Chandra Bhushan

Why India’s hills must stop copying the plains

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Hills, stop copying the plains: Joshimath shows we need a radically different growth model for Himalayan states

Joshimath is a symptom, the disease is the uncontrolled growth model. 

What is unfolding in Joshimath is a tragedy. But this tragedy is not due to climate change; climate change-linked extreme events may have exacerbated the situation, but the sinking of Joshimath is our doing.  

The fact is this disaster is not unexpected; it was foretold. Over 50 years, the sinking of Joshimath has been documented by multiple committees of the Supreme Court and the Union and state governments. They warned against haphazard urbanization, large-scale hydropower development and cutting of hills to widen roads. But time and again, their warnings were ignored. The result is that the fate of Joshimath is sealed. Even with engineering solutions, a part of this historic city will have to be abandoned, and the rest will struggle to survive. So, how have we reached this stage, and how do we prevent many more Joshimath’s in the future?

It is important to understand that Joshimath is a symptom; the disease is the strong push in the Himalayan states to replicate the development model of the plains – big infrastructure projects, wider roads, and high-rise buildings. It is this uncontrolled growth model that is seriously compromising their environmental security.

Destructive growth
Let’s look at the hydroelectric projects (HEPs) in Uttarakhand. The state presently has 39 large and small HEPs with an installed capacity of 3600 MW. In addition, there are 25 HEPs worth 2400 MW capacity under construction. So, in a couple of years, Uttarakhand will have 64 HEPs of 6000 MW capacity.

But what is existing and under construction is just a fraction of what is being planned. There are 180 HEPs of 21200 MW capacity in the pipeline. Many have already obtained environmental clearances from the environment ministry and state agencies. Even if we assume that only half of these projects reach fruition, Uttarakhand will have 150 HEPs, and its hydropower capacity will increase four-fold from the present. This is plainly unsustainable.    

Scientists have warned against building hydropower without comprehensive studies, and government committees have recommended scrapping HEPs. Yet, many projects with questionable feasibility continue to be constructed. Take the case of the Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, which is blamed for the aquifer breach at Joshimath.

Construction of this 520 MW project began nearly 17 years ago and was scheduled to be completed in 2013. But, almost a decade later, the project is still ‘under construction’, and its price tag has more than doubled. Moreover, this project has been damaged by floods twice — in 2013 and 2021. In 2021 floods caused by an unprecedented avalanche, nearly 200 people died, and many were labourers working at the project site. Tapovan Vishnugad exemplifies the risk of large-scale infrastructure development without proper assessment.   

It is well-known that the Himalayas is one of the most unstable mountain ranges and is prone to natural disasters. On top of this, global warming is profoundly impacting the geology and hydrology of the region. Data shows that 90% of earthquakes, most landslides and a large proportion of cloudbursts in India occur there. With massive infrastructure development and more people living in vulnerable areas, the economic and ecological losses are mounting and will continue to grow unless we make fundamental changes in the development paradigm.

Promote the alternate vision of development

The first change is to stop copying the plains. The domain of environmental science tells us that every place has a carrying capacity. Once this capacity is exceeded, ecological destruction ensues. Himalayas have a much lower carrying capacity than plains and thus can sustain much lower human pressure. Therefore, better planning and enforcement are essential to ensure that the carrying capacity is not breached. But unfortunately, the institutions which can ensure this, like the Town and Country Planning (TCP) department and the environment department, are weak and ineffective in hill states. In Uttarakhand, for instance, the TCP department is operating with minimal staff and resources, and the re-organization of the department has not been done since the bifurcation from Uttar Pradesh. Without solid planning and enforcement, the Himalayan states are doomed.

The second is to practice an alternate model of development, an immediate requirement in the tourism sector. It is projected that 250 million tourists will visit these states by 2025; the number was 100 million before the pandemic. This massive growth will exacerbate water scarcity, worsen air quality and lead to forest and land degradation. But there is an alternative to this unsustainable tourism — high-value sustainable tourism. We can follow the example of Bhutan, which has capped the number of travellers by imposing a sustainable development fee of US$200 per day. A part of this fee goes into environmental protection and enhancing livelihood for local residents. A similar sustainable tourism policy is required for our Himalayas too.

Lastly, in this era of climate change, Himalayan states can create a large number of jobs in the environment sector – biodiversity conservation, high-value organic farming, sustainable forestry, glacier and water body protection etc. And they can be incentivized by the rest of the country to do this. This is because they are major water sources that sustain the plains, and their glaciers, forests and biodiversity are essential for the country’s ecological security. While some progress has been made on Payments for ecosystem services, a lot more needs to be done so that these states can develop and prosper without destroying themselves.

Green energy and just transition

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan and Nikunj B Dhal

Coal-rich states in the country can take a cue from Odisha’s new renewable energy policy, which is geared to ensure a just energy transition for the state.

By Nikunja B Dhal and Chandra Bhushan

Odisha has been playing a central role in meeting the country’s growing energy needs. The state is the largest coal producer, producing about 185 million tonnes of non-coking coal in 2021-22. This is sufficient to fuel about a quarter of the country’s coal-based power generation. But Odisha is also one of the most climate-vulnerable states, with extreme weather events like cyclones, heat waves, floods and droughts taking a significant toll on the livelihoods and the economy every year.

To balance the imperatives of energy and climate change, thegovernment of Odisha has unveiled a new renewable energy (RE) policy during the Make in Odisha Conclave held recently Bhubaneswar, with a clear ambition and objective of ushering in a just energy transition in the state.

Increased adoption of RE has become vital for the state due to multiple reasons:

  • First, the government of India has committed to a net-zero target by 2070. This means that coal production and consumption would have to decline significantly over the next two to three decades, impacting the lives and livelihoods of coal-dependent communities. Therefore, Odisha must plan for the coming energy transition to safeguard the interests of vast numbers of people in its coal and industrial districts
  • Second, Odisha is among the country’s leading industrialized states, and a continuous increase in energy demand from all sectors is expected in the coming years. There is an apparent demand for RE from electricity distribution companies (discoms) and industries due to Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPOs). But the state currently accounts for just 0.55% of the country’s RE capacity (excluding hydropower) and imports renewable power to meet most of the existing RPO requirements. Without a rapid RE scale-up within the state, RE imports will increase several times in the coming years as RPO targets reach closer to 45% by 2030
  • Third, it is highly dependent on the mining and metal sector for growth and jobs. Currently, 39.5% of the state’s gross value addition comes from the industry sector, the highest in the country. Moreover, the global mining and metal sector is transitioning to renewable energy and green hydrogen to reduce its carbon footprint and meet net-zero targets. Odisha, therefore, has an opportunity to become the hub of the green mining and metal sector by encouraging its industries to install captive RE plants within the state
  • Lastly, sectors like green hydrogen, green ammonia and energy storage are developing rapidly. Given the strong manufacturing base, Odisha has the opportunity to grow these green sectors to support the next phase of industrialization, creating new employment opportunities as well as boosting economic activity and income. But, so far, the RE sector has not taken off in the state due to certain policy challenges and perceptions. For instance, there is a misconception that the state has low solar and wind potential. This misconception has been created due to gaps in potential estimation, which the Odisha Renewable Energy Policy, 2022 (OREP-2022) is addressing on an urgent basis. Likewise, the policy challenges have also been addressed in the new policy

Overall, a combination of factors has led to a scenario that it is cheaper for discoms and industries to buy renewable power from states like Gujarat and Rajasthan than to install RE projects within Odisha. Therefore, one of the key aims of OREP-2022 is to bridge the cost delta by providing best-in-class incentives to attract investors to develop the vast untapped RE potential of the state.

The policy includes several exemptions on duties, charges and surcharges for 15-20 years duration, along with investment facilitation and single window clearances. In addition, several measures have been introduced to ease land allocation for RE project development, including priority allocation under the state’s land bank scheme, provisions for aggregation of private land, and exemptions from the land ceiling.

The policy pays special attention to certain high-potential technologies, such as pumped-storage hydro and small-hydro, for which the requirement of free power supply to the state has been waived for projects contributing to the state’s RPO. In addition, given the paucity of large wasteland tracts, the policy pays special attention to developing solar rooftops, floating solar, and distributed solar projects. Furthermore, wind power is proposed to be promoted through feed-in-tariff, and upcoming technologies like green hydrogen and ammonia are also being promoted through various incentives.

Meanwhile, economic diversification, and the need for skilled human resources for new and emerging sectors, would be vital to ensure a just transition of the coal districts of the region. Odisha’s new RE policy addresses this by including explicit measures for creating a skilled and semi-skilled workforce for the RE sector. Existing educational infrastructure in the state is planned to be upgraded to provide training on RE component manufacturing, installation, operations and maintenance. Most importantly, to maximize RE job creation in the state, the green energy manufacturing sector has been included as a ‘thrust sector’ in the state’s new Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR), which aims to transform Odisha into the most “Preferred Investment Destination in India”.

Overall, OREP-2022 and IPR are timely steps taken by the government to boost green investments in the state and decarbonise the energy sector. These policies will also support balanced RE growth in the country and help meet the nation’s RE and Net-Zero targets. But, most importantly, they will help ensure a just energy transition in coal regions over the next decades.

മുറവിളിക്ക് മറുപടി; ലോകത്തിനു കാലാവസ്ഥാ ഉച്ചകോടികാലാവസ്ഥാ ഉച്ചകോടി

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

This article originally appeared in Manorma Malyalam

Weather shifts in climate talks

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Two changes: accepting that biggest polluters will pay poor nations & pressure on China, India to contribute

The 27th Conference of Parties (COP27) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which wrapped up in the early hours of Sunday at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, set things in motion that will have far-reaching implications for the international climate negotiations.

COP27 kicked off with the demand by the developing countries, especially least developed countries (LDCs) and small island nations, to set up a ‘Loss and Damage’ fund to compensate them for climate disasters. These countries, which have contributed the least to global warming, are now suffering annual losses in billions of dollars. For instance, the cost of the recent floods in Pakistan is estimated to be over $46 billion – 13.25% of the country’s GDP.

The loss and damage negotiation was acrimonious, to say the least, with the US entirely against any deal that would expose them to unlimited liability for their historic contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The negotiations also got into the question of who should pay, with small island states demanding that India and China should also contribute to the fund as they are now big GHG emitters.

Structure of compensation fund

Structure of compensation fund In the wee hours of Sunday, countries agreed to set up a new funding window to pay for loss and damage, but with many caveats attached to this fund.

  • The fund will only support countries most vulnerable to climate change.
  • It might not include India.
  • Funding will come from both developed countries and a “mosaic” of sources, including the private sector and philanthropies.

Considering that wealthy countries have never met their financial commitment; one is sceptical of this fund’s ability to help developing countries.  

Nevertheless, it is a big deal that the principle of compensating countries for climate disasters has been recognised. From now on, a certain “liability” will be put on big polluters and they will be under a moral, if not legal, obligation to support vulnerable countries.

Holdouts on oil and gas

It is tragic but a reality that it has taken 30 years for countries to realise that phasing down andultimately phasing out all fossil fuels is the most important factor to limit global warming. And it was India that set in motion the discussion to phase down all fossil fuels.

Last year at Glasgow, while countries agreed to phase down coal power to limit global warming, they kept silent on oil and gas due to pressure from big oil and gas-dependent economies, including the US and EU.  

All the studies indicate that controlling global warming requires action on all fossil fuels, not just coal. This point was forcefully made by India and ultimately supported by nearly 80 countries, including the US and EU. But Russia and Saudi Arabia vehemently opposed the inclusion of oil and gas, and therefore it was not included in the final decision. Nevertheless, Sharm El-Sheikh has set in motion the need to phase out all fossil fuels, and it is a matter of time before this is accepted in a future COP.

  Upending developed vs developing

The negotiations around loss and damage also unravelled the traditional classification of developed and developing countries, as outlined in the 1992 convention. The question of who should pay for loss and damage brought focus to China, the largest current emitter and second-largest historical emitter of GHGs.  

China prefers to be called a developing country in the climate negotiations, which was questioned by many countries. The same applied to newly wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore.

Developed countries always wanted to upend the classification. At COP27, they got the support of many small island states and LDCs to do so. While the final text has not clearly mentioned the larger role of emerging economies, it is pretty clear that from now on, countries like China will find it challenging to avoid greater responsibility for the climate crisis. There will also be pressure on India to contribute more, as it is traditionally bracketed with China at the UNFCCC.

 Implementation through a just transition

Just transition, the socio-economic impact of phasing down fossil fuels, has emerged as an important agenda at COP27. Mid-way through the COP, a $20 billion deal was struck between Indonesia and G7 countries at the G20 meeting in Bali to phase down coal use in Indonesia in a just manner.

Called Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P), a similar deal worth $8.5 billion was signed between South Africa and G7 last year. A JET-P deal was offered to India, which it rightly postponed for future negotiations.

Overall, the outcome of COP27 is not so much in words as it is in the direction the international negotiations are moving in. For India, it is important to recognise these decisive shifts and develop a negotiating strategy that is good for the country and the planet. India did quite well at Sharm El-Sheikh by proposing the phasing down of all fossils, supporting developing countries on loss and damage, and releasing its Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy. Now is the time for the country to relook at its negotiating position that will advance the development and climate agenda together.

Don’t Delhi and Punjab govts breathe the same air? There is much AAP can do to cut stubble burning and pollution, if it chooses to do so

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

If some Delhiites believed that the AAP government in Punjab would resolve the national capital’s air pollution woes, they couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only has Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of AAP and CM of Delhi, refused to take responsibility, he is now blaming all and sundry for the airpocalypse. But the fact is, his party now governs two states that presently contribute two-thirds of the pollution in Delhi-NCR.

Let’s be clear, Delhi is a gas chamber today because of its own pollution and the pollution due to stubble burning, primarily in Punjab. To those who still think that stubble burning is not the leading cause of severe air pollution, they need to only look at the following data:

  • Currently, the contribution of stubble burning to Delhi’s pollution is 34-38%. This number will likely increase to 50% in the coming days if farm fires are not stopped.
  • 91% of all the farm fires from October 1 to November 3 were recorded in Punjab; only 10% were in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

So, addressing the issue of stubble burning in Punjab is necessary for controlling air pollution in Delhi during winter. The bottom line is that the AAP government, which has been given an overwhelming mandate by the citizens of Delhi, will have to stop finger-pointing and get serious about mitigating major pollution sources within and outside. Let me point out four major areas that can work to reduce air pollution in the next few years.

Invest in public transport and safe roads: Of the megacities of the world, Delhi has one of the worst public transport infrastructures. Its roads are also one of the most unsafe for walking and cycling. Unfortunately, the AAP government has made little investments on both of these fronts. For instance, Delhi today has fewer buses than it had 10 years back. So, instead of promoting campaigns like ‘Red light on, Gaadi off’, which would have caused more congestion and pollution, it should focus on safe and well-connected public transport and roads.

Green the city: All modelling studies indicate that dust from roads and open spaces causes massive PM10 pollution. But I have never understood why there is a reluctance to grass the sideways and green the open spaces. From Mexico City to Beijing, cities that have significantly improved their air quality have used greening as one of the principal measures to reduce dust.

Reduce pollution from solid fuels: Delhi has to work with other states, especially Punjab, Haryana, UP and Rajasthan, to reduce the biggest source of pollution – open biomass burning and pollution from coal. Biomass burning, primarily for cooking and heating, is a major source of air pollution in Delhi’s airshed. The pollution intensity of open biomass burning is hundreds to thousands of times more than those of vehicles and industries. Similarly, burning coal in industries and thermal power plants is a significant source of pollution.

No city in the world has managed to reduce air pollution by burning massive quantities of solid fuels. For example, Beijing reduced its air pollution by reducing coal consumption in power plants and industries and shifting millions of households to clean cooking fuels in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei regions.

A no-harm agreement with neighbouring states: The no-harm rule is a widely recognised principle of international law whereby a country is duty-bound to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other countries. The time has come to use this principle domestically.

  • Today, stubble burning in Punjab is causing harm to the health and environment of Delhi, and thus Punjab is breaching the no-harm principle.
  • Until now, the discussions between states have been informal, and solutions have been non-binding.
  • But it is time that a formal agreement is made between the NCR states to stop farm fires and other significant sources of pollution.
  • This inter-state environmental agreement should be a cooperative and binding agreement with measurable results.

For instance, under this agreement, NCR states and the central government could pool resources to help farmers (not pay farmers) eliminate stubble burning. Delhi can take the lead in this as it has close to Rs 1,000 crore sitting idle in its green fund, which it collected as an environment compensation charge from diesel-guzzling trucks entering the capital.

Evidently, there is a lot that the Delhi government can do but chooses not to do. Therefore, it is time for the choked citizens to ask the right question from the AAP government: What is the result of close to eight years of your rule on the air quality of the city?

India’s Renewables Disparity

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

‘Price-equalisation’ policies, mirroring some pre-liberalisation schemes, are distorting spatial distribution of renewable energy generation

Even a good policy with the best intentions can have unintended and adverse consequences. The Freight Equalization Scheme (FES) was one such policy meant to promote balanced industrial development throughout the country but ended up impeding the industrialisation of the mineral-rich eastern states. From 1956, consumers across the country got iron, steel, cement, and fertilisers at the same price, as the transportation was cross-subsidised. There was also a price control on coal, which ensured its availability at a fairly uniform price. This price equalisation deprived the mineral-rich states of their natural advantage of setting up downstream processing industries in the automotive, engineering, and energy sectors. As a result, industries developed in a few coastal states with large markets, such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu, but states like West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh suffered. Consider this statistic: in 1950, West Bengal and Bihar accounted for 92% of all iron and steel production and 48% of all manufacturing output in engineering-related industries; in 1992, when FES was repealed, their share in engineering-related sectors was in the single digits.

Presently, a similar “price equalisation” policy is being implemented in the renewable energy (RE) sector, which again threatens to create regional disparities in green industrialisation. This time, however, the price equalisation is to the advantage of the ‘resource-rich’ states, which happen to be in western and southern India, and to the disadvantage of the ‘resource-poor’ states, which are in northern and eastern India.

In the last 8.5 years, RE has grown exponentially from 31.7 gigawatts (GW) in 2014 to 114.4 GW in July, 2022. But most plants have come up in three western states (Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra) and four southern states (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana). These seven states today account for more than 80% of RE in the country. On the other hand, northern and eastern states have lagged behind. For instance, the east and northeast, which account for 28% population and 23% geographical area, have only about 3% RE capacity. So, why this lop-sided growth in the RE sector? 

There are three major factors. The first is the difference in RE potential between regions, the second is the availability of large parcels of land, and the third is the national RE policy. But overall, it is the RE policy that is amplifying the impact of potential and land. Let me explain.

There is a difference in solar and wind potential between states, more in the wind than solar. But this difference is not so high that RE plants, especially solar, cannot be installed in large parts of the country. In India, on average, a solar PV plant can generate 1400-1700 kWh/kWp per year, depending on solar insolation. So, the difference between the so-called solar-rich and poor states is only about 10-20%. But the point to note is that even the lowest solar insolation areas in India can generate 20-25% more electricity than Germany. Yet, Germany has more solar capacity than us. In a nutshell, most of parts of India have good solar potential; some regions have a little higher than others.

As far as land is concerned, it is true that states like Rajasthan and Gujarat have large patches of land where solar plants of hundreds of megawatts can be installed. But land and large artificial reservoirs are also available in north and eastern India. Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have vast wasteland and fallow land to install megawatt-scale plants. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have massive potential to establish agri-solar. It is our policy to promote large solar plants that have made the land an issue. Otherwise, there are enough land, rooftops and reservoirs for balanced solar growth across the country. This brings me to the all-important factor, the RE policy.

Our RE policy is single-mindedly focused on installing large capacity at the lowest possible cost. The key instrument is the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO). Under this, states are required to meet a minimum percentage of their electricity requirement through RE. The RPO target for 2022-23 is 14.5%, which will increase to 43.33% by 2029-30. To meet the RPO targets, inter-state transmission system (ISTS) charges have been waived to allow ‘resource-poor’ states to buy the cheapest RE from anywhere in the country. ISTS charges have been wholly waived till June 2025 and will be progressively eliminated by 2028.

But ISTS waiver, a market distorting subsidy, is now a critical factor in deciding the location of plants. In a hyper-competitive RE market, the waiver, which could be as much as Rs 0.40-0.80/kWh or 15-30% of generation cost from large solar plants, is pushing companies to put up plants in western and southern India. RE-linked manufacturing — solar PV, battery and hydrogen electrolyser plants — are also moving to these states. As a result, an entire ecosystem is slowly getting entrenched in a few western and southern states, which is detrimental to RE development in the rest of the country. It is, therefore, time that we developed a more detailed understanding of the regional implications of the ISTS waiver and other RE subsidies and made necessary corrections quickly.

While installing large RE capacity is an important climate goal, it cannot be at the expense of shared prosperity. We must not allow India’s growth story to suffer by further widening the regional disparities.

Defining the environment sector

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

The National Industrial Classification 2008 needs to be revised to capture all environment-related activities

The environment sector provides a vast opportunity to create new jobs and build a green economy. For this, the environment sector must become an important economic sector.  

What is the environment sector? How many people work in this sector? How many new jobs are needed to meet environmental challenges like the climate crisis? What is the skill gap and capacity development need of the sector? If we are serious about solving environmental problems, we need answers to these crucial questions. But unfortunately, there are no answers because we do not know the environmental sector. Let me elaborate.

The National Industrial Classification – 2008 (NIC-2008), the latest 5-digit classification system used by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) to estimate jobs and economic contribution of various sectors, has categorized all economic activities into 21 Sections, 88 Divisions, 238 Groups, 403 Classes and 1304 Sub-classes. But this vast classification system doesn’t have a Section called ‘Environment Conservation and Protection. The only place where some of the environment-related activities appear is in Section E: Sewerage, waste management and remediation activities. This section lists work related to water and wastewater treatment, material recycling and solid and hazardous waste management. But apart from these, products and services related to air pollution control, soil conservation, biodiversity protection, cleaner production, low carbon development or climate change adaptation do not appear anywhere. Therefore, in our current national statistics, there is no separate information on the economic contribution of the environment sector or the number of people working to conserve and protect the environment, a.k.a, green jobs.

But the question is, why do we need a separate environmental sector category? Aren’t environment-related activities part of all economic activities? For example, aren’t jobs related to industrial pollution control part of different industrial sectors? The answer is yes and no. While environmental activities are part of all economic sectors, we still need to categorize the environment as a separate economic sector for innovation and growth.

The critical element in the growth of any sector is money, human resource and innovation, and all three are interdepended. This interdependency can be virtuous or vicious. In a virtuous relationship, money will attract the best talent, and both money and human resources will lead to innovation. Greater innovation, in turn, will bring more money, and this cycle will continue. In a vicious cycle, the opposite happens. 

The IT sector, which accounts for nearly 8% of the country’s GDP (three times more than the mining sector), is a classic example of a virtuous relationship. This sector continues to grow because it pays good money to get the right talents; the high-quality human resources, in turn, develops new products and services and makes more money, and the cycle continues.

On the other hand, the environment sector is not exactly on the virtuous cycle. I will not say it is on a vicious cycle either, but considering the scale and pace of changes required to solve environmental crises such as climate change, land degradation and water pollution, the sector needs major innovation and growth. This is only possible with large investments and high-quality human resources. But how do you attract investments when you do not know where and how much investments are required? How do you attract talent when you do not know what kind of jobs are needed today and tomorrow? Basically, how can a sector grow when it doesn’t exist formally? Therefore, to develop this critical sector, we need to define it as a formal economic sector by mapping its economic outputs and jobs.

Obviously, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) and CSO have a critical role in revising the NIC and developing a new industrial classification system that captures all environment-related activities. But institutions outside the government will also have a significant role to play in building this field. For instance, we at iFOREST have recently mapped the Air Quality Management (AQM) sub-sector, and the results are fascinating. We found that:

  • At least 2.8 lakh organizations,  industries and mines require personnel to monitor, plan, prevent and control air pollution.
  • There are at least 42 different kinds of jobs in AQM. From municipal workers involved in dust control to air quality modelling and forecasting specialists to transport planners, AQM requires personnel with diverse skills. 
  • In totality, an estimated 22 lakh direct and indirect jobs are required to manage air pollution in the country. Most of these jobs are blue-collar jobs such as the operator of pollution control equipment in industries, operator of PUC centres (who checks tailpipes of vehicles) and municipal workers. They are the frontline workers but have never been considered part of the sector and made aware of their vital role in managing air quality.
  • There are tens of thousands of white-collar jobs, but there aren’t enough qualified personnel to take up these jobs. We estimated that the AQM sub-sector can provide at least 50,000 new white-collar jobs, ranging from researchers and analysts to air quality managers in cities and inspectors in pollution control boards.
  • The challenge in the AQM in India is that the people presently working in the sector have not been trained, and a large number of jobs that are required do not exist.

If the AQM sub-sector alone needs hundreds of thousands of people, then think about the potential of the entire environment sector? The bottom line is that we have to view the environment sector as an opportunity to create new jobs and build a green economy. While many of the existing jobs lead to the destruction of the environment, we must start creating jobs to protect the environment. For this, the environment sector must become an important economic sector.

Energy transition crucial

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Odisha is known for coal. It is the second biggest coal-producing state, and by 2030, it will be the country’s top coal-producing state. So naturally, Odisha’s electricity production is heavily reliant on coal. Presently, more than 90% of electricity comes from coal-based power plants; renewable energy (RE) sources like solar, wind, and biomass play a minimal role.

Low Renewable Energy Potential in Odisha is a Myth That Needs to Be Discarded.

In 2016, Odisha announced a policy to promote RE in the state. The policy had a modest target of installing 2,750 megawatts (MW) of RE capacity by 2022. But, as of March, 2022, only 617 MW has been installed, which is less than 25% of the target. In comparison, during 2016-2022, the country’s RE capacity more than doubled from 46,580 MW to 109,885 MW. Today, Odisha’s share in the country’s RE capacity is just 0.55%.

But due to low RE installation, Odisha has to buy renewable power from other states to meet its mandatory renewable purchase obligations (RPOs). RPOs are an essential policy tool introduced by the central government to increase the installation of RE in the country. Under this, all states are required to meet a minimum amount of their electricity requirement through RE. Odisha’s RPO target for 2022-23 stands at 14.5%, which is set to increase to 43.33% by 2029-30. So, in 2029-30, close to 45% of electricity demand in Odisha has to be met from renewable sources. Now Odisha has a choice: buy RE from states like Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu or install 30,000 MW of RE in the state to meet its 2029-30 RPO targets and simultaneously build a vibrant clean energy industry. I believe the choice is obvious: Odisha will gain immensely by installing RE within the state.

I say this because Odisha has the opportunity and obligation to promote RE. The opportunity is that the RE sector can support the next phase of green industrialisation in the state, creating new employment opportunities, as well as boosting economic activity and income in rural communities. The obligation is because Odisha has one of the highest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita. It is also one of the most climate vulnerable states, with extreme weather events like cyclones, heatwaves, floods and droughts taking a significant toll on the lives, livelihoods and the economy every year. The energy transition is, therefore, crucial for the state.

So far, investments in the state’s RE sector have remained tepid due to many institutional and commercial challenges. This needs to be addressed by the government through innovative policy measures and stronger incentives under the new RE policy, which is set to be released this year.

But before we address the policy challenges, removing a misconception that has pulled down RE development in the state is important. The misconception is that the state doesn’t have RE potential. This misconception has been created because of the poor estimation of RE potential by different agencies. For example, till today, a detailed study on the wind energy potential in Odisha, a coastal state, has not been undertaken. The solar potential has also not been estimated based on thumb rules. Our initial estimation is that Odisha’s RE potential is at least five times what is being projected by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE).

Take the example of solar power. According to MNRE, Odisha only has 26,000 MW of solar potential. But this estimate has ignored the significant potential of manmade water bodies (where floating solar power can be installed) and large mining wasteland. We estimate that just on water bodies and mining wasteland, 20,000 MW solar plants can be installed. Large RE capacities can also be installed in urban and rural areas through distributed renewable energy plants like rooftop solar plants. Odisha can also prioritise agro-solar farming, given the significant share of mono-cropped agriculture land and fallow land in the state. This will not only increase the state’s RE capacity, it will also enhance income levels for the rural poor. So, low RE potential in Odisha is a myth that needs to be discarded.

As far as policy challenges are concerned, there are many. The foremost is streamlining and building the state’s institutional capacity for RE promotion and adoption. Presently, Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency, Engineer-in-Chief and Green Energy Development Corporation of Odisha Ltd. have been made nodal agencies for different RE technologies, which often leads to confusion and delays at the implementation stage. A single empowered nodal agency at the forefront of RE promotion in Odisha can help fast-track deployment through proactive measures.

The other aspect is to avoid copying the model being implemented in states like Rajasthan and Gujarat, which are installing ultra-mega solar plants on large tracts of land. Instead, Odisha’s new RE policy should focus on developing smaller plants by making farmers and landowners true partners in RE development. Technologies like agri-solar, rooftop solar, floating solar, pumped hydro stations, and green hydrogen should be prioritised. The policy should also focus on supporting and ensuring RE installations by industries with captive power plants, which also have to meet RPO targets.

At a time when the country is steadily cruising along a green technology pathway with clear targets and roadmaps for renewable energy, storage, hydrogen, electric vehicles, Odisha cannot miss the opportunity to build a new clean energy economy. Overall, Odisha should develop the new RE policy for 2022-30 in such a way that it is recognised as a serious destination for RE investments.

 

A coal economy to a green economy

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Just energy transition’ must Shape net-zero pathways for fossil-fuel-dependent districts.

The study of Ramgarh showed that the district has mostly unprofitable old mines, which will close soon.

In the last 18 months, several modelling studies have been published on the costs and benefits of net zero emissions in India. A few days back, another modelling study was published, which projected that India will require an economy-wide investment of $10.1 trillion to achieve its net zero targets by 2070. But this will have significant gains, as it would boost annual GDP by 4.7% by 2036 and create 15 million new jobs by 2047. The benefits are even greater if India reaches net zero by 2050, says the study. In the words of Jayant Sinha, Member of Parliament, like previous modelling studies, this too predicts that “Net Zero is Net Positive” for India.

These reports are important at one level because they give us a macro picture of what it would entail to achieve the net zero target. They also give us the hope that we can address the climate crisis while growing our economy and creating millions of new green jobs. However, these macro-assessments do not tell us about the regional implications or the political economy of this transition. In other words, these reports have minimal relevance for planning a net zero pathway at the district or state levels.

For instance, the costs that these studies account for mainly include the investments required to build the new green industries and infrastructure—renewable energy, hydrogen, green steel, etc. They do not have the costs of closing the existing fossil-fuel based industries and infrastructure—coal mines, power plants, freight corridors, etc. However, at the district level, closing mines and plants are far more important than building the new industries, especially when there is no guarantee that these will come at the same place. In a nutshell, while macro-economic modelling has its value, today, we need studies to understand the costs, benefits and regional implications of achieving the net zero target so that we can plan and achieve a just energy transition. Let me illustrate this with the case of Angul, Odisha.

Over the last two years, my colleagues and I have been studying the coal districts of India to understand what a Just Energy Transition (JET) means and entails for these districts. We studied Ramgarh in Jharkhand, Korba in Chhattisgarh and, last week, we published our report on Angul.

The study of Ramgarh showed that the district has mostly unprofitable old mines, which will close soon. Ramgarh, therefore, needs to quickly start implementing an economic diversification plan to deal with the repercussions of the economic downturn due to the closure of mines. In Korba, India’s top coal-producing district, the reserves are getting exhausted, and most existing

mines and power plants will close between 2040-2050. So, Korba has a little more time than Ramgarh to implement a JET.

Angul, however, tells a very different story. The district produces about 100 million tonnes (MMT) of coal—about 12% of the country’s production. About 168,000 people are employed by coal mining and coal-dependent industries, and over 61% of the district’s GDP is dependent on coal. But coal production will grow three-fold in the next 10 years and peak at 300 MMT by 2033. Other coal-dependent industries, such as steel and aluminium, are also expanding. This growth is possible because Angul produces some of the cheapest coal in the country.

As per the current plans, there is no way that coal production in Angul can be phased out by 2050. If we try to reach net zero in Angul by 2050, then almost all mines will have to forego 30-60% of their reserves, and industrial assets would have to be shuttered at the peak of their economic life. So, how do we plan a net zero pathway for a district where the coal economy is growing exponentially? How do we close the mines and industries, and who will pay for this? How do we create alternative jobs for coal workers? Who will invest in the green economy? These are the questions that matter, and we need answers to these to develop a realistic just transition plan for real people.

Our study shows that it is possible to achieve net zero by 2050 in Angul, but it would require a JET plan spanning over the next three decades and billions of dollars of compensation and investments. It would require what we call the 5 Rs of Just Transition.

* Restructuring of the economy: Angul’s economy will have to diversify through investments in agriculture, forestry and service sectors. Its industries will have to move from a brown economy to a green economy through investments in renewables, hydrogen-based steel and urea, green aluminium, and a circular economy.

* Repurposing of the existing infrastructure: Repurposing mining land and industrial plants will be crucial for economic diversification. For instance, about 33,000 hectares of land in Angul are under coal mines and power plants. These can be used for solar PV, food parks, the development of fisheries and tourism sectors, etc.

Reskilling and skilling of the workforce: Large-scale skilling and reskilling programmes will have to be implemented to develop a skilled workforce for economic diversification.

* Revenue substitution: Currently, coal mines in Angul contribute over Rs 6,000 crore as royalty and cess to the state and the central government. This is projected to increase to Rs 18,000 crore by 2030. Angul’s economic diversification plan must at least substitute the revenues foregone from the coal economy.

* Responsible environmental and social investments: Angul is an economically-backward district and also a critically polluted area. Massive investments would be required for the closure and remediation of mines. Likewise, the district needs investments in social infrastructure—health, education, water, livelihoods etc., to build a sustainable economy.

Overall, Angul’s study shows that if we want to achieve the net zero target, then we must understand its implications at the district and state levels. Without this, big macro-assessments make no sense.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial