Decoding Modi’s environmentalism

From Swachh Bharat to LiFE, the PM has given environmental agenda a distinctly Indian vocabulary rooted in Deendayal Upadhyaya’s integral humanism.

As Narendra Modi becomes India’s longest continuously serving elected Prime Minister, it is worth asking: What is his environmental philosophy, and what drives his environmentalism?

This question has often engaged me when I have heard him speak on cleanliness, water conservation, green energy, climate change, and ecological protection. He is perhaps the only PM who has spoken so consistently from the Red Fort about changing behaviour, practices, and policies to improve India’s environment.

In his first Independence Day speech in 2014, he spoke about cleanliness and the need to eliminate open defecation. He returned to the theme year after year, launched the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), and converted a subject of revulsion into a national movement.

In the early years, his focus was on local and traditional environmental problems — sanitation, indoor air pollution, water stress, waste, and soil health. More recently, he has engaged increasingly with globally relevant issues such as climate change, renewable energy (RE), and sustainable consumption.

Consider the local agenda first. In 2015, he highlighted indoor air pollution and the need for clean cooking fuel, which became the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) in 2016. He also launched the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana with the slogan “save water, save energy, save fertilisers”. He has urged farmers to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use to protect soil, health, and nature, calling in 2021 for agriculture to be taken “out of the lab of chemistry” and connected to the lab of nature. On waste, after the SBM, he launched a campaign against single-use plastic, which was later backed by a ban on several such items.

Transitioning Local Activism

Energy and climate change have featured more prominently in his speeches since 2020, though the origins go back earlier. In 2009, as Gujarat’s chief minister, he set up India’s first climate change department. A votary of solar power since his Gujarat days, he expanded India’s solar and RE targets substantially and, in 2021, spoke of energy independence based on clean energy by 2047, including electric mobility, hydrogen, and a clean energy transition road map So, what philosophy explains these environmental actions? Four threads stand out.

The first is people-led change. People-centricity and mass mobilisation are central themes in his environmental policies and programmes. The pattern is clear: first build public consciousness, then follow it with policy.

The “Give It Up” campaign preceded the PMUY. His natural farming push is farmer-led. The Jal Jeevan Mission is framed as a Jan Andolan. The campaign against plastic began as a people’s movement before it became a legal ban. Swachh Bharat’s success has been credited by him to “Team India” and mass participation. Thus, PM Modi’s idea of the environment is linked to change at the level of individuals, households, and communities.

Socioeconomic Co-Benefits

The second thread is co-benefits. Actions that simultaneously improve the economy, environment, and public health seem to be a core motivation in his environmentalism. Flagship schemes delivering water, sanitation, cooking fuel, and electricity carry large environmental and health gains. For instance, one of India’s biggest air pollution gains in the last decade has come not from reducing vehicular emissions, but from the shift from biomass to LPG for cooking. His green energy ambition is also driven by energy security and the belief that future growth and jobs will come from the green economy.

The third thread is women-centricity. Improving the lives, health, and dignity of women runs through most of his programmes. He has described Jal Jeevan as a women-driven movement, framed the PMUY around women’s health and dignity, and said that women’s safety and dignity were central inspirations for the SBM. In this sense, his environmentalism is also the politics of everyday relief — less drudgery, cleaner homes, safer sanitation, and better health.

The fourth thread is a fusion of tradition and modern science. He invokes the panch tatva and green hydrogen in the same breath. His signature intervention at the UN climate negotiations — Lifestyle for Environment, or LiFE — draws from India’s tradition of restrained consumption.

But this belief in traditional wisdom has not stopped him from embracing modern science and technology. From building a digital economy to investing in electric vehicles and RE, his government has pursued technological modernisation with equal zeal.

Ultimately, to understand PM Modi’s environmentalism, one must understand Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya’s integral humanism. In integral humanism, human beings are at the centre of development; culture moulds nature without destroying it; and unbridled consumerism is seen as alien to Indian civilisation. In lectures delivered in Bombay in 1965, Upadhyaya spoke about nature protection, sustainable agriculture, and the need to embrace modern science while improving upon India’s traditional knowledge and culture. In one of his lectures, he warned that chemical fertilisers could render land infertile. “How long can this dance of destruction go on?” he had asked. Modi’s passion for natural farming derives directly from that worldview.

PM Modi’s environmentalism, therefore, is best understood as integral humanism in practice. He has updated and expanded the ideas propounded by Upadhyaya. But his major achievement is that he has converted these ideas into policy, programmes, and mass mobilisation. In doing so, he has given India’s environmental agenda a distinctly Indian vocabulary — rooted in people, tradition, women’s dignity, public health, energy security, and modern technology.

 

From the dhabas of Varanasi, Guwahati and Ludhiana, a tale of the LPG crisis — and a way out

Walk past a roadside eatery in Varanasi at six in the morning and you will see a familiar sight: the kettle on, the chulha glowing, and the first batch of puri-jalebi being prepared. What you may not notice is the smoke above it. Multiply that smoke by the lakhs of small commercial eateries across India’s cities, and you begin to see the scale of a problem my colleagues and I have spent the past year trying to measure.

In Varanasi, Guwahati and Ludhiana — three cities where we have undertaken detailed studies — commercial eateries, including tea shops, dhabas, canteens, sweet shops, restaurants and mid-day meal kitchens, account for roughly 10% of PM2.5 emissions. But their pollution matters disproportionately because it peaks during the morning and evening hours.

Until a few months ago, there was good news to report. These establishments were quietly shifting from coal and biomass to LPG. But this trend is now reversing because of supply constraints and the rising cost of LPG. Owners I have spoken to in recent weeks are talking about going back to coal or biomass. Some already have. If LPG supply remains constrained and prices stay elevated — both of which appear likely through the winter — air quality in northern India could be headed for another ugly season. A sizeable number of poor households and small businesses may be pushed back to dirty fuels.

But this need not happen.

The Arithmetic

LPG is the most expensive fuel to cook a meal in India — whether at home, in a dhaba, or in a restaurant.

Take a 19 kg commercial LPG cylinder, currently priced at about ₹3,100–3,300. It contains roughly 240 kWh of thermal energy. But commercial burners typically deliver only about 55–65% of this heat to the pot. This means that the useful cooking energy from one cylinder is only about 130–160 kWh. At current prices, LPG cooking therefore costs around ₹22.5 per useful kWh.

Now run the same arithmetic for induction cooking. Even at an electricity tariff of ₹15/kWh — a very high commercial tariff — and assuming 85% efficiency, induction cooking costs about ₹17.5 per useful kWh. That makes it around 20% cheaper than LPG.

At a more typical commercial electricity tariff of around ₹9–10/kWh, the economics are even clearer. Induction cooking is nearly 50% cheaper than LPG. For LPG to reach parity with induction cooking at this tariff, the cost of a 19 kg cylinder would need to fall to about ₹1,700 — close to a 50% price cut, which is unlikely.

The striking fact is that this shift in the economics of cooking happened some time ago. Many of India’s eateries have been quietly paying for the country’s most expensive cooking fuel — without realising it.

No Economic Barrier

If electricity is cheaper, cleaner and faster, why is the pot still on a gas burner? The barriers are real, but they are no longer primarily economic. They are about information, habit and infrastructure.

Awareness of electric cooking remains very low. Our survey shows that most eateries have little idea how induction can be introduced into their kitchens. We are also creatures of habit. The comfort of an open flame and a familiar way of cooking slows the transition. Many cooks also believe that switching fuels will change the taste of their food.

Then there is the issue of inadequate sanctioned electrical load. Most small establishments simply do not have enough approved load at the meter to run two induction hobs during peak cooking hours. And, most decisively, there is no credible central or state programme that helps a sweet shop owner in Ludhiana, Guwahati or Varanasi actually make the switch.

This is where policy must come in — not to subsidise the fuel, because electricity is already cheaper, but to support the transition. This means financing support for equipment replacement, fast-tracked load enhancement for small commercial connections, time-of-day commercial tariffs that reward cooking outside peak hours, and a clear deployment target for commercial kitchen electrification.

A New Clean Cooking Mission

India spent the last decade subsidising LPG to displace biomass from the kitchen. That mission was right for its time. It saved lakhs of women from indoor smoke and brought millions of households and eateries into the modern energy system.

But the world has moved on. Electricity is now cheaper than gas at the burner. Renewables are pushing power costs further down. And the geopolitical risks attached to imported LPG — the Strait of Hormuz, dollar volatility and a tightening global gas market — are no longer footnotes.

The next phase of India’s clean cooking mission should not be about LPG. It must be about the plug.

A national programme to electrify commercial and residential cooking — starting with the most stressed segments such as small eateries, mid-day meal kitchens, government canteens, hostel messes and similar establishments — would deliver four gains at once: a developed market for induction cooking, cleaner urban air, lower running costs for small businesses, and greater energy security in the kitchen.

The economics have already chosen. Policy now needs to catch up.

सब्सिडी बोझ और आयात निर्भरता के बीच हरित यूरिया का उभरता विकल्प

पश्चिम एशिया संघर्ष ने भारत की ऊर्जा निर्भरता को सबके सामने ला दिया है। लेकिन इसका एक और पहलू है जिस पर कम बात होती है — यह हमारी खाद्य सुरक्षा की भी कमर तोड़ता है। हरित कृषि के बारे में भारत फसल उत्पादन बढ़ाने के लिए यूरिया पर निर्भर रहा है।

यूरिया कुल उपयोग की होने वाले उर्वरकों का 56 प्रतिशत और सभी नाइट्रोजन उर्वरकों का लगभग 80 प्रतिशत है। देश में बनाने वाले 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक यूरिया के लिए आयातित प्राकृतिक गैस का इस्तेमाल होता है और कुल खपत का पांचवें हिस्से से अधिक सीधे आयात किया जाता है। कुल मिलाकर भारत में इस्तेमाल होने वाला लगभग 90 प्रतिशत यूरिया किसी न किसी रूप में आयात पर निर्भर है।

इसका वित्तीय बोझ भी बहुत भारी है। यूरिया पर सब्सिडी 1980-81 में 500 करोड़ रुपए से कम थी जो 2022-23 में बढ़कर 1.65 लाख करोड़ रुपए हो गई है। यानी हम एक ऐसी व्यवस्था के बनाए रखने के लिए देश का अरबों रुपया खर्च कर रहे हैं, जो पूरी तरह बाहरी निर्भरता पर टिकी है। जरूरी बात यह है कि इसका विकल्प बनाने के लिए जरूरी तकनीक और सरकारी कार्यक्रम पहले से मौजूद हैं। बस जरूरत है एक ऐसे मिशन की जो इन सबको एक साथ जोड़ सके।

यूरिया बनाने में दो मुख्य प्रक्रियाएं होती हैं — पहले हाइड्रोजन और नाइट्रोजन से अमोनिया बनाना और फिर उसे कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड के साथ मिलाना। भारतीय कारखाने हाइड्रोजन और कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड के लिए प्राकृतिक गैस का इस्तेमाल करते हैं, जबकि हाइड्रोजन हवा से ली जाती है। इस तरह बनाई गई यूरिया को ‘ग्रे यूरिया’ कहते हैं। लेकिन हाइड्रोजन को पानी से भी बनाया जा सकता है — इस प्रक्रिया को ‘इलेक्ट्रोलिसिस’ कहते हैं।

1970 के दशक में फर्टिलाइजर कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया के नंगल कारखाने में इसी तरह हाइड्रोजन बनाई जाती थी, फिर भाखड़ा बिजली की कमी के कारण इसे बंद करके प्राकृतिक गैस अपनाना पड़ा। इसके अलावा कार्बन कैप्चर और उपयोग यानी सीसीयू तकनीक भी यूरिया उद्योग में पहले से इस्तेमाल होती है, जिसमें धुएं से कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड निकाली जाती है।

यानी हमारे पास पहले से ही वो सभी तकनीकें हैं, जिनसे बिजली का इस्तेमाल करके यूरिया बनाई जा सकती है। इलेक्ट्रोलिसिस से हाइड्रोजन, कार्बन कैप्चर से कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड और हवा से नाइट्रोजन! अगर यह बिजली नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा से आए तो यह बन जाती है ‘हरित यूरिया’

सबसे बड़ा सवाल लागत का है। एक अध्ययन से पता चलता है कि हरित यूरिया 2028 तक किसी कारखाने के लिए सबसे सस्ता विकल्प बन सकती है। 2030 तक इसकी लागत में यूरिया से 20 प्रतिशत कम होने का अनुमान है और 2050 तक यह फर्क लगभग 100 प्रतिशत तक पहुंच सकता है।

2025 से 2050 के बीच हरित यूरिया की औसत लागत करीब 475 डॉलर प्रति टन होगी, जबकि ये यूरिया के लिए यह 540 डॉलर है। आज वैश्विक बाजार में ये यूरिया 600 डॉलर प्रति टन तक पहुंच रही है। अनिश्चित भू-राजनीति के इस दौर में आर्थिक रूप से हरित यूरिया के पक्ष में जा रहा है।

भारत के पास इस बदलाव को गति देने के लिए कार्यक्रम तो हैं लेकिन इन्हें नई दिशा देने की जरूरत है। राष्ट्रीय हरित हाइड्रोजन मिशन का लक्ष्य हरित यूरिया की ओर मोड़ना होगा। केंद्रीय बजट में कार्बन कैप्चर, उपयोग और भंडारण के लिए पांच वर्षों में 20,000 करोड़ रुपए का प्रावधान किया गया है। इस कार्यक्रम में यूरिया कारखानों को कार्बन डाई ऑक्साइड की आपूर्ति को प्राथमिकता देनी चाहिए।

अगर हम इन सभी कार्यक्रमों को एक साथ लाएं और इन्हें एक नई दिशा दें तो यूरिया उद्योग को हरित बनाया जा सकता है।

साथ ही, यूरिया की खपत को भी कम करना होगा। इसके लिए सरकार को हरित यूरिया मिशन शुरू करना चाहिए जो तीन काम करे — यूरिया उत्पादन को प्राकृतिक गैस से हरित हाइड्रोजन पर लाना, खपत को कम और बेहतर बनाना और उर्वरकों के मिश्रण को संतुलित करना।

अगर 2040 तक 90 प्रतिशत उत्पादन हरित हाइड्रोजन पर आ जाए, तो गैर-नाइट्रोजनी खेती बढ़े और नाइट्रोजन उपयोग दक्षता सुधरे, तो बड़े फायदे हो सकते हैं। यह आयात बंद होगा, सब्सिडी कम होगी और ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन में भारी कमी आएगी। हालांकि यह संभावना आसान नहीं होगी।

यूरिया उद्योग पर सरकारी नियंत्रण अधिक है, जिससे बाजार की गति धीमी है। इस धीरे-धीरे बाजार में इस विकल्पों के लिए खिड़की खुलनी जरूरी होगी। यूरिया को नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा से जोड़ा जा चुका है।

Heat­wave crisis needs a vis­ion, not just policy

The NDMA must lead the devel­op­ment of com­pre­hens­ive frame­works that move bey­ond relief to sup­port invest­ments in heat mit­ig­a­tion and resi­li­ence

THE INDIA Met­eor­o­lo­gical Depart­ment has warned that the sum­mer of 2026 could be par­tic­u­larly intense, with many parts of the coun­try likely to exper­i­ence an above-nor­mal num­ber of heat­wave days. Heat­waves are unlike sud­den dis­asters such as cyc­lones or flash floods. They unfold slowly, often build­ing over days or weeks. This means they require sus­tained plan­ning rather than only emer­gency response.

Recog­nising this, many Indian cit­ies, dis­tricts and states have developed Heat action Plans (Haps). These plans play an import­ant role in coordin­at­ing responses among gov­ern­ment depart­ments through early warn­ing sys­tems, pub­lic advisor­ies, and emer­gency meas­ures. In sev­eral cit­ies, they have helped reduce heat-related mor­tal­ity and ill­ness.

However, as tem­per­at­ures con­tinue to rise, India now needs to move bey­ond shortterm responses and begin invest­ing in longterm strategies to cool cit­ies in a sus­tain­able way. In this con­text, the recent recom­mend­a­tion of the 16th Fin­ance Com­mis­sion to include heat­waves in the list of nation­ally noti­fied dis­asters could be a turn­ing point. By recom­mend­ing their inclu­sion, the Com­mis­sion acknow­ledges that cli­mate change has fun­da­ment­ally altered India’s dis­aster land­scape.

This reclas­si­fic­a­tion changes the fin­an­cial and insti­tu­tional sup­port avail­able to states. Until now, states could use up to 10 per cent of their State Dis­aster Response Fund (SDRF) to provide imme­di­ate relief for local dis­asters, includ­ing heat­waves, provided they had noti­fied them as state-spe­cific dis­asters. With heat­waves recom­men­ded for inclu­sion under the Dis­aster Man­age­ment act, states would now be able to seek sup­port from the lar­ger National Dis­aster Risk Man­age­ment Fund as well as their State Dis­aster Risk Man­age­ment Funds (SDRMF). This expands fiscal space not only for relief meas­ures but also for fin­an­cing longer-term resi­li­ence and mit­ig­a­tion ini­ti­at­ives.

While the new clas­si­fic­a­tion opens up fin­an­cial resources, the cur­rent policy frame­work remains lim­ited. This is where the real chal­lenge lies. Most Heat action Plans con­tinue to focus primar­ily on short-term meas­ures such as alerts, aware­ness cam­paigns and emer­gency response. They do little to address the struc­tural drivers of heat vul­ner­ab­il­ity — poor urban design, heat-absorb­ing con­struc­tion mater­i­als, declin­ing green cover, inef­fi­cient cool­ing sys­tems, and unequal access to thermal com­fort.

To util­ise the avail­able funds effect­ively, India must strengthen its policy frame­works and provide cit­ies and states with clearer guid­ance on long-term heat resi­li­ence strategies. The National Dis­aster Man­age­ment author­ity must lead the devel­op­ment of com­pre­hens­ive frame­works that move bey­ond relief to sup­port invest­ments in heat mit­ig­a­tion and resi­li­ence, such as cli­mate­sens­it­ive plan­ning, expan­sion of urban green and blue infra­struc­ture, improved build­ing design, infra­struc­ture resi­li­ence and sus­tain­able cool­ing solu­tions.

Equally import­ant is build­ing insti­tu­tional capa­city that enables local gov­ern­ments to design and imple­ment projects that reduce heat risks over time. Stronger coordin­a­tion between urban plan­ning and dis­aster man­age­ment insti­tu­tions, and bet­ter tech­nical sup­port for cit­ies, will be crit­ical to ensure that funds are effect­ively util­ised.

The funds are now on the table. What India needs next is a policy vis­ion for cooler, safer and more resi­li­ent cit­ies.

 

किसानों के लिए मुश्किल घड़ी, भूराजनीति और जलवायु परिवर्तन का सामना कर रहे हैं भारतीय किसान; ईरान जंग भी अहम वजह

भारत का कृषि क्षेत्र इस साल भू-राजनीति और जलवायु परिवर्तन के दोहरे संकट से जूझ रहा है। LNG आपूर्ति प्रभावित होने से यूरिया महंगा हो रहा है, जिससे सब्सिडी का बोझ बढ़ेगा। वहीं, एल-नीनो से मॉनसून और तापमान पर असर पड़ेगा।

भारत के किसान हमेशा अनिश्चितताओं के बीच खेती करते आए हैं। बाढ़, सुखाड़, कीट और कीमतों में गिरावट आम बात है। मगर, इस साल हालात जुदा हैं। भू-राजनीति और जलवायु परिवर्तन जैसे दो बड़े संकट खेती के खरीफ सीजन को प्रभावित कर रहे हैं। स्ट्रेट ऑफ होर्मुज के पास बढ़ते तनाव से उर्वरक और डीजल आपूर्ति पर असर पड़ रहा है, तो जलवायु परिवर्तन के कारण हीटवेव और असामान्य मॉनसून का भी खतरा है। इससे खरीफ फसलों पर बुरा असर पड़ने की आशंका है।

यूरिया पर असर : अगर समय रहते कदम नहीं उठाए गए तो कृषि क्षेत्र के लिए भविष्य के बड़े संकट की झलक है। भारत में यूरिया सर्वाधिक इस्तेमाल होने वाला उर्वरक है। इसकी करीब 90% आपूर्ति आयात या आयातित गैस पर निर्भर है। अमेरिका-ईरान संघर्ष से लिक्विफाइड नैचुरल गैस (LNG) की आपूर्ति अनिश्चित हो गई है। इससे देश में यूरिया उत्पादन घटा है। नतीजतन, कीमतें साल भर में 500 से बढ़कर 1,000 डॉलर प्रति टन हो गई हैं।

सब्सिडी का बोझ: सरकार सब्सिडी के जरिये यूरिया की कीमत नियंत्रित करने की कोशिश कर रही है। लेकिन, इससे वित्तीय बोझ बढ़ रहा है। इस साल यूरिया सब्सिडी बिल करीब 2 लाख करोड़ रुपये तक पहुंच सकता है और भू-राजनीतिक अनिश्चितताएं अब भी बरकरार हैं। होर्मुज स्ट्रेट अब भारत की खाद्य सुरक्षा को प्रभावित करने लगा है। यह संघर्ष लंबा चलता है, तो ईंधन, उर्वरक और खेती की लागत इतनी बढ़ जाएगी कि सब्सिडी से इसे संभालना मुश्किल हो जाएगा।

एल-नीनो इफेक्ट: देश की खेती-किसानी पर दूसरा बड़ा संकट जलवायु परिवर्तन से जुड़ा है। वैज्ञानिकों का कहना है कि इस साल एल-नीनो बहुत ज्यादा ताकतवर हो सकता है। यानी मौसम सामान्य से ज्यादा बदल सकता है। भारत में पहले से ही अत्यधिक गर्मी पड़ रही है। दुनिया के 100 सबसे गर्म शहरों में अधिकतर भारत के ही हैं। ऐसे में सुपर एल-नीनो तापमान को सामान्य से काफी अधिक बढ़ा सकता है और इससे मॉनसून के प्रभावित होने का खतरा है।

स्थायी समस्या: भारत में लगभग आधी खेती बारिश पर ही निर्भर है। इसलिए मॉनसून का समय और मात्रा बहुत अहम है। एल-नीनो जैसे असर जोखिम को और बढ़ा देते हैं। इसके खत्म होने के बाद भी प्रभाव रहता है। जैसे- मिट्टी की नमी कम हो जाती है, भूजल नहीं भरता और बुआई देर से शुरू हो पाती है। इससे किसान लंबे समय तक परेशान रहते हैं। सरकार को अब यह समझना होगा कि जलवायु परिवर्तन कोई अस्थायी समस्या नहीं, दिनों-दिन बढ़ती चुनौती बन रही है। आज एल-नीनो है, कल हीटवेव जैसी समस्याएं लगी रहती हैं, जिससे खेती, रोजगार और अर्थव्यवस्था के प्रभावित होने का खतरा है।

आत्मनिर्भरता जरूरी: इस संकट का समाधान भी संभव है। देश के पास तकनीक है, बस इन्हें बड़े पैमाने पर लागू करने की जरूरत है। सबसे पहले हमें ऊर्जा और उर्वरक में आत्मनिर्भर बनना होगा। नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा से ग्रीन हाइड्रोजन बनाकर आयातित गैस पर निर्भरता घटाई जा सकती है। सोलर पंप, इलेक्ट्रिक ट्रैक्टर और सोलर या बायोमास से चलने वाली कोल्ड चेन से खेती सुरक्षित हो सकती है। ये चीजें पहले से उपलब्ध हैं और इनका उपयोग भी हो रहा है। जरूरत है सही नीतियों और पर्याप्त निवेश की, ताकि इन्हें बड़े पैमाने पर अपनाया जा सके।

अलग रणनीति: जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने के लिए भारत को विभिन्न क्षेत्रों के हिसाब से खेती की योजना बनानी होगी। ऐसी फसलें उगाना शामिल है, जो तपती गर्मी और अनियमित बारिश झेल सके। इसके अलावा, पानी का बेहतर प्रबंधन और सिंचाई की सटीक व्यवस्था अपनानी होगी। अब किसानों को भी एक फसल पर निर्भर रहने के बजाय कई फसलें उगानी चाहिए। केमिकल का कम इस्तेमाल करना चाहिए। ऐसा हो भी रहा है। आंध्र प्रदेश के करीब 8 लाख किसानों ने प्राकृतिक खेती अपना ली है, जिससे लागत कम हुई। कई किसानों ने सोलर पंप लगवा लिया है। अब बस उन्हें मजबूत समर्थन की दरकार है।

पूरा बदलाव जरूरी: भू-राजनीति और जलवायु परिवर्तन, दोनों का दबाव बढ़ रहा है। इसलिए तेज और समन्वित नीति बनानी जरूरी है। इसके लिए हरित उर्वरक, खेती में बिजली का उपयोग, प्राकृतिक खेती, मजबूत फसल बीमा और जलवायु आधारित खेती को बढ़ावा देना होगा। अब अलग-अलग संकट से निपटना नाकाफी है। किसानों को सुरक्षित रखने के लिए पूरी कृषि व्यवस्था में बदलाव करना होगा, तब ही वे बदलते मौसम में अपनी आजीविका संभाल पाएंगे।

We need a green exit from the urea trap

Producing green urea alone will not be sufficient. We must also optimise urea consumption, because urea is significantly overused in the country, polluting land, water and climate

We must optimise urea consumption, because urea is significantly overused, polluting land, water and climate. To achieve this, the government should launch a Green Urea Mission

The West Asia conflict has thrown a spotlight on India’s deep energy insecurity. What is less discussed is how this vulnerability affects our food security. Since the Green Revolution, India has relied on urea to supply the nitrogen essential for higher crop yields. Urea accounts for 56 per cent of all fertilisers consumed and nearly 80 per cent of all nitrogenous fertilisers. Over 80 per cent of domestic urea is produced using imported natural gas, and more than a fifth of the total consumption is imported. In effect, nearly 90 per cent of the urea consumed in India is import-dependent.

The fiscal burden tells its own story. The urea subsidy has ballooned from less than Rs 500 crore in 1980-81 to Rs 1.65 lakh crore in 2022–23. Enormous public resources are poured into sustaining a system built on insecurity. The good news is that the technology and government programmes needed to build alternatives already exist. What is missing is a mission to bring them together.

Urea production involves two key processes: Producing ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen, and then reacting it with CO2. Indian plants derive hydrogen and CO2 from natural gas, while nitrogen is drawn from the atmosphere. Urea produced through this process is called grey urea. But hydrogen can also be produced from water through electrolysis. In the 1970s, the Fertiliser Corporation of India’s Nangal plant used electrolysis to produce hydrogen until power shortages in the Bhakra grid forced a switch to hydrocarbons. Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), using absorption technologies, too, is already widely used in the urea sector to recover CO2 from flue gas. So, we already have the building techniques — hydrogen from electrolysis, carbon dioxide from carbon capture, and nitrogen from the atmosphere — to produce urea using electricity alone. Power that electricity with renewables and you get green urea.

The obvious question is cost. A study of all 36 urea plants in India by my colleagues and me shows that green urea could become the most cost-effective option for a new urea plant by 2028. By 2030, the levelised cost is projected to be 20 per cent lower than that of grey urea; by 2050, this advantage widens to nearly 100 per cent. For the sector, the average levelised cost of green urea between 2025 and 2050 works out to about $475 per tonne, compared with $540 for grey urea. Today, grey urea in global markets is touching $600 per tonne. In an era of uncertain geopolitics, economics has tilted in favour of green.

India has programmes to power this transition; they need to be redirected. The National Green Hydrogen Mission focuses on exporting green ammonia and using it in non-urea fertilisers and other sectors. The focus must shift towards green urea. The Union budget earmarked Rs 20,000 crore over five years for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. The programme should prioritise the supply of CO2 to urea plants. If we bring these programmes together and provide them with strategic clarity, we can transition the urea sector to green.

We must also optimise urea consumption, because urea is significantly overused in the country, polluting land, water and climate. To achieve this, the government should launch a Green Urea Mission that does three things: Transition urea manufacturing from natural gas to green hydrogen, optimise consumption, and rebalance the fertiliser mix. If, by 2040, we move 90 per cent of urea production to green hydrogen, increase the area under non-chemical farming to 30 per cent, improve nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture by 30 per cent, and reduce the proportion of urea in nitrogenous fertilisers by 30 per cent, the rewards will be immense. Urea imports would be eliminated, subsidies would fall by 65 per cent and GHG emissions from the sector would decline by over 60 per cent. Water and air pollution would be significantly reduced. The cumulative value of these benefits could be above Rs 1 trillion over the next 25 years.

This will not happen without structural reform. The urea sector is heavily regulated, with low profitability and almost no incentive to innovate. The most viable path forward is phased decontrol — market competition, as in case of other fertilisers.

स्मृति शेष: भारत को पर्यावरणीय विवेक देने वाले वैज्ञानिक थे माधव गाडगिल

संस्थागत निर्माण उनके विरासत का एक और महत्वपूर्ण पहलू था। भारतीय विज्ञान संस्थान में सेंटर फॉर इकोलॉजिकल साइंसेज की स्थापना में उन्होंने अहम भूमिका निभाई।

भारत के लंबे ऐतिहासिक प्रवाह में बहुत कम ऐसे वैज्ञानिक हुए हैं जिन्होंने जनमानस पर गहरी छाप छोड़ी हो। माधव गाडगिल उनमें से एक थे। 2010 के दशक में, उनके नेतृत्व में तैयार की गई वेस्टर्न घाट्स इकोलॉजी एक्सपर्ट पैनल (WGEEP) की रिपोर्ट जिसे गाडगिल रिपोर्ट के नाम से जाना जाता है, ने देश भर में तीखी बहस छेड़ दी। यह रिपोर्ट अखबारों के पहले पन्नों से लेकर प्राइम टाइम टीवी चर्चाओं, जनसभाओं और राजनीतिक मंचों तक चर्चा का विषय बनी। किसी वैज्ञानिक आकलन को लेकर शायद ही पहले कभी इतना तीव्र विरोध हुआ हो, और उसी तीव्रता से गाडगिल की बौद्धिक कठोरता और स्पष्टवादिता का समर्थन भी किया गया हो।

डॉ. गाडगिल से मेरी व्यक्तिगत मुलाकातें सीमित रहीं—एक आमने-सामने की भेंट और एक संक्षिप्त फोन बातचीत। इसके बावजूद, मुझे हमेशा ऐसा लगा कि मैं उन्हें अच्छी तरह जानता हूं। इसका कारण वे विचार थे, जो उनके लेखन में झलकते थे, और वे संस्थान थे, जिन्हें उन्होंने गढ़ा और पोषित किया। मेरे आसपास के कई पर्यावरणवादियों में वे एक अत्यंत प्रभावशाली व्यक्तित्व के रूप में उपस्थित थे। वेस्टर्न घाट्स रिपोर्ट के प्रकाशन के कुछ समय बाद, सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (CSE) में उनसे मेरी मुलाकात हुई। हमने रिपोर्ट के कुछ पहलुओं की आलोचना की थी, और उसी पर चर्चा करने के लिए वे आए थे। उस बातचीत में मुझे न केवल उनकी तीक्ष्ण बुद्धि का अनुभव हुआ, बल्कि यह भी स्पष्ट हुआ कि यह विषय उनके लिए कितना व्यक्तिगत था। वेस्टर्न घाट्स उनके लिए मात्र एक भौगोलिक क्षेत्र नहीं था; वह एक जीवित पारिस्थितिक इकाई थी, जिसके क्षरण को रोकना वे अपनी नैतिक जिम्मेदारी मानते थे।

मेरी दूसरी बातचीत 2021 में हुई दस मिनट से भी कम समय का एक फोन कॉल। मैं भारत के वनों के लिए एक इकोलॉजिकल इंडेक्स विकसित करने पर काम कर रहा था, जिसमें जंगलों के स्वास्थ्य का आकलन केवल वृक्षावरण (कैनोपी कवर) के आधार पर नहीं, बल्कि जैव विविधता, पारिस्थितिक कार्यों और स्थानीय समुदायों की आजीविका पर निर्भरता जैसे मानकों पर किया जाना था। डॉ. गाडगिल न केवल एक अग्रणी पर्यावरण वैज्ञानिक थे, बल्कि गणितज्ञ भी थे, इसलिए मैं चाहता था कि वे इस पद्धति की समीक्षा करें। उन्होंने ध्यान से सुना, विचार में रुचि दिखाई, और फिर अत्यंत विनम्रता से मना कर दिया। क्योंकि वे उस समय अपनी आत्मकथा लिखने में पूरी तरह व्यस्त थे। उस संक्षिप्त संवाद से भी उनकी बौद्धिक उदारता और जिज्ञासा स्पष्ट झलकती थी। हालांकि, गाडगिल की विरासत व्यक्तिगत स्मृतियों से कहीं आगे जाती है; वह उनके कार्यों में स्थायी रूप से अंकित है।

मेरे सहित अनेक लोगों की पर्यावरणीय चेतना उनके लेखन के माध्यम से विकसित हुई। रामचंद्र गुहा के साथ सह-लेखन की गई पुस्तकें This Fissured Land और Ecology and Equity भारत के पर्यावरणीय इतिहास को समझने के लिए आधारभूत ग्रंथ मानी जाती हैं। इन पुस्तकों ने ऐसी अवधारणाएं सामने रखीं जो एक साथ क्रांतिकारी भी थीं और सहज भी। प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का टिकाऊ उपयोग, जन-आधारित संरक्षण, और पर्यावरणीय विस्थापितों की अवधारणा आज भी ये विचार वैश्विक पर्यावरणीय विमर्श को प्रभावित कर रहे हैं। इन पुस्तकों ने अहिंसा, शाकाहार और मिश्रित खेती जैसी भारतीय परंपराओं को पर्यावरणीय दृष्टि से समझने का दृष्टिकोण दिया। इस लेखन ने मेरे भीतर यह विश्वास गहराया कि यदि संरक्षण लोगों से कटकर किया जाए, तो वह न नैतिक होता है और न ही प्रभावी।

सार्वजनिक नीति में उनका योगदान भी उतना ही महत्त्वपूर्ण रहा। जैव विविधता अधिनियम और WGEEP रिपोर्ट इसके प्रमुख उदाहरण हैं। स्थानीय समुदायों को जैविक संसाधनों के प्रबंधन और लाभ का अधिकार देने के उद्देश्य से बनाया गया जैव विविधता अधिनियम आज भी कमजोर क्रियान्वयन के कारण सीमित प्रभाव ही डाल पा रहा है। वहीं, WGEEP रिपोर्ट—जो पूरे वेस्टर्न घाट्स को पर्यावरण-संवेदनशील क्षेत्र घोषित करने और एक नए राष्ट्रीय प्राधिकरण पर आधारित शासन संरचना की सिफारिश करती थी—को ‘अव्यवहारिक’ कहकर किनारे कर दिया गया। वेस्टर्न घाट्स रिपोर्ट पर मेरी मुख्य आलोचना उसकी कमांड-एंड-कंट्रोल शैली की शासन व्यवस्था को लेकर थी, जिसमें आर्थिक और बाजार-आधारित उपकरणों की कमी थी। पर्यावरण प्रबंधन में बाजार तंत्र पर अविश्वास डॉ. गाडगिल के दृष्टिकोण का हिस्सा था, और इसलिए उनके प्रस्तावों में ये तत्व अनुपस्थित रहे। साथ ही, समुदाय-आधारित प्रबंधन पर उनका भरोसा आज एक ऐसे यथार्थ से टकराता है, जहां समुदाय स्वयं अधिक औद्योगिक और उपभोगवादी होते जा रहे हैं। फिर भी, ये तनाव उसी व्यापक और आवश्यक बहस का हिस्सा हैं, जिसका सामना करने के लिए डॉ. गाडगिल ने भारत को विवश किया।

संस्थागत निर्माण उनके विरासत का एक और महत्वपूर्ण पहलू था। भारतीय विज्ञान संस्थान (IISc) में सेंटर फॉर इकोलॉजिकल साइंसेज की स्थापना में उन्होंने अहम भूमिका निभाई। आज यह केंद्र देश के सबसे प्रतिष्ठित पर्यावरणीय अनुसंधान संस्थानों में गिना जाता है। यहां से प्रशिक्षित अनेक पर्यावरण वैज्ञानिक आज भारत भर में संरक्षण विज्ञान, नीति निर्माण और जमीनी क्रियान्वयन में प्रभावशाली भूमिका निभा रहे हैं। गाडगिल भारत की कुछ सबसे निर्णायक पर्यावरणीय आंदोलनों से भी जुड़े रहे। केरल की साइलेंट वैली में बांध निर्माण के पर्यावरणीय औचित्य पर सवाल उठाने वाले वैज्ञानिक अध्ययन में उनकी भूमिका अहम थी। इस हस्तक्षेप ने भारत के एक अत्यंत समृद्ध उष्णकटिबंधीय वन को बचाया और भारतीय पर्यावरणवाद के इतिहास में एक मील का पत्थर स्थापित किया।

माधव गाडगिल अपने क्षेत्र की एक महान विभूति थे। जलवायु परिवर्तन, जैव विविधता के क्षरण और बढ़ती सामाजिक असमानता जैसे गहराते पर्यावरणीय संकटों के इस दौर में, भारत को और अधिक गाडगिलों की आवश्यकता है—ऐसे विचारकों की, जिनमें बौद्धिक साहस हो, नैतिक स्पष्टता हो, और भिन्न मतों से संवाद करने की तत्परता हो। उनका जीवन हमें यह सिखाता है कि विज्ञान अपने सर्वोत्तम रूप में केवल दुनिया को समझने तक सीमित नहीं रहता; वह दुनिया की रक्षा करने और उसे बेहतर बनाने का माध्यम भी होता है।

Madhav Gadgil, the scientist who gave India an ecological conscience

In an era of accelerating ecological crisis — of climate change, biodiversity loss, and deepening social inequities — we need more Gadgils: Thinkers with intellectual courage, moral clarity, and the willingness to engage with diverse views

In the long arc of Indian history, only a handful of scientists have truly captured the public imagination. Madhav Gadgil was one of them. In the 2010s, his Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), widely known as the Gadgil Report, commanded newspaper front pages, primetime television debates, heated public meetings, and sharply divided political platforms. Rarely has a scientific assessment been so fiercely attacked and so passionately defended for its intellectual rigour and plain-speaking.

My own encounters with Dr Gadgil were fleeting: One meeting and one short phone call. Yet, like many environmental advocates of my generation, I feel I knew him well — through his ideas, writing, and the institutions he helped build and nurture.

I met him once at the Centre for Science and Environment, sometime after the Western Ghats report was released. We at CSE were critical of certain aspects of the report, and Gadgil had come to engage with us. What struck me during that interaction was not just his formidable intellect, but how deeply personal the issue was to him. The Western Ghats were not an abstract landscape to him; they were a living ecological entity whose degradation he felt morally compelled to prevent.

My second interaction was a phone call in 2021, lasting no more than 10 minutes. I had taken on an assignment to develop an ecological index for India’s forests — one that would define forest health based on biodiversity, ecological functions, and economic dependence, rather than the prevailing canopy-cover-based classification. I desperately wanted Gadgil to review the methodology, knowing that he was not only a leading ecologist but also a mathematician. He listened patiently, became excited about the idea, and then gently declined, explaining that he was fully occupied with writing his autobiography. Even in that brief exchange, his intellectual generosity and curiosity were unmistakable.

Yet Gadgil’s legacy needs no personal anecdote. His life and influence are etched firmly in his work.

Like many others, my own ecological conscience was shaped by reading his books. Dr Gadgil’s two books, co-authored with Ramachandra Guha—This Fissured Land and Ecology and Equity — are foundational texts for understanding India’s ecological history. They advanced ideas that were both radical and intuitive: Sustainable use of natural resources, inclusive conservation, and the concept of ecological refugees — ideas that continue to shape environmental thinking worldwide. They also offered ecological explanations for Indian traditions such as non-violence, vegetarianism, and mixed agriculture. These works profoundly shaped my thinking on natural resource management and reinforced a belief that conservation, when divorced from people, is neither ethical nor effective.

Among his most consequential public policy contributions were the Biological Diversity Act and the WGEEP report. The Biodiversity Act, which sought to empower local communities to manage and benefit from their biological resources, remains poorly implemented. The WGEEP report was shelved largely because it was deemed unimplementable — owing to its recommendations of declaring the entire Western Ghats as an eco-sensitive zone and a governance framework that relied on a new national-level authority, with corresponding institutions at the state and district levels, for enforcement.

My own critique of the Western Ghats report was of the command-and-control governance model, which excluded economic and market-based instruments. Gadgil had an innate distrust of markets to manage ecology sustainably, and his solutions excluded them. At the same time, his deep faith in community stewardship is being tested by a reality in which communities themselves are becoming increasingly industrial and consumerist. These tensions, however, are part of the larger and necessary debate that Gadgil compelled India to confront.

Institution-building was another cornerstone of his legacy. At the Indian Institute of Science, he played a foundational role in building the Centre for Ecological Sciences into one of the country’s most respected hubs for ecological research. Generations of ecologists trained there now influence conservation science, policy, and practice across India.

Gadgil was also a participant in some of India’s most consequential environmental movements. He was part of the scientific scrutiny that questioned the ecological wisdom of damming Silent Valley in Kerala — an intervention that helped save one of India’s richest tropical forests and marked a defining moment in Indian environmentalism.

Madhav Gadgil was a colossus in his field. In an era of accelerating ecological crisis — of climate change, biodiversity loss, and deepening social inequities — we need more Gadgils: Thinkers with intellectual courage, moral clarity, and the willingness to engage with diverse views. His life reminds us that science, at its best, is not merely about understanding the world, but about defending and improving it.

India’s antibiotic obsession

I have travelled extensively over the past three decades and never once fallen sick outside India — until my visit to Brazil last month for COP30. A simple viral infection ended up becoming a mirror, revealing how differently India and Brazil approach antibiotic use, and why this difference matters.

In India, like most people, I rely on a familiar ecosystem of doctors, chemists and well-meaning advisors. Over time, one becomes comfortable with this formal-informal health care network. For routine illnesses like coughs and colds, I consult them, weigh their advice, and take (or avoid) medication accordingly. The advice, however, is predictable. Every time I have had a viral infection, the prescription has included an anti-allergic and an antibiotic — even when the doctor clearly diagnosed it as viral.

The justification was always the same: “Take antibiotics to prevent a secondary bacterial infection.” It never mattered that antibiotics do not treat viruses. Prevention became a catch-all excuse. A couple of years ago, this approach backfired. After one course of antibiotics, I developed a lingering cough that lasted months. Since then, I have been cautious with antibiotics.

The prescription On my fourth day in Brazil, I fell ill. You never truly know where viral infections come from — long flights, crowded airports, air-conditioned taxis, or poorly ventilated conference halls. I followed my usual routine: steam inhalation, saline gargles, warm fluids and paracetamol. But by Day Six, the fever and congestion worsened, so I consulted my doctor in India.

As expected, he prescribed paracetamol, an anti-allergic, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, throat soothers, vitamins and a cough suppressant. Armed with the prescription, I went to a chemist — and what followed was eye-opening.

First, the chemist refused to accept my Indian prescription. Brazilian law requires a prescription from a local doctor. Second, he separated what he could sell without a prescription — lozenges, vitamins, paracetamol — from what he could not: antibiotics. Third, he directed me to a 24×7 government urgent-care centre and advised me to consult a Brazilian doctor. Reluctantly, I went.

The centre was spotless, efficient and welcoming. Though I spoke only English and the staff only Portuguese, a translation app bridged the gap. They took basic details and a copy of my passport. There was no consultation fee.

The doctor examined me thoroughly. I showed him the Indian prescription. He glanced at it politely and set it aside.

“You have a viral infection,” he said. “It will resolve on its own in 10-12 days.”

His prescription was astonishingly simple: paracetamol in case of high fever, a throat lozenge, and a saline nasal rinse. No antibiotics. No anti-allergic.

When I mentioned that my sputum had turned yellowish-green — something many Indian doctors treat as a sign of bacterial infection — he smiled gently. “That is a myth. Viral infections can also produce coloured sputum,” he said. In effect, he refuted much of what I had been told about cough and cold management in India.

I returned to India still mildly symptomatic. Out of curiosity, I got a sputum culture done. After three days of incubation, the report showed moderate growth of a bacteria. My Indian doctor immediately advised me to start antibiotics. The Brazilian doctor, however, responded: “This does not require antibiotics. Minor bacterial growth often resolves naturally.”

This time, I chose to trust him. Thirteen days after falling sick, I have recovered — without taking a single antibiotic or anti-allergic.

A systemic failure I share this not to criticize Indian doctors, but to highlight a systemic failure. Across the world, antibiotics are viewed as curative medicines — to be used only when truly necessary. In India, they are used preventively, routinely prescribed for viral infections that the human body is fully capable of handling.

This misuse and overuse are key reasons India is now the epicentre of the global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis. The numbers are alarming:

λ An estimated 300,000 deaths in India are directly attributable to AMR.

λ Indian Council of Medical Research surveillance shows widespread resistance to commonly used antibiotics like ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and azithromycin.

λ Many Indian hospitals report 40-70 percent resistance rates among bacteria causing pneumonia, bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections.

And this is not solely due to human misuse. India is also indiscriminately pumping antibiotics into its food chain. In poultry and livestock production, antibiotics are used not just to treat illness but as growth promoters to fatten animals quickly. These drug-resistant bacteria travel from farms to food to humans.

The result? As my own test result suggested, most Indians are walking reservoirs of resistant bacteria. When we eventually contract a serious infection — one that truly requires antibiotics — we may find our options limited or ineffective.

Implementation paralysis The tragedy is that we already know what to do. In 2016-17, the Government of India convened a committee to develop the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR). I was a member of that committee. We created a multi-sectoral plan for 2017-2021, spanning human health, agriculture and environmental waste. A revised plan for 2025-29 was released in November 2025.

Yet, the first plan largely remained on paper. Implementation was hampered by weak regulation, inadequate surveillance and a health care culture that favours quick fixes over medical discipline.

The real difference between India and countries like Brazil is not medical expertise but strict enforcement of a policy. It is the refusal to prescribe and sell antibiotics unless absolutely necessary. My Brazilian doctor summed it up best: “Use antibiotics when they are needed, not when you are worried.” We need this culture of medical discipline and strict enforcement to solve the AMR crisis.

 

Why Beijing Can’t Be Delhi’s Model

Yes, China massively reduced urban air pollution. Some of its strategies are worth studying. But an authoritarian govt can implement changes a democracy can’t. And India can’t spend as much as China did. We need our own solution

There is a Hindi idiom – chutki lena – that loosely translates as teasing, trolling, mocking or putting someone down. Social media today is full of people taking chutki over air pollution in Delhi. The recent tweet by Chinese Embassy spokesperson, offering a “step-by-step guide” on how Beijing tackled air pollution, falls into this category. It is unsolicited, overly generic and not helpful regardless that the Chinese capital on Thursday suffered a rare smog (AQI climbed to 214) after years of pollution clean-up efforts.

Researchers in India, including myself, have followed Beijing’s air quality journey closely for years. We have studied the “Beijing model”, examined its successes and understood its limitations. One must first recognise a basic reality about information coming out of China:it is tightly controlled and never complete.While general descriptions of actions taken and headline pollution reductions are widely available, crucial information is missing.

Data on regulatory enforcement, economic costs, public expenditure, private sector liabilities, worker displacement, compensation and social costs are largely absent. Without this information, simply lifting the Beijing model and superimposing it on Delhi is neither feasible nor responsible.

That said, there is no denying Beijing has achieved remarkable improvements in air quality in a relatively short period. India can – and should – learn from their experience. But learning does not mean copying. We must clearly distinguish between what can be replicated, what cannot, and what is unique to India and therefore requires additional solutions beyond anything Beijing did.

What to learn from Beijing
Value of a regional action plan. The Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei (BTH) regional framework enabled coordinated action across an airshed, leading to significant emission reductions. However, it is important to understand the administrative simplicity behind it.

BTH region covers about 2.2L sq km under two centrally administered municipalities Beijing and Tianjin – and a single province, Hebei, with 11 cities. Coordinatingaction across this region, while challenging, was administratively manageable.

Replicating this approach for Delhi is far more complex. A meaningful regional plan for Delhi would need to cover areas within a 150km radius, spanning six states (Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, UP, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan), urban local bodies and cantonment areas. Delhi is governed by three authorities – Centre, state and municipal corporations, cantonment aside. So, we’ll require an entirely new administrative and governance model to make regional action work.

Public transport and vehicle electrification are other areas where Beijing offers important lessons. Many measures Beijingadopted-stricter emission standards, cleaner fuels, and scrapping old vehicles-are also being attempted in Delhi, but with limited success.

A key difference is that Beijing actively curtailed the growth of private vehicles; Delhi has not. But like Beijing, we need to build world-class public transport across all of NCR. Similarly, rapid electrification of transport is essential.

In many ways, Beijing’s air pollution crisis helped catalyse China’s rise as the world leader in electric vehicles. China converted an environmental crisis into an economic opportunity; India should aim to do the same.

Reduction of coal use and strict regulation of power plants and industries is another critical lesson. While Delhi has shut down its thermal power plants and shifted many industries to the outskirts, coal use within the broader airshed remains substantial. Beijing not only reduced coal consumption by nearly 90% but also enforced extremely stringent emission standards. For example, the particulate matter standard for coal power plants in China is 10 mg/m³ or lower; in India, the standard is 30-100 mg/m³-3 to 10 times higher.

China’s SO2 standard is 35 mg/m³, whereas in India even relaxed limits of 100-600 mg/m³ were exempted for nearly 75% of coal-based power plants. Without enforcing strict pollution norms, meaningful air quality improvement is impossible. This is one of Beijing’s clearest lessons.

What won’t work here

Shutting down or relocating more than 3,000 heavy industries, as Beijing did, would effectively de-industrialise the entire region. Such an approach would be economically disastrous, socially destabilising and politically untenable in India.

Then there is the question of cost. While exact figures are unavailable, it is clear that Beijing spent billions of dollars to clean its air. That scale of expenditure is simply not feasible for India. Any clean air plan for Delhi must work within the country’s fiscal constraints.

Finally, Delhi faces challenges Beijing never had to confront. The most prominent is stubble burning. Beijing’s air quality was not affected by seasonal agricultural fires in the way Delhi’s is. Any serious clean air plan for Delhi must directly address this problem. Similarly, clean cooking fuel was never an issue for Beijing.

China transitioned most households to gas by the early 2000s and launched a Clean Heating policy in 2013 to move residential heating away from biomass and coal. In contrast, biomass use for cooking and heating remains a major source of pollution in Delhi-NCR and must be tackled head-on. Lastly, the Delhi airshed also faces a major challenge from pollution generated by lakhs of informal micro and small enterprises – from jaggery and confectionery makers to small metalworkers and many others. These enterprises must be supported to shift to clean fuels.

In sum, while Delhi can and should learn from Beijing-andfrom other cities around the world-itmust develop its own clean-air strategy and make it work in Indian conditions. From a researcher’s perspective, it is clear Delhi’s air pollution challenge is far more complex than Beijing’s ever was. Social media chutki may earn likes and retweets, but cleaning Delhi’s air requires far more than a step-by-step guide.

 

 

 

 

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial