy, transportation, agriculture, industry etc., rather than relying on a single global framework.

The Baku conference has laid bare the glaring weaknesses of the international climate framework and the deep mistrust among nations. It is now up to Brazil, the host of COP30, to restore trust and drive meaningful progress. Without decisive reforms, the global fight against climate change risks being mired in inadequacy and inaction, with all the attendant hazards for life on earth.

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial