We knew what caused air pollution 25 years ago – but governments still won’t act

Acknowledging the true impact and sources of our pollution crisis is the first step toward meaningful action

A quarter-century ago, over 200 scientists from the US, Europe, the Maldives, and India came together to study the haze over the Indian Ocean. Led by atmospheric scientist V Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, the Indian Ocean Experiment (INDOEX) undertook intensive field observations using aircraft, ships, surface stations, and satellites. They discovered a giant brown layer of cloud hanging over much of the Indian Subcontinent and the Indian Ocean between October and February, which they termed the Indian Ocean Brown Cloud or Asian Brown Cloud. INDOEX revealed that this layer was primarily created by the burning of biomass in fields and homes, as well as fossil fuels like coal in industries, and that it traveled thousands of kilometres. The study also found that the haze significantly affected regional temperatures, precipitation patterns, and ground-level pollution, reducing agricultural productivity and causing widespread respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

When the UN Environment Programme published the INDOEX report in 2002, some prominent Indian scientists called it sensationalist and argued that the “Indian Ocean” or “Asian” Brown Cloud was not unique to India or Asia and should, therefore, be renamed. Because of their opposition, the name was changed to “Atmospheric Brown Cloud with a Focus on Asia”. Governments in South Asia ignored the report.

This episode underscores two key points: First, the causes of air pollution have been known for at least 25 years and second, we have been avoiding the issue for just as long. By injecting ideology and politics into what should be a straightforward matter, we continue to muddy the waters. Debates over rich versus poor, farmers versus city-dwellers, SUVs versus cook stoves, and Diwali versus stubble burning have stalled real action.

The result of this obfuscation is that today, from Amritsar in Punjab to Agartala in Tripura, an arc of brown haze, up to 3 km thick, has engulfed the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGP), impacting lives, livelihoods, and the economy. While pollution levels are severe in the IGP, air quality is poor across the country. Most Indian cities fail to meet national ambient air quality standards, which are quite lenient compared to WHO’s health-based guidelines. The primary cause of this pollution remains the same as what Ramanathan and his colleagues identified 25 years ago.

In a study conducted by my colleagues and me in 2023, we estimated that India emits about 52 lakh tonnes of PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size, which has high health impacts) annually, excluding dust from natural and manmade sources. Around 48 per cent of these emissions come from biomass use — such as agricultural residue, fuelwood, and dung cakes — for cooking and heating in homes. Stubble burning contributes an additional 6.5 per cent, making biomass burning responsible for 55 per cent of total PM2.5 emissions.

Industry and power plants are the second-largest emitters, contributing about 37 per cent, primarily from coal burning. The transport sector, a major focus of air pollution mitigation, contributes about 7 per cent of the emissions, while the remainder comes from sources such as open garbage burning.

These findings are not surprising if we follow the dictum: What we burn the most, pollutes the most. In India, we burn about 220 crore tonnes of fuel and waste. Of this, 85 per cent is coal and biomass, while 15 per cent comprises other fuels such as petrol, diesel, and natural gas. Naturally, most of our pollution is due to burning biomass and coal. Additionally, dust from roads, construction sites, and barren land contributes to particulate pollution, especially PM 10.

To address air pollution decisively, we must follow a scientific approach, and move beyond optics like odd-even, construction bans and artificial rain, and instead focus on the real solution – energy transition. Shifting households to LPG, biogas, or electricity for cooking and heating will eliminate a significant proportion of PM 2.5 emissions. It will also prevent 8,00,000 premature deaths, caused by exposure to PM 2.5 inside homes. Though challenging, this is achievable through targeted policy initiatives like a new PM Ujjwala Yojana that provides sufficient incentives to encourage low-income households to move away from traditional biomass.

Similarly, energy transition in industry, especially in MSMEs, along with rigorous monitoring and enforcement, is necessary to reduce pollution. A programme encouraging MSMEs to adopt cleaner fuel and technologies, such as electric boilers and furnaces, could curb emissions significantly. Law enforcement of stringent pollution norms is a basic necessity for larger industries and thermal power plants. For that, the modernisation of pollution control boards is urgently required.

On the other hand, eliminating stubble burning is essential to decrease severe and hazardous pollution days in October and November. Technological interventions along with incentives/ disincentives can solve this problem. The simplest technological solution is to modify or mandate combine harvesters that cut closer to the ground, like manual harvesting, leaving minimal stubble behind. Additionally, an incentive of Rs 1,000 per acre — similar to what the Haryana government provides — could encourage sustainable stubble management, along with fines and exclusion from government schemes for those who continue to burn.

As far as automobiles are concerned, scaling up electric vehicles and public transport is crucial. This will need clear targets for EV adoption and the promotion of public transport as a lifestyle choice. Lastly, to reduce local sources of pollution — dust from roads and construction, garbage burning, and traffic congestion — local bodies must be strengthened and held accountable.

Real progress will only begin once we accept the science. Acknowledging the true impact and sources of our pollution crisis is the first step toward meaningful action.

COP: Count US Out, Up Your Climate Game

Trump’s re-election is a stark wake-up call for all nations. They must increase their climate finance and mitigation targets for 2035 and beyond without relying on Washington

The 29th UN Climate Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22, has opened under ominous circumstances. The re-election of Donald Trump as U.S. president looms over the event, reviving memories of his first term, when he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, halted climate funding, and significantly slowed international climate progress. During those years, the U.S. largely stood on the sidelines, often obstructing negotiations through proxies. Aside from partial progress at COP24 in Katowice in 2018—where the “rulebook” for implementing the Paris Agreement was advanced—Trump’s presidency was largely a setback for climate action.

Now, as global leaders gather in Baku, they face the possibility of similar inaction and obstruction from the U.S. The pressing question, therefore, is whether the world can afford another four years of inaction. If not, what strategies should countries pursue to advance international climate goals independently of the U.S.?

Falling Short: Recent data from international agencies reveal that, despite record-breaking investments in clean energy, the world remains off track to meet the Paris Agreement targets. In 2023, nearly $2 trillion was invested in clean energy projects—almost twice the amount invested in new oil, gas, and coal infrastructure. Yet, current policies and investments are leading the world toward a dangerous trajectory, with global temperatures likely to increase by more than 3°C.

This shortfall is largely due to the inadequate emission reduction efforts by G20 countries, which collectively account for roughly 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. A UN Environment Programme assessment shows that several major economies—including the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia—are not on course to meet their 2030 emission-reduction pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While countries like India are projected to meet their NDCs, their overall emissions are expected to increase as they expand energy use to support basic development needs.

Against this backdrop, COP29 in Baku must tackle three interlinked priorities: scaling up climate finance, establishing effective carbon market rules, and setting the next phase of NDCs for 2035 and beyond.

Climate Finance: Dubbed the “Finance COP,” COP29’s primary focus is on climate finance. The conference is tasked with setting a new climate finance target, known as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), to support vulnerable and developing countries in combating climate change. This NCQG is intended to replace the previous target established in 2009, when developed nations committed to providing $100 billion annually by 2020. However, independent assessments reveal that this $100 billion goal was only reached in 2022, two years late, and much of the funding was in the form of loans, which has exacerbated debt burdens in many developing countries. The current need for climate finance is now far greater than in 2009.

A recent UN evaluation estimates that developing countries require around $500 billion annually, with some other projections suggesting that over $1 trillion is needed each year. At COP29 in Baku, developed countries must agree on the scope of the NCQG in a way that meets the needs of developing nations. Yet, with Trump’s U.S. unlikely to contribute significantly, the question remains: What will other developed countries offer? Will Baku see only a symbolic financial pledge, or will it result in substantial funding to spur global climate action?

Carbon Trading: Closely tied to climate finance is the contentious issue of carbon markets. In recent years, carbon markets have been a focal point in negotiations due to their mixed impact. On the one hand, they have potential to generate funding for climate mitigation; on the other, issues like fraudulent accounting and greenwashing have undermined their credibility. These concerns stalled agreement on carbon market rules in the past few COPs, but Baku is expected to finalize and operationalize these rules to restore trust and ensure integrity.

Setting New Targets: While many countries are not on track to meet their 2030 NDCs, new targets for 2035 are required by early 2025. COP29 is likely the last major opportunity to clarify expectations for post-2030 climate targets. These goals, however, are intertwined with outcomes on climate finance and carbon markets. An ambitious NCQG would allow developing countries to commit to higher targets, while a robust and transparent carbon market could empower developed countries to set more ambitious targets through emissions offsetting.

While COP29 in Baku is an important milestone, the odds of achieving an ambitious outcome appear slim considering the likely backtracking by the US. In addition, Azerbaijan, a significant oil and gas producer, is not known for climate leadership, so expectations must be tempered.

The key question facing the world now is how to drive global climate action without relying heavily on the US. I believe that over-reliance on U.S. leadership has been the main reason for the shortcomings of global climate progress. The US has never been a climate leader. Since 1992, when the first global climate agreement was signed, the US emissions have only reduced by 3%, meaning they have remained virtually unchanged in the last three decades. Furthermore, the U.S. has not been a major contributor to climate finance, often falling short on its commitments.

Trump’s re-election should, therefore, be a stark wake-up call, highlighting the need for a more diverse, multipolar approach to climate leadership. Just as global power structures are evolving into a multipolar landscape, climate governance must follow suit. Countries like China, India, the EU, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil are well-positioned to champion climate action within their respective regions, fostering a more resilient and collective approach.

By distributing climate leadership across multiple nations, the world has a better chance to unify and make substantial progress on this existential crisis, without being stalled by any one country’s political shifts.

US polls: Who is pro-climate?

These are anxious times for the climate community, watching with bated breath to see who will become the next US president. The last time Donald Trump held office, he withdrew from the Paris Agreement and stalled efforts to curb domestic emissions. But would Kamala Harris take a radically different approach from Trump on climate issues?

Since 1992, when the first global climate agreement was signed by George HW Bush, a Republican president, Democrats — often considered pro-climate — have held the White House for 20 years, compared to 13 years for Republicans. Yet, US emissions are currently only 3% below 1990 levels, meaning they have remained virtually unchanged. In contrast, the European Union, which had similar international commitments, has reduced its emissions by more than 30%.

So why has the US historically struggled to address the climate crisis, both domestically and internationally? And what does the future hold? To answer this, it’s crucial to grasp a few key facts.

Historically, the US has been the largest consumer of fossil fuels. For the past six years, it has also been the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. In 2023, it outproduced Saudi Arabia and Russia — ranked second and third respectively — in oil. Similarly, it produced more gas than Russia and Iran combined, the next two largest producers.

Now, the Republican Party, under Trump, has positioned itself as a party of climate denial. Trump’s vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance, did not even acknowledge during the debate that carbon emissions drive climate change. Trump has repeatedly claimed that wind farms cause cancer and that solar panels are wasteful, while promoting the idea that increased oil and gas production is crucial for creating jobs, reducing inflation, and “Making America Great Again”

The political calculus behind this is straightforward: most oil- and gas-producing states are either Republican or key battlegrounds. Texas, the largest oil and gas producer, has voted Republican since 1980, and Trump won the state in both 2016 and 2020. Similarly, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Colorado are all large oil and gas producers and lean Republican. No Republican candidate can afford to alienate these states by opposing fossil fuel interests.

On the other hand, Democrats attempt to walk a fine line with an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. They advocate renewable energy (RE) and electric vehicles (EVs) but remain committed to oil and gas production. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have boasted that their administration has overseen record oil and gas production. Harris has even reversed her previous stance on fracking, now supporting large-scale shale gas extraction in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Winning Pennsylvania is often pivotal in securing the White House, which pressures both parties to support fracking.

In essence, the influence of the oil and gas industry on US elections is so strong that neither party can afford to oppose it outright. As a result, under both Republicans and Democrats, the US will continue to produce and consume large quantities of oil and gas, making it difficult to reduce emissions.

Additionally, Republicans have framed climate change in terms of economic nationalism. During the debate, Vance argued that because the US economy is “clean” in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, ramping up domestic energy production and manufacturing would help combat the climate crisis by reducing reliance on imports from “dirtier” countries like China. Interestingly, Democrats have subtly supported this position, reflecting a broader bipartisan shift toward protectionist economic policies.

Overall, the trajectory of US climate politics in the coming years — whether under Harris or Trump — will likely emphasise domestic oil and gas production alongside protectionist economic policies. Kamala Harris may promote a pro-climate agenda, incentivise RE and EVs, and engage internationally, but these efforts are unlikely to decarbonise the US economy at the required speed and scale. Trump, conversely, will likely continue an anti-climate stance, focusing on fossil fuel expansion. While the US may struggle more under his leadership on climate mitigation, the difference may ultimately be marginal. But this political economy of fossil fuels is not unique to the US; it is playing out, or will play out, in all fossil fuel-dependent countries.

Every nation will eventually need to eliminate or drastically reduce its production of fossil fuels to address the climate crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that this must be done by 2050. To meet this target, developed nations must phase down fossil fuels early, while developing countries have a slightly longer timeline. While there is now international consensus on this, as reflected in last year’s agreement in Dubai, the economic and political challenges remain daunting.

Just as the US struggles with the political and economic influence of fossil fuel-dependent states, democracies like India will face similar challenges once the discussion on phase-down begins. States like Assam, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and West Bengal rely heavily on fossil fuels for jobs and revenue. These states collectively hold nearly 200 parliamentary seats, and US-style politics around fossil fuels could potentially play out in India as well. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia face different challenges, as they depend on oil and gas revenue for their very survival.

This is where the concept of a “just transition” becomes critical. A just transition means that countries must diversify their economies away from fossil fuels in a way that doesn’t unduly harm jobs, revenues, or businesses. It ensures that workers, communities, and industries affected by the fossil fuel phase-down are provided support to make the transition. This is the only concept that can bring Republicans and Democrats together in the US and unite political parties in other democracies to solve the climate crisis. The US will need to ensure a just transition for Texas, just as India must do the same for Jharkhand. Achieving this will require more than technology; it demands a socioeconomic transformation involving careful planning, massive investments, and global cooperation. Without this, the world will continue to falter in its fight against the climate crisis, just as the most powerful economy has done over the past three decades.

हवा साफ रखने के ये हैं 8 महामंत्र, एक आपके के लिए भी; वायु प्रदूषण का इलाज समझ लीजिए

Steps for Good AQI: दिल्ली-एनसीआर की वायु गुणवत्ता सुधारी जा सकती है, बशर्ते कुछ कदम उठाए जाएं। इनमें स्वच्छ खाना पकाने के ईंधन, सर्दियों में हीटिंग के लिए स्वच्छ ईंधन, पराली जलाने को रोकने, उद्योग ऊर्जा संक्रमण, इलेक्ट्रिक वाहनों का उपयोग, हरा पट्टी विकास और नगरपालिका को सशक्त बनाना शामिल हैं।

जाने-माने पर्यावरणविद् चंद्र भूषण ने दिल्ली-एनसीआर में वायु प्रदूषण के गंभीर मुद्दे पर चिंता तो जाहिर की, लेकिन अगले पांच वर्षों में वायु गुणवत्ता में उल्लेखनीय सुधार के लिए आठ सूत्रीय रोडमैप भी दिया है। हमारे सहयोगी अखबार द टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया (TOI) के लिए लिखे लेख में उन्होंने ग्रेडेड रिस्पांस एक्शन प्लान (ग्रैप) जैसे उपायों के पीछे की सोच पर सवाल उठाया है। उन्होंने कहा है कि प्रदूषण के खतरनाक स्तर तक पहुंच जाने पर ऐसे उपाय करके लीपापोती होती है, कोई खास प्रभाव नहीं पड़ता।

उन्होंने कहा कि अपशिष्ट प्रबंधन, खुले में जलाने पर रोक, प्रदूषण कानूनों को लागू करना, यातायात का प्रबंधन और सड़कों और निर्माण स्थलों पर धूल को दबाने जैसी क्रियाएं नियमित अभ्यास होनी चाहिए। वे वायु प्रदूषण के मूल कारणों बायोमास और कोयले का व्यापक उपयोग, भूमि क्षरण से उड़ती धूल आदि पर प्रकाश डालते हुए इनसे निपटने के लिए एक क्षेत्रीय कार्य योजना की आवश्यकता पर जोर देते हैं। उन्होंने ये आठ बेहद प्रभावी रणनीतियां बताई हैं जिन्हें अपनाकर वायु प्रदूषण के खतरे से बचा सकता है…

1. पीएम उज्ज्वला 3.0 लाए मोदी सरकार

लेखक अपनी पिछली स्टडी का हवाला देते हुए कहते हैं कि पिछले एक दशक में प्रधानमंत्री उज्ज्वला योजना के कारण वायु प्रदूषण में जितनी कमी आई, उससे ज्यादा किसी और उपाय से नहीं आई। दिल्ली-एनसीआर में खाना पकाने के स्वच्छ ईंधन तक पहुंच का विस्तार करने से पीएम2.5 के स्तर को 25% तक कम किया जा सकता है। यह उद्देश्य हासिल करने के लिए पीएम उज्ज्वला योजना का 3.0 की जरूरत है जिसमें घर-घर एलपीजी या बिजली की पहुंच सुनिश्चित की जाए।

रिसर्च से पता चलता है कि विशेष रूप से कम आय वाले परिवारों में एलपीजी का उपयोग सुनिश्चित करने के लिए 75% सब्सिडी की जरूरत है। इस पर सरकार को सालाना लगभग 5 से 6 हजार रुपये प्रति परिवार खर्च की आवश्यकता होती है। दिल्ली-एनसीआर में इस पहल पर प्रति वर्ष लगभग 6 से 7 हजार करोड़ खर्च होंगे। इससे कई गुना तो जहरीली हवा से हुईं गंभीर बीमारियों के इलाज पर खर्च हो जाता है। सरकार ने ऐसा किया तो यह बहुत ही गरीब और महिला समर्थक पहल होगी, खासकर यह देखते हुए कि लगभग 6 लाख भारतीय हर साल घर के अंदर के वायु प्रदूषण के कारण बेवक्त मर जाते हैं जिनमें महिलाओं की संख्या बहुत ज्यादा होती है।

2. स्वच्छ ताप ईंधन की जरूरत

पूरे भारत के 90% से अधिक घरों में सर्दियों के दौरान गर्मी प्राप्त करने के लिए बायोमास और ठोस ईंधन का उपयोग होता, जो दिसंबर और जनवरी में प्रदूषण की स्थिति में योगदान करते हैं। चीन की महत्वपूर्ण वायु गुणवत्ता पहलों में से एक राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ ताप ईंधन नीति थी। इसी तरह की दीर्घकालिक योजना विकसित करना आवश्यक है। इसे देखते हुए फिलहाल दिल्ली सरकार यह सुनिश्चित कर सकती है कि सर्दियों में हीटिंग के लिए केवल बिजली का उपयोग किया जाए और खुले में जलाने पर सख्त प्रतिबंध लागू किया जाए। इससे दिल्ली की वायु गुणवत्ता में तेजी से सुधार होगा।

3. पराली जलाने की रोक के लिए प्रोत्साहन पैकेज और दंड की व्यवस्था

पराली जलाने पर अंकुश लगाने से सर्दियों के महीनों में गंभीर और खतरनाक वायु प्रदूषण के दिनों की घटनाओं में कमी आएगी। इसके लिए छोटी और लंबी दोनों तरह की रणनीतियों की जरूरत है। दीर्घावधि में, पंजाब, हरियाणा और यूपी के कुछ हिस्सों में कृषि को गहन चावल-गेहूं की खेती से विविध फसल प्रणाली में बदलना चाहिए। अल्पावधि में, प्रौद्योगिकी और प्रोत्साहन महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभा सकते हैं।

सबसे सरल तकनीकी समाधान कंबाइन हार्वेस्टर को संशोधित करना या अनिवार्य करना है जो मैन्युअल कटाई की तरह जमीन के करीब कटते हैं, जिससे न्यूनतम पराली निकलती है। हरियाणा सरकार पराली जलाने से रोकने को लिए किसानों को प्रति एकड़ ₹1,000 की प्रोत्साहन राशि देती है। फिर भी किसान पराली जलाए तो उस पर जुर्माना लगाने के साथ-साथ सरकारी योजनाओं से वंचित करने का दंड दिया जाए। इस योजना पर सालाना लगभग ₹2,500 करोड़ खर्च होंगे।

4. उद्योगों में ऊर्जा संक्रमण की जरूरत

उद्योग और बिजली संयंत्र दिल्ली-एनसीआर में वार्षिक PM2.5 उत्सर्जन का लगभग एक-तिहाई हिस्सा हैं। इन्हें कम करने के लिए टेक्नॉलजी में अपग्रेडेशन और कानूनों का कड़ाई से प्रवर्तन की आवश्यकता होगी। एमएसएमई को स्वच्छ ईंधन स्रोतों, विशेष रूप से इलेक्ट्रिक बॉयलर और भट्टियों को अपनाने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करने वाली योजना उत्सर्जन को काफी हद तक कम कर सकती है। बड़े उद्योगों के लिए कड़े प्रदूषण मानदंड और नियमों को कड़ाई से लागू करना आवश्यक हैं। पुराने ताप विद्युत संयंत्रों (थर्मल पावर प्लांट) को बंद करना और 2015 के मानकों को लागू करना भी महत्वपूर्ण होगा जो अब तक नहीं हो सका है।

5. इलेक्ट्रिक वाहनों पर बढ़े फोकस

इलेक्ट्रॉनिक वीइकल्स के उपयोग को बढ़ाना महत्वपूर्ण है। प्रारंभ में दोपहिया और तिपहिया वाहनों के साथ-साथ बसों के संक्रमण पर ध्यान केंद्रित किया जाना चाहिए क्योंकि वे पहले से ही आर्थिक रूप से व्यवहार्य हैं। 2030 तक नए दोपहिया और तिपहिया वाहनों की बिक्री के 100% विद्युतीकरण और 2025 तक दिल्ली-एनसीआर में सभी नई बसों को इलेक्ट्रिक में बदलने का लक्ष्य, उत्सर्जन को काफी हद तक कम करेगा। इसके अतिरिक्त, कारों और अन्य वाहनों के लिए 30-50% विद्युतीकरण लक्ष्य निर्धारित करने से स्वच्छ परिवहन में परिवर्तन में तेजी लाने में मदद मिलेगी।

6. ग्रीन बेल्ट का विकास जरूरी

दिल्ली और आसपास के इलाकों से धूल प्रदूषण, थार रेगिस्तान से मौसमी धूल के साथ वायु गुणवत्ता पर महत्वपूर्ण प्रभाव डालता है। दिल्ली के चारों ओर एक ग्रीन बेल्ट बाहर से आने वाली धूल के खिलाफ एक प्राकृतिक अवरोध के रूप में काम करेगा। इसके अतिरिक्त, स्थानीय धूल प्रदूषण को नियंत्रित करने के लिए शहर के भीतर हरित आवरण बढ़ाना जरूरी है। इस लिहाज से सड़क किनारे और खुले स्थान पर हरियाली की व्यवस्था करने का उपाय बहुत प्रभावी होगा।

7. नगर पालिकाओं का तय हो दायित्व

सड़कों और निर्माण से धूल, खुले में जलाना, यातायात की भीड़, और अपर्याप्त अपशिष्ट प्रबंधन आदि प्रदूषण के स्थानीय स्रोतों को निपटाने की प्राथमिक जिम्मेदारी नगर पालिकाओं की होती है। लेकिन पूरे साल इनसे निपटने को लेकर प्रभावी कदम नहीं उठाने के लिए नगर पालिकाओं को जवाबदेह ठहराया जाना चाहिए। साफ हवा सुनिश्चित करने के ठोस उपाय करने की दिशा में नगरपालिका के प्रयासों को बल देने के लिए राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम को मजबूत करना महत्वपूर्ण होगा।

8. नागरिकों की भागीदारी के बिना असंभव

अंत में, लेखक इस बात पर जोर देते हैं कि वायु प्रदूषण से निपटने के लिए केवल सरकारी कार्रवाई ही काफी नहीं है। नागरिकों को भी इस लड़ाई में सक्रिय रूप से भाग लेने की आवश्यकता है। वे कार पूलिंग, सार्वजनिक परिवहन का उपयोग करने, ऊर्जा बचाने और अपने आसपास के लोगों के बीच जागरूकता फैलाने जैसे कदम उठाकर ऐसा कर सकते हैं।

ये उपाय लागू किए जाएं तो अगले पांच वर्षों में वायु प्रदूषण को 50-60% तक कम किया जा सकता है। हालांकि, यह आसान नहीं होगा। ऐसा करने के लिए हमें लाखों घरों, किसानों और वाहन मालिकों और सैकड़ों हजारों उद्योगों के साथ मिलकर काम करने की आवश्यकता है। ऐसी कोई जादूई छड़ी नहीं है जो चुटकी बजाते ही हवा साफ कर दे। सभी हितधारकों को शामिल करते हुए केवल सिस्टमैटिक चेंज ही दिल्ली के निवासियों को आसानी से सांस लेने देंगे।

AQI: Adaptable, quick-acting ideas

We know we’re losing the battle against air pollution, yet we persist with the same corrective measures, hoping for different results. The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) serves as a good example. GRAP protocols are triggered when the Air Quality Index (AQI) reaches “poor” category. However, most measures within GRAP involve actions that should be standard practice year-round, regardless of air quality.

Effective Waste Management Prohibiting Open Burning enforcing pollution laws managing traffic and suppressing dust on roads and construction sites should all be routine unfortunately we only start implementing these measures when pollution reaches toxic levels

Besides these interventions barely make a dent in AQI data shows that reduction in pollution during the winter month are more due to rainfall and wind speed changes than the effectiveness of GRAP measures so what are we missing? What big action could genuinely reduce pollution levels

This writer has discussed in the past the need for a regional action plan and addressing the root causes of air pollution-such as widespread use of biomass and coal as well as dust from land degradation. But there are also several high-impact strategies that must be implemented to improve air quality within the next five years.

PM Ujjwala 3.0 | Our study shows that Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana has been the most impactful air pollution intervention in the last decade. Expanding access to clean cooking fuel across Delhi-NCR could reduce PM2.5 levels by 25%. Achieving this will require a new PM Ujjwala Yojana to transition households to LPG or electricity for cooking.

Research indicates a 75% subsidy is decreased to enable exclusive LPG use in low-income households, requiring around Rs 5000-6000 per household annually. In Delhi-NCR this initiative would cost around Rs. 6000-7000cr per year, a fraction of the healthcare costs associated with air pollution-related diseases.

This will be profoundly pro-poor and pro-women initiative, especially considering that nearly 6L Indians, primarily women die prematurely due to indoor air pollution each year.

Clean Heating Fuel | Across India, over 90% of house holds rely on biomass and solid fuels to heat their homes during winter, contributing to pollution spikes in Dec and Jan. one of China’s pivotal air quality initiatives was a national clean heating fuel policy. While developing a similar long-term plan is essential in the short-term. Delhi govt could ensure that only electricity is used for winter heating and enforce a strict ban on open burning. This will yield swift improvements in Delhi’s air quality.

Package to end stubble burning | Curbing stubble burning would reduce the occurrence of severe and hazardous air pollution days in winter months. For this both short and long-term strategies are needed in the long term, agriculture in Punjab, Haryana, and parts of UP must transition from intensive rice-wheat farming to a diversified crop-system.

In the short-term, tech and incentives can play a key role. The simplest tech solution is to modify, or mandate combine harvesters that cut closer to the ground like manual harvesting, leaving minimal stubble.

Additionally, an incentive of Rs. 1000 per acre-similar to what Haryana Govt. provides – could encourage farmers to manage stubble sustainably, coupled with penalties, such as fine and exclusion from govt schemes for those who continue to burn it. This scheme would cost approx. Rs. 2,500cr annually.

Energy transition in industry | Industry and power plants account for roughly one-third of annual PM2.5 emissions in Delhi-NCR, reducing these will require tech upgrades and stricter enforcement. A scheme encouraging MSMEs to adopt cleaner fuel sources, especially electric boiler and fernanes, could significantly carb emissions.

For larger industries, stringent pollution norms and enforcement are essential. Shutting down older thermal power plants and enforcing the 2045 standards, which have yet to be fully implemented, will also be critical.

Transition to EVs | sealing up use of EVs is crucial Initially the focus should be on transitioning two and three wheelers as well as buses, since they are already economically viable.

Aiming for 100% electrification of new two and three-wheeler sales by 2025 in Delhi-NCR, would significantly lower emissions. Additionally setting a 30-35% electrification target for cars and other vehicles will help accelerate the transition to cleaner transport.

Green belt development | Dust pollution from within Delhi and neighbouring areas, coupled with seasonal dust from Thar Desert, has a substantial impact on air quality Creating a green belt around Delhi would serve as a natural barrier against incoming dust. Additionally, increasing green cover within the city including roadside and open space greening is essential to control local dust pollution.

Strengthen Municipalities | Local sources of pollution such as dust from roads and construction, open burning traffic congestion, and inadequate waste management are best controlled by municipalities, Municipalities must be held accountable for addressing these issues year round. Strengthening National Clean Air Programme to support municipal efforts will be key to achieving sustainable air quality improvements.

We can reduce air pollution by as much as 50-60% in the next five years if we implement these measures. However, this will not be easy. We need to work with millions of households, farmers, and vehicle owners and hundreds of thousands of industries to make it happen.

There are no quick fixes to improving air quality Only systemic changes involving all stakeholders will allow Delhi’s residents to breathe easy

Renewable Energy waiver no longer a boon

Investments in ISTS grid infrastructure dedicated to RE projects have surged over the past decade, as new transmission lines and substation capacities have been developed to transfer power from RE-rich states to low-RE states.

The inter-state transmission system (ISTS) charge and loss waivers for renewable energy (RE) between Indian states are set to be phased out by 2028. Initially introduced to support the RE sector, the waiver has been extended several times due to demands from developers and the industry. However, as the solar and wind energy markets have matured, it’s crucial to reassess the merits and drawbacks of the policy, especially given renewed calls to continue the waiver beyond 2028.

The ISTS waiver, introduced in 2016 by the ministry of power, was designed to help states with relatively low solar insolation and wind potential (low-RE states) meet their renewable purchase obligations (RPO) in a cost-effective manner. By allowing these states to import from RE-rich states without incurring ISTS charges, the policy aimed to prevent them from paying high RE tariffs. The ultimate goal was to create a “level playing field” across all states, promoting the use of RE nationwide.

In its early years, the ISTS waiver played a key role in accelerating RE adoption. States with abundant solar and wind resources, such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Karnataka, saw a surge in RE projects. These states could export RE to other states, helping them meet their RPOs without the burden of transmission costs. However, in recent years, several unintended consequences have emerged.

One of the major impacts of the ISTS waiver has been a significant imbalance in RE growth across states. Despite the availability of good solar resources in nearly all states, 83% of RE capacity is concentrated in just seven — Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. This concentration is largely due to market distortions caused by the ISTS waiver in a highly price-sensitive sector. Here’s why.

The cost of procuring power from solar projects located in states like Rajasthan or Gujarat by utilities in low-RE states like Odisha or Chhattisgarh includes generation costs, ISTS charges, and minor additional costs. An analysis comparing two RE-rich states (Rajasthan and Karnataka) with six low-RE states (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal) shows that the difference in generation costs ranges from Rs 0.02/kilowatt-hour (kWh) to Rs 0.40/kWh. However, the ISTS charge waiver for transactions between RE-rich and low-RE states is estimated to range from Rs 0.40/kWh to Rs 0.90/kWh. In other words, the ISTS waiver is now larger than the cost differential in generating RE across different parts of India.

If the ISTS waiver is eliminated, it will be cheaper for states to install and use RE locally, rather than importing power from thousands of kilometres away. For example, without the waiver, the cost of procuring solar power for a utility in Chhattisgarh from a local project is approximately Rs 2.78/kWh, compared to Rs 3.24/kWh from a project in Rajasthan and Rs 3.36/kWh from a project in Karnataka.

Due to the ISTS waiver, a few states have become RE hubs, while the rest have lagged in RE growth. This imbalance undermines the policy’s initial goal of fostering equitable RE development across states. Rather than developing their own resources, low-RE states have become overly reliant on energy imports, which has hindered their progress in building local renewable infrastructure.

Investments in ISTS grid infrastructure dedicated to RE projects have surged over the past decade, as new transmission lines and substation capacities have been developed to transfer power from RE-rich states to low-RE states. iFOREST estimates that these investments account for 30-45% of total grid infrastructure investments in recent years. If the ISTS waiver continues, massive investments will be required to build grid infrastructure solely to transfer power between states. It would be more prudent to first promote local RE generation and consumption than prioritise inter-state transmission projects.

There are additional impacts of the ISTS waiver, such as an unequal burden of transmission costs on certain states, particularly northeastern, that use less RE from the ISTS grid. Also, inter-state transmission is itself becoming a bottleneck for the RE industry’s growth as ISTS projects are being installed at a much faster pace than the expansion in transmission grid.

It is clear that the ISTS waiver impedes the goal of equitable RE growth. Although some low-RE states have tried to mitigate the waiver’s impact by offering higher subsidies, these measures are insufficient. For balanced growth and healthy market competition, the ISTS waiver should be phased out as scheduled.

India has experimented with “price equalisation” policies in the past, often with negative consequences. The freight equalisation scheme for coal, for instance, was meant to promote balanced industrial development across India but ended up impeding the industrialisation of mineral-rich eastern states. We should not repeat the mistake.

How to avoid capital error

With Delhi’s air quality index (AQI) rising to 235 on Wednesday, its highest level since June 19, pollution season is here again. In what’s ominous, air quality dipping to “poor” category in Sep is a first in six years. As citizens of the national capital brace for the dreaded winter haze, Delhi govt has unveiled a 21-point action plan to curb pollution.

The action plan includes drone-monitoring of hotspots, special task force, work-from-home policy, voluntary vehicular restrictions, and a green award. To combat severe air pollution, the odd-even vehicle rationing scheme and even artificial rain are proposed.

Last year, too, AAP govt had introduced a 15-point action plan, which was completely ineffective. In fact, the air pollution season of 2023-24 was one of the worst in recent memory, with an average AQI of 304, compared to 280 in 2022-23 and 278 in 2021-22.

For over a decade, Delhi has experimented with various pollution control measures – odd-even schemes, smog towers, water cannons, tree plantations, and graded response action plan (GRAP), which restricts industry, construction, and vehicle operations, among others. Yet, the city continues to suffer.

Why Delhi’s plan won’t work

This year’s plan like those before, is un likely to deliver the clean air Delhi needs. And this is because these measures do not target the most significant pollution sources. Delhi, which makes up only 2.7% of NCR, lies in one of the most urbanised, industrialised, and agricultural regions in the world. Consequently its air is heavily influenced by pollution from neighbouring districts.

Studies reveal that only 30-50% of Delhi’s air pollution originates within the city with the remaining 50-70%coming from outside. This means that a regional approach is essential to reduce air pollution in the city. FUrthermore, the main source of pollution in Delhi-NCR are the use of biomass for cooking, heating,and in micro and small industries as well as the burning of agricultural residues in the surrounding states.

These activities contribute over 50% of the total PM2.5 pollution, the most dangerous pollutant of all. An additional 30% of PM2.5 pollution comes from industries and power plants that rely on coal and other fossil fuels in other words more than 00% of OM2.5 pollution in Delhi-NCR is caused by solid fuel, particularly biomass and coal burning, with vehicles contributing less than 30%. This estimation does not include dust from roads, construction sites and barren land, which are also significant sources of particulate pollution.

Centre, States must collaborate

If Delhi is serious about improving air quality it must stop relying on ineffective superficial solution like odd-even schemes, construction bans, and drone-monitoring. These temporary fixes do more harm than good by damaging the economy without addressing the core issue. The real solution lies in collaboration between the central govt and the states-Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan-to confront pollution at its source.

This collaborative effort can be operationalised by creating a new governance framework and institution to implement a coordinated clean air action plan. This will require all states to relinquish some powers for the common good. Here’s how this can happen:

  1. Establish air pollution control zone: The central govt. should declare Delhi and its surrounding areas as an Air Pollution Control Zone. Withing this zone, all air pollution-related measures should be implemented in a coordinated manner. Ideally, this zone should cover the entire airshed, spanning a 300 km radius around Delhi. However, considering the existing institutional setup this zone could include Delhi-NCR and four additional districts in UP-Aligarh, Hathras, Mathura and Agra. This would encompass an area withing a radius of about 150 km, with a population of around 80mn. Although this would exclude key agricultural area in Punjab and Haryana where stubble burning is rampant, that issue could be addressed through specific programmes aimed at eliminating crop residue burning.
  2. Set up empowered agency: To implement a coordinated clean air action plan, a new empowered agency should be established. The agency should have representatives from both central and state govts and be headed by a senior secretary-level officer. It should have district offices and its own staff. In other words, it should be the nodal agency for air pollution control in the zone, superseding other central and state agencies, similar agencies exist elsewhere, such as the California Air Resources Board established in 1967 to tackle severe pollution in cities like Los Angeles. China has set up the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Regional Coordination Council to reduce pollution levels in Beijing. While the Centre has set up Commission for Air Quality Management for NCR and Adjoining Area (CAQM), it has not been very effective because it lacks resources, authority and a proactive action plan.
  3. Put in place real action plan Delhi’s air quality and India’s as a whole cannot improve without a rapid transition to clean energy for cooking heating, industry, transport and power generation. Similarly, pollution from land and agriculture, such as agricultural residue burning and desertification, will have to be addressed. These challenges will require bold schemes, dedicated resources and multi-year efforts to see tangible result. For this a genuine action plan needs to be developed.

But the question remains: Are the central and state govts up for the challenge?

 

A Green Urea Mission has economic, environmental benefit of $1 trillion over 25 years

The most viable path forward is to decontrol the urea sector and allow market competition, similar to other fertilisers.

Urea causes three major environmental problems: nitrogen pollution, ozone layer depletion, and climate change, largely because of its overuse and inefficient use.

One of the core priorities in this year’s Budget is “productivity and resilience in agriculture”. Under this, the government plans to promote natural farming, enhance the production of pulses, oil seeds, and vegetables, transform agricultural research, and prioritise climate-resilient crops. While these are important and much-needed goals, the road to productive and resilient agriculture goes through a reformed fertiliser sector, especially urea. Here’s why.

Since the Green Revolution, the nation has relied on urea to provide the nitrogen necessary for higher crop yields. Today, urea accounts for 56% of all fertilisers, and nearly 80% of all the nitrogenous fertilisers used. However, this over-reliance has a very high cost for the economy and environment. Urea causes three major environmental problems: nitrogen pollution, ozone layer depletion, and climate change, largely because of its overuse and inefficient use.

The overuse of urea in India has reached unsustainable proportions. While the recommended ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) fertilisers is 4:2:1, in 2022-23 the ratio of actual applications was 11.8:4.6:1. On top of this, the nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is only 35%, compared to more than 50% in North America, and close to 80% in a few European countries. This means that only about 35% of the nitrogen in urea is used by crops; the rest is lost to the environment, leading to water and air pollution, and soil degradation.

Today, nitrate pollution of surface water and groundwater has reached alarming levels in many states of India, especially in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. It is estimated that the cost of water pollution due to urea in India is about $30 billion yearly, more than the turnover of the urea industry. There is also widespread soil sickness due to imbalanced application of urea, which has been highlighted by the prime minister numerous times.

Today, nitrate pollution of surface water and groundwater has reached alarming levels in many states of India, especially in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. It is estimated that the cost of water pollution due to urea in India is about $30 billion yearly, more than the turnover of the urea industry. There is also widespread soil sickness due to imbalanced application of urea, which has been highlighted by the prime minister numerous times.

The burden of urea on the economy is equally staggering. Urea subsidy has skyrocketed from less than 500 crore in 1980-81 to168,692 crore in 2022-23. Today, urea subsidy is about 85-90% of the cost of production; it used to be 20-40% of the production cost in the 1980s. The problem is compounded by the fact that this production is based on imported natural gas. In 2022-23, 84% of urea was produced from imported natural gas, and about 21% of total consumption was imported urea. So, nearly 90% of urea consumed in the country was either imported or produced using imported natural gas.

Urea, therefore, sits at the intersection of food, energy, and environmental security. Thus, decarbonising urea production to reduce reliance on imported natural gas and optimising consumption is critical to a resilient agricultural sector. The good news is that technological advancements in the manufacturing and application of urea can solve many of the above-mentioned problems.

Green Urea Mission

A detailed study by me and my colleagues found that it is possible to halve urea consumption in the next two decades from the current levels without compromising food production by strengthening existing policies such as promoting natural farming, enhancing NUE, and reducing the proportion of urea in nitrogenous fertilisers. Most importantly, it is economically viable to transition the existing urea manufacturing plants based on natural gas to green hydrogen and renewable energy by 2050. Our plant-by-plant modelling results show that green urea, produced from green hydrogen, is the cheapest route for India to produce urea from 2027 onwards. The average levelised cost of green urea between 2025 and 2050 is about $475/tonne compared to $540/tonne for grey urea produced from natural gas.

To achieve the desired results, the government will need to launch a Green Urea Mission, integrated with the National Green Hydrogen Mission, to transition the urea manufacturing sector to green urea. The mission should also have a 30:30:30 target for 2050: increasing the area under non-chemical farming to 30%, improving NUE by 30%, and reducing the proportion of urea in nitrogenous fertilisers by 30%.

If the Green Urea Mission is adopted, imports will be eliminated, subsidies will be reduced by 65%, and GHG emissions will decline by over 60%. Water and air pollution will also be significantly mitigated, and land degradation will be reversed. Most importantly, it will drive the growth in the two emerging industrial sectors — green hydrogen, and carbon capture and utilisation. The monetary value of these benefits is about $1 trillion in the next 25 years.

However, the mission’s success will depend on the extent of government control over the urea sector. Currently, the industry is highly regulated, has low profitability, and lacks incentives to innovate and modernise. The average age of urea plants is 30 years, with 45% of units over 40 years old, operating through renovation and modernisation (R&M). Our modelling results show that R&M is the most expensive way to produce urea.

The most viable path forward is to decontrol the urea sector and allow market competition, similar to other fertilisers. This would drive technological advancements, improve efficiency, and reduce prices. Such measures are necessary for building a future-ready agricultural sector.

सीधे किसानों के खाते में पहुंचे यूरिया की सबसिडी

इस साल अपने बजट भाषण में वित्त मंत्री ने खेती में productivity और adaptability को प्राथमिकता के रूप में पेश किया। इस पहल का उद्देश्य प्राकृतिक खेती को बढ़ावा देना, दालों, तिलहनों और सब्जियों के उत्पादन को बढ़ाना, कृषि अनुसंधान में सुधार करना और जलवायु अनुकूल फसलों को प्राथमिकता देना है। ये लक्ष्य महत्वपूर्ण और जरूरी हैं, लेकिन इनके साथ उर्वरक क्षेत्र खासकर यूरिया को लेकर भी सुधार की जरूरत होगी।

यूरिया का घाटा: हरित क्रांति के बाद से देश अधिक फसल उपजाने के लिए यूरिया पर निर्भर रहा है। आज भी सभी उर्वरकों का 56% और सभी नाइट्रोजन युक्त उर्वरकों का लगभग 80% यूरिया है। लेकिन इस अत्यधिक निर्भरता का अर्थव्यवस्था और पर्यावरण पर भारी असर पड़ा है।

पर्यावरण को नुकसान: यूरिया की वजह से पर्यावरण पर तीन तरह से बुरा असर पड़ता है- नाइट्रोजन प्रदूषण, ओजोन परत को नुकसान और जलवायु परिवर्तन। भारत में यूरिया का अत्यधिक उपयोग अस्थिर स्तर तक पहुंच गया है। अपने यहां नाइट्रोजन उपयोग दक्षता (NUE) केवल 35% है। इसका मतलब कि यूरिया में मौजूद नाइट्रोजन में से केवल 35% का उपयोग फसलों द्वारा हो पाता है, बाकी का दो तिहाई पर्यावरण में घुलमिल जाता है जिससे जल और वायु प्रदूषण होता है। अमेरिका में NUE 50% से अधिक है, जबकि कुछ यूरोपीय देशों में तो यह लगभग 80% है।

इकॉनमी को चपत: भारत के कई राज्यों, विशेषकर पंजाब, हरियाणा और यूपी में सतही जल और भूजल का नाइट्रेट प्रदूषण चिंताजनक स्तर पर है। नाइट्रेट प्रदूषण कैंसर और थायराइड से जुड़ी समस्याओं समेत विभिन्न बीमारियों का कारण बनता है। स्टडी बताती हैं कि भारत में यूरिया के कारण जल प्रदूषण से होने वाला नुकसान हर साल लगभग 30 बिलियन डॉलर है। यह आंकड़ा यूरिया उद्योग के कुल कारोबार से भी ज्यादा है।

ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग का कारण: यूरिया के उत्पादन और उपयोग से ग्रीनहाउस गैस निकलती हैं। नाइट्रस ऑक्साइड (N2O) का उत्सर्जन होता है। ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग के लिए कार्बन डाइऑक्साइड की तुलना में नाइट्रस ऑक्साइड 300 गुना अधिक खतरनाक है। इससे धरती के चारों ओर मौजूद ओजोन परत को भी नुकसान पहुंचाता है। वर्तमान में भारत से होने वाले ग्रीन हाउस गैसों के उत्सर्जन में यूरिया का हिस्सा 4.3% और कृषि GHG का 21.7% है।

सबसिडी का बोझ: यूरिया का बोझ अर्थव्यवस्था पर भी भारी पड़ रहा है। यूरिया सबसिडी 1980-81 में 500 करोड़ रुपये से कम थी, जो 2022-23 में 168,692 करोड़ रुपये हो गई है। आज यूरिया सबसिडी उत्पादन लागत का लगभग 90% है। 1980 के दशक में यह उत्पादन लागत का 20-40% थी। समस्या है कि यह उत्पादन आयातित प्राकृतिक गैस (NG) पर आधारित है। 2022-23 में 84% यूरिया आयातित NG से उत्पादित हुआ और कुल खपत का लगभग 21% आयातित यूरिया था। तो, देश में उपभोग होने वाले लगभग 90% यूरिया या तो आयातित NG या आयातित यूरिया पर आधारित था।

खपत पर लगाम: आयातित नैचरल गैस पर निर्भरता को कम करने के लिए यूरिया को कम कार्बन उत्सर्जन वाली प्रक्रिया से बनाना होगी। अच्छी बात है कि हमारे पास ऐसी टेक्नॉलजी मौजूद है। अपने सहयोगियों के साथ मैंने एक विस्तृत मॉडलिंग अध्ययन में पाया कि मौजूदा स्तर से खाद्य उत्पादन कम किए बिना 2050 तक यूरिया की खपत को आधा करना संभव है। ऐसा प्राकृतिक खेती को बढ़ावा देकर, NUE को बढ़ाकर और नाइट्रोजन युक्त उर्वरकों में यूरिया के अनुपात को कम करके किया जा सकता है।

ग्रीन यूरिया: सबसे महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि मौजूदा प्राकृतिक गैस पर आधारित यूरिया निर्माण संयंत्रों को अगले दो दशकों में Green Hydrogen और नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा में ट्रांसफर किया जा सकता है। ग्रीन हाइड्रोजन से बनने वाली ग्रीन यूरिया सस्ती भी पड़ेगी। इसकी औसत लागत लगभग 39,771 रुपये प्रति टन होगी, जबकि प्राकृतिक गैस से बनने वाली ग्रे यूरिया की लागत करीब 45,213 रुपये प्रति टन है।

मिशन पर फोकस: सरकार को नैशनल ग्रीन हाइड्रोजन मिशन के साथ एकीकृत ग्रीन यूरिया मिशन लॉन्च करना चाहिए, ताकि 2050 तक यूरिया निर्माण क्षेत्र को ग्रीन यूरिया में बदला जा सके। मिशन का लक्ष्य होना चाहिए कि 2050 तक गैर रासायनिक खेती को 30% तक बढ़ाना, NUE को 30% तक सुधारना और नाइट्रोजन युक्त उर्वरकों में यूरिया के अनुपात को 30% तक कम करना।

ट्रिलियन में फायदा: यदि ग्रीन यूरिया मिशन अपनाया जाता है, तो आयात समाप्त हो जाएगा, सबसिडी में 65% की कमी होगी और ग्रीन हाउस गैसों के उत्सर्जन में 64% की गिरावट आएगी। जल और वायु प्रदूषण भी काफी हद तक कम होगा। भूमि का क्षरण उलट जाएगा। इन फायदों की कीमत अगले 25 बरसों में लगभग एक ट्रिलियन डॉलर होगी।


सेक्टर की परेशानी:
 मिशन की सफलता यूरिया क्षेत्र पर सरकार के नियंत्रण की सीमा पर निर्भर करेगी। फिलहाल तो यह सेक्टर बहुत ज्यादा रेगुलेटेड है। इससे मुनाफा कम होता है और नई टेक्नॉलजी अपनाने में दिक्कत होती है। यूरिया प्लांट्स की औसत आयु 30 बरस है। 45% यूनिट 40 वर्ष से अधिक पुरानी हैं। इनको renovation और modernization के जरिये चलाया जा रहा है, लेकिन यह बहुत महंगा तरीका है।

सिफारिश पर अमल: सरकार को अपना नियंत्रण खत्म करके बाजार को आपस में प्रतिस्पर्धा करने देना चाहिए। 2014 में स्थापित शांता कुमार समिति ने सिफारिश की थी कि किसानों को सीधे नकद सबसिडी दे दी जाए ताकि वे अपनी जरूरत के हिसाब से उर्वरक खरीद सकें। इससे यूरिया सेक्टर में प्रतिस्पर्धा बढ़ेगी, कीमतें कम होंगी और नई तकनीक आएगी।

Are ACs Now A Human Right?

Soaring temperatures are here to stay & cooling has become a necessity. But it has to be done smartly. Not via ACs that guzzle electricity & worsen outdoor heat at a low-penetration level

Last Wednesday the automatic weather station sensor at Delhi’s Mungeshpur reported a record high temperature of 52.9°C. Fortunately, the figure has turned out to be incorrect. India Meteorological Department (IMD) has since said the reading suffered from “malfunctioning of the sensor”

But that is no cause for cheer. Delhi has already shattered its temperature record when Narela clocked 49.9°C on May 28. and the respite from a Mungeshpur like high is only temporary. All climate models show that Delhi will likely reach 52.9°C in the next few years due to climate change. our focus, therefore, should be on saving lives and livelihoods from extreme heat, which is projected to become even more severe and prolonged in the coming years.

This is not being alarmist, just realistic. Those who believe that runaway global warming and its consequences, such as rising temperatures and heatwaves, can be managed with a business-as-usual approach are deluding themselves. The fact are so stark that only a climate denier can ignore them.

Double whammy: Heat & humidity 2023 was the second warmest year on record in India, and the past decade (2014-2023) was the warmest ever, In fact, 12 of the 15 warmest years occurred during the recent 15 years (2009-2023). Over the last decade, almost all major cities in India have broken their temperature records.

But it’s not only the temperature that’s the problem. A simultaneous increase in temperature and humidity is what’s becoming the biggest killer. IMD has started measuring and releasing the “Feels Like” or “Real Feel” temperature on a pilot basis this year. This metric combines heat and humidity to measure the actual impact of heat on the human body. A feels like temperature above 45°C is considered dangerous for outdoor activates and vulnerable populations. Above 55°C, conditions become unlivable without air conditioning.

In May, multiple stations in Delhi crossed the Feels Like temperature of 55°C. The situation is alarming in other cities as well. On May 3, in Patna maximum temperature was 40.7°C, but Feels Like temperature was an alarming 57°C. While we have no data on the impact this had on Patna’s residents, it was certainly more than just a “discomfort”.

What we are experiencing is just a trailer. It will get worse in the coming years. Every forecast and new study predicts that heatwaves in the Indian subcontinent will take a huge toll on lives and the economy. So, what should be done about it?

ACs unleash a vicious cycle: An obvious solution might seem to be to install room air conditioners (RACs) everywhere. But installing RACs creates a vicious cycle that further exacerbates global warming and hot extremes.

Currently, less than 10% of households in India own an AC, but this number is growing by 10=15% annually RACs are energy guzzlers. Even a 5-star AC consumes 30 times more electricity than an efficient fan. So, even at low-penetration levels, RACs now account for up to 50% of peak load in major metropolitan areas of India. If we rely on ACs, then by 2050, energy requirement for RACs will see a 20-fold increase at the very least. If this energy is produced from coal, it will lead to higher global warming. RACs also warm the planet by emitting refrigerants, which are far more potent in warming the planet than CO2.

At a local level, RACs exacerbate the urban heat island effect by expelling heat outside and increasing outdoor temperatures. To combat higher outdoor heat, we are installing more ACs unleashing a vicious cycle.

Green cooling agenda: However, with Feels Like temperatures soaring above 45°C across most parts of India, cooling is no longer a luxury. It must be viewed as a fundamental right. The question is how to provide cooling to all without further destroying the planet.

  • First, we must promote measures that do not require active cooling. We must cool our cities by planting trees and rejuvenating water bodies. We should construct ‘cool houses’ using better construction materials and incorporating passive cooling techniques like improved ventilation and shading. Techniques like cool roofs, one of the simplest and most cost effecting ways to cool a building by painting roofs white, can help keep indoor air temperatures lower by as much as 2-4°C compared to traditional roofs. These measures can be implemented by changing building bylaws, urban planning guidlines and construction technologies.
  • Second, We should prioritise centralised cooling projects such as district cooling systems (DCS). These projects supply chilled water to buildings through pipelines, similar to how natural gas is supplied for cooking. The chilled water cools the air inside rooms, just like an RAC. DCS are far more energy-efficient and do not require highly polluting refrigerants. They will also lower cooling costs, making it affordable for most people.
  • Third, We should use only highly efficient RACs. To achieve this, we must revise energy-labelling standards to increase the sales of super-efficient ACs in the country.
  • Finaly, every city must develop an integrated heating and cooling action plan to protect citizens and the economy from severe heat impacts and to provide sustainable cooling solutions for all. It’s time to prepare our cities for a clear and present danger.

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial