Category: Op-ed

सीधे किसानों के खाते में पहुंचे यूरिया की सबसिडी

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Are ACs Now A Human Right?

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

No, cloud seeding didn’t drown Dubai

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

A warming Arabian Sea means cities around it, Dubai to Mumbai, are vulnerable to extreme weather. But what’s more extreme is that govts and companies are trying to fix the weather using tech

The unprecedented flood in Dubai on April 19 has ignited much-needed discussion on weather modification and geo-engineering. Theories on what caused the extreme rainfall include cloud seeding, global warming and poor drainage systems. So, what did cause the rain?

It was not cloud seeding:

Cloud seeding’s an old weather-modification tech that induces rainfall by spraying chemicals such as silver iodide and common salt into clouds to make nuclei, around which the cloud’s moisture can condense, and form droplets. When sufficient droplets coalesce, they become heavy and fall as rain. It’s crucial to understand that cloud seeding cannot create rain from a clear sky-it needs clouds with sufficient moisture. Therefore, cloud seeding is generally used where clouds form, but it does not rain. Similarly, cloud seeding cannot create more rain than what is already in the cloud.

The storm system that caused flooding in Dubai was too big to be influenced by six or seven cloud-seeding aeroplanes that UAE’s weather body NCM flew, days prior. This weather system had massive amounts of moisture and affected thousands of square kilometers, causing heavy rainfall over UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Oman’s Mahda got more rain than Dubai, and suffered maximum loss of life as well.

It was not unexpected eithen NCM had warned about “unsettled weather conditions” and advised people to work from home. In a nutshell, such an intense downpour over such a vast area cannot happen through cloud seeding. Even if there had been cloud seeding, it would have only marginally affected the intensity of rainfall.

But a warming planet:

Weather reports clearly show the downpour was caused by a combination of a low-pressure weather system over the region, and an anticyclone over Arabian Sea. The anticyclone pushed a massive amount of moisture into the area, which caused heavy rain. But tell-tale signs of global warming are replete in this episode.

Arabian Sea is warming at one of the fastest rates. Its surface temperature has increased by 1.2°C to 1.4°C in the last four decades. Surface warming has increased the evaporation rate, increasing water vapour in the atmosphere. Simultaneously, a warmer atmosphere, again due to global warming, can hold more moisture, and dump it as extreme rainfall. This is the precise mechanism through which extreme rainfall and cyclones have increased over Arabian Peninsula and western India.

Dubai was hit by extreme rainfall in Feb too. In fact, an equally ferocious storm lashed Dubai on March 8, 2016. The trend is evident – cities around Arabian Sea, including Mumbai, will increasingly be hit by extreme rainfall and cyclones, as global warming intensifies. A warming planet will spare none, not even the wealthiest sheikhdom.

‘Fixing’ weather is a tricky slope:

The chatter on cloud seeding, thought misinformed, shows the public’s apprehension about such tech. Now is when to discuss them more vigorously, because such tech are becoming real and big, and can potentially harm the planet and cause conflict between countries.

Weather modification is being carried out worldwide without any international oversight.

Take cloud seeding, used in over 50 countries, including large-scale application in US, China and UAE. China plans to bring 5.5m sq km, an area equivalent to 1.5 India’s, under a weather modification programme by 2025. What will be its impact on neighbouring countries, and global climate?

Geo-engineering tech is developing rapidly. Solar radiation modification – a group of technologies to deliberately reflect sunlight into space to cool the planet is being seriously explored as a solution to climate crisis. It includes injecting sulphur droplets into stratosphere, spraying salty water into clouds over oceans, and scattering glass over polar ice to reflect sunlight into space. Some scientists are adding nutrients to the ocean to stimulate phytoplankton growth, to suck atmospheric CO2. Private companies, too, have entered this business. A Silicon Valley-backed start-up launched nearly 50 sulphur-filled balloons from Mexico into stratosphere to reflect sunlight. This company now plans to sell “cooling credits” for such launches.

Plus, there’s no oversight:

All these tech advances are being developed and tested without domestic or international regulations. International conventions (London Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution, Convention on Biological Diversity and Vienna Convention on Protection of Ozone Layer) prohibit geo-engineering. But these have been ignored. A few nations attempt at UN’s Environment Assembly to regulate or ban geo-engineering also failed.

But this ostrich-like attitude won’t solve the problem. At least 20 countries and many more corporations have the financial muscle to send planes into stratosphere and spray sulphur particles. Who will stop them? A multilateral framework to govern geo-engineering and large-scale weather modifications is the need of the hour; something that merits open and transparent discussion with the public.

Warming to a false dawn: It is time the world regulates the sector of solar geoengineering

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Unfortunately, the Vienna Convention is toothless, and its provisions have been ignored. Therefore, rebooting the Vienna Convention to govern SRM research is essential.

Solar radiation modification (SRM), a group of technologies to deliberately reflect sunlight into space to cool the planet, is now being seriously explored as a solution to the climate crisis. In theory, injecting sulphur droplets into the stratosphere, salty water into clouds, or scattering glass over polar ice could slow global warming by changing the Earth’s energy balance. But as these experiments involve risks at a planetary scale, we should proceed with abundant caution, communication and transparency, regulated by globally agreed standards. Instead, we see ethical and legal boundaries being crossed by unregulated experiments.

Reckless experimentation

Since 2017, a private initiative, initially called Ice911 Research and later the Arctic Ice Project, has scattered tiny glass spheres to reflect sunlight over 17,500 square metres (or three football fields) of Arctic ice, drawing protests from Alaska Native leaders. Full deployment would involve spheres over 100,000 square kilometres of the Arctic, an area the size of Bihar.

Some of the recent experiments are even more reckless. In 2022, an independent researcher in the UK released sulphur dioxide from a high-altitude weather balloon into the stratosphere and named it SATAN (Stratospheric Aerosol Transport and Nucleation). Around the same time, Make Sunsets, a Silicon Valley-backed start-up, launched nearly 50 such balloons from Mexico. This company now plans to sell “cooling credits” for such launches.

The start-up’s response to the question “Is this legal?” is: “Yes, we’ve been in contact with multiple US government agencies (FBI, FAA and NOAA). They are aware of our business and activities.” This non-answer is at the heart of the problem. Here’s why: Experiments that pose planetary risks violate international law if those risks are not clearly assessed, communicated, and consulted on beforehand. This is true even though there is a lack of specific national regulation, which some wrongly believe gives them a free rein. Let me elaborate.

Global warming or ozone hole

Two significant scientific assessments published in 2023 underlined the hazards of SRM. The first, the One Atmosphere report of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), found that “even as a temporary response option, large-scale SRM deployment is fraught with scientific uncertainties”. To address the evident “critical unresolved issues around equity, ethics and consent” around SRM, it recommended a “robust, equitable and rigorous trans-disciplinary scientific review process” based on a precautionary approach.

The second, the World Meteorological Organization’s 2022 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, found that while injecting sulphur into the stratosphere “could reduce some of the impacts of global warming, it cannot restore past climatic conditions and would very likely cause unintended consequences, including changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations”. It also found that the certainty of damage to the ozone layer increases with prolonged and more intensive use of these methods. This finding sits uncomfortably with a finding from UNEP’s One Atmosphere report: that SRM would need to be maintained for several decades or centuries to limit warming effectively and that abruptly stopping the intervention would lead to “rapid climate change that would increase risks for humans and ecosystems”. Therefore, SRM poses a binary choice: Short-term use could exacerbate global warming, whereas long-term deployment risks significantly damaging the ozone layer.

International law

These findings on the transboundary impacts of SRM have legal implications. There are many international conventions and agreements that call for regulation of activities threatening large-scale modification of planetary systems such as oceans, the ozone layer, climate, and biodiversity, even if their precise effect is not fully understood.

Take the case of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution. In 2008, the Convention prohibited a type of geoengineering known as ocean fertilisation, except for research that undertakes a risk assessment, develops a risk management plan, and commits to sharing and publicising findings through peer review. In 2010, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to prohibit geoengineering in general, with a narrow exception for research.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is particularly pertinent to Solar SRM. The Convention, ratified by all countries, obligates countries to cooperate on research on “substances, practices, processes and activities that may affect the ozone layer, and their cumulative effects”. Therefore, unregulated unilateral experiments that affect the ozone layer, such as SRM, violate this obligation.

Unfortunately, the Vienna Convention is toothless, and its provisions have been ignored. Therefore, rebooting the Vienna Convention to govern SRM research is essential. Such regulatory processes are also critical at the national level because government support for SRM research is growing in countries like the US and China. While the scale of experiments is currently small, they will likely grow more ambitious. Without a robust regulatory process, the fuzzy line between researching and carrying out geoengineering will be crossed without warning. The potential impacts—such as ozone layer degradation and sudden shifts in global climate—will affect populations worldwide, most of whom have had no say in whether such experiments should proceed.

This is especially important because many countries already use technologies to modify local weather. China plans to bring about 5.5 million square kilometres of its territory under a weather modification programme by 2025. A team in Australia is injecting saltwater into clouds over the Great Barrier Reef to prevent its disappearance. The leap from weather modification to SRM is close.

The stakes for countries like India in geoengineering cannot be overstated. Computational models indicate that SRM could negatively influence monsoon patterns, affecting agriculture and water availability. Hence, it is crucial for India to spearhead the development of an international regulatory framework for SRM, including outdoor experimentation. This proactive approach is essential, as decisions made today will have implications for generations to come.

Who’s to blame for the world’s most polluted capital?

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Delhi’s pollution levels keep rising with rising GRAP restrictions. This plan is only spiking congestion and chaos. Eight years in, it needs replacing with something that actually works.

Even as Delhi was enjoying a rare respite with cleaner air and sunny skies, dropped the news of its being the world’s most polluted capital city. What is needed is to discuss air pollution without falling into the trap of unproductive blame games and futile arguments.

To set the context, the air pollution season of 2023-24, stretching from October 1st to February 29th, was one of the worst in recent memory. It’s average Air Quality Index (AQI) was 304, a notable increase from 280 in 2022-23 and 278 in 2021-22.

Alarmingly, the city witnessed 92 days of ‘very poor’ air quality, compared to 73 in 2022-23 and 67 in 2021-22— nearly 40% increase in the last two years. The question we need to ask is why, despite concerted efforts, the needle on pollution levels is moving in the opposite direction?

Usual Suspects

These columns have previously delved into the primary drivers of our national air quality crisis—extensive use of biomass and coal, along with dust from widespread land degradation. Today, we scrutinize the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), a key strategy to mitigate the city’s hazardous pollution levels.

GRAP Ambit

First, let’s understand what GRAP is and whether it even merits being called an “Action Plan”. The GRAP schedule ranges from Stage I to IV and gradually intensifies restrictions on different economic activities. However, as the table below shows, most measures under Stages I to III contain activities a city should do throughout the year, irrespective of air quality. Proper waste management, prohibiting open burning, traffic management, enforcement of pollution laws and dust suppression on roads and construction should be done as routine, not as an emergency response.

The plan reserves its more draconian measures — construction bans, the ban on mining and vehicle restrictions — for its final stages when air quality plunges into severe categories. Yet, the evidence that these interventions bring about significant air quality improvements is scant. Our analysis suggests that reductions in pollution levels are more closely tied to natural phenomena like rainfall or changes in wind speed rather than the direct impact of GRAP’s stringent measures.

Meteorological Miracle

Consider the sudden dip in pollution levels on 17th-20th October, 2023, 10th-12th November, 2023 and 1st-9th February, 2024. They were caused by rainfall. Likewise, on days when AQI was less than 300, the wind speed was generally above 9 km/hour. So, meteorology decides the air quality in the city, not GRAP measures. Yet, we have continued with GRAP for the last eight years without asking whether it is even working.

Chaos and Pollution

The fact is, the GRAP restrictions, apart from hurting lakhs of jobs, especially for low-income families, are likely causing more pollution and chaos. Take, for instance, the chaos at Delhi airport in January 2024.

Minister of Civil Aviation Jyotirao Scindhia blamed the delays and cancellations on the enforcement of GRAP-IV, which stopped the recarpeting of a runway. While one can argue that the Delhi airport could have done the maintenance before winter, the fact is that because of the GRAP IV-induced construction ban, the number of passengers who faced delays was 4.8 lakh in January 2024 compared to 2.4 lakh in January 2023. Is pollution due to the recarpeting of a runway more than the pollution from thousands of waiting and hovering aircraft and traffic chaos at the airport?

Likewise, the restrictions on commercial vehicles, intended to curb pollution, have had the opposite effect, exacerbating congestion and chaos at the city’s borders.

The GRAP restrictions are counterproductive and impose unjustifiable costs on the city. They also harm by giving the sense that something is being done to stop pollution when the opposite is true. Thus, it is time to rethink mechanisms such as GRAP and find real answers for air pollution in the city.

Skill India Mission: Short Courses, No Employable Skills and a Lack of Jobs

Posted on by Dr. Harshil Sharma

The India Skills Report 2021 argues that nearly half of India’s graduates are unemployable. Open unemployment was barely 2.1% in 2012 and had already nearly tripled to 6.1% in 2018, the highest rate in 45 years of India’s labour force surveys.

Ahead of the Lok Sabha election, the crisis of unemployment unites India as few things do. Why are important sections of India out of work? How do unemployed Indians live? Why is the work available not enough to earn a livelihood? How do Indians secure employment? How long is the wait? With India out of work, The Wire unveils a series that explores one of the most important poll issues of our time.

The Congress announced, as part of its manifesto for the 2024 Parliamentary elections, a Right to Apprenticeship (RA) for all post-secondary certificate/degree/diploma holders. It guarantees all the individuals under 25 years of age, a right to apprenticeship, with firms where they can be trained and work together, based on duality principles of the Germanic skilling model.

India has always had a supply-driven vocational skilling ecosystem, where youth are getting educated but not ‘skilled’ in the true sense. This calls for scrutiny of performance of few flagship schemes of government under skill development (SD) initiatives in India and underlines why reforms like RA are a step in the right direction.

Quantitative evidence related to Skill India Mission

Vocational education and training (VET) has historically been neglected in India for over half a century until the 2000s (just as school education had remained neglected in India’s planning strategy) – the costs of which we continue to pay today. In 1991, during the liberalisation of the economy, 52% or half of India’s population was illiterate and mostly concentrated on agriculture.

Although school education received a newfound emphasis in public spending in the 1990s, VET still continued to be neglected (although that was not the case for technical higher education). The 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) was the first plan that had a chapter on skill development. As a result of this, India’s manufacturing and services workforce still have individuals with very low levels of education. Worse, hardly any worker has received formal VET.

According to the National Sample Survey Organisation Employment-Unemployment Survey (NSSO EUS) 2011-12, only 2.2% of the workforce in India had received formal VET. As per the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data, the percentage of formally vocationally trained individuals decreased from 2.2% (10.43 million) in 2011-12 to 2% (9.14 million) in 2017-18 but rose to 3.7% (21.05 million) in 2022-23. Additionally, as per the National Scholarship Portal (NSP) 2015, only 2.7% of India’s workforce has received formal skill training, compared to 52% in the United States, 80% in Japan, and 96% in South Korea.

In the 2024 budget speech, the Union government claimed that 14 million individuals were trained under the Skill India Mission, which included upskilling and reskilling 5.4 million. But in reality, there appears to be a disconnect between the claims of the government and the ground reality.

There is also a stark disparity between these numbers and targets set in the National Policy on Skill Development and Entrepreneurship 2015, which aimed to skill 400 million workers by 2022 and remains a distant dream. Importantly, 300 million of these workers were to be given Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) – which was required since over 95% of India’s non-farm workers acquire their skills in the unorganised sector in informal work. But these skills are not certified, hence, not recognised.

Informal learning deserves recognition and certification so that such workers can acquire some dignity in the labour market and certificates could possibly help them make a claim for higher wages. Hence, the National Skill Development Mission (SDM) and National Policy on Skill Development and Entrepreneurship were the government’s response to the very low level of formal vocational training among the Indian workforce. SDM was implemented through schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDUGKY) and the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS), to address employability gaps.

Unit level analysis of 2017-18 PLFS data stated that 22% of the total vocationally trained individuals undertook less than six-month courses, and that share has now risen to 37%. More worrying is that in 2017, 29% individuals used to take two-year or longer courses, which is now reduced to 14.29%. There is a rapid decrease in the duration of SD courses. So, overall more people are getting degrees/certificates or formal education but the duration of these courses is very short – in some cases only 10 days.

Proliferation of short-term training to project large increases in trained workers

What is the logic behind this rise in short term training (STT) in formal vocational education when, according to 2017-18 PLFS data, 96.4% of individuals in India spend less than 15 years in formal education, and that number has now decreased to 95.8%. This anomaly requires a theoretical deep dive into the skilling strategy adopted by the government.

For the flagship PMKVY, the official website data claims that 54% of the trainees are placed through this scheme. Actual data analysis shows that of the total 12,454,858 candidates assessed, 11,041,125 candidates were certified, and only 2,451,517 candidates were placed, i.e. only 22.2% were placed.

In fact, PMKVY has been Skill India Mission’s flagship programme and yet, not only is the training all short term, the placement rate shows no improvement over time: placement rate for PMKVY 1.0 (which started in 2015) is 18.4%, PMKVY 2.0 is 23.4%, and PMKVY 3.0 is 10.1%. However, the programme is still being funded — PMKVY 4 is starting this year with a budget outlay of Rs 1,200 crore approximately.

The sector-wise placement rate showed only 54% for electronics and hardware and 20% for apparel, while the placement rate of the rest of the eight sectors, namely construction, BFSI, beauty and wellness, etc., was lower than 10%. So, how these numbers add up to 54% is anybody’s guess.

Remarkably, ahead of the run up to the Lok Sabha elections the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has shut down its dashboards and data sources in the last month – why, we are left to guess.

The rise of these short-term skilling courses only increases the number of individuals who may possess a certificate of being skilled, but in reality, they may lack the skills to carry out a particular task efficiently due to the lack of proper training.

Due to this, there is a desperate need for quality checks of these short-term courses. These courses produce half-trained workers, and the degrees/certificates of these individuals don’t carry much value in the labour market as workers essentially don’t learn required skills through these courses. Thereby, they are not able to secure a job after completion of these training programmes. This skilling system produces half-educated and quarter-trained personnel.

Recognition of prior learning in National Skills Policy – serious issues

There has not been a single government report published analysing the efficiency and quality of STT and RPL courses under PMKVY. For these courses, the total duration can be as short as 24 hours or 3 days of training. On an average, an RPL course is for 15-day duration (usually offered by the NSDC funded private vocational training providers) where the quality of these courses — credentials of the training providers, assessment agencies’ diligence, and assessment by certification authority — is highly questionable along with numerous cases of forgery.

Apprenticeship programmes

Since 1961, India has had an Apprenticeship Act, which requires all registered firms to accept apprentices for at least one year or more. About ten years ago, 2,50,000 apprentices existed in registered non-farm enterprises.

On August 19, 2016, the government of India launched the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS), which had a budget of Rs 10,000 crore. The main objective of the scheme was to promote apprenticeship training. Though the target was to train 50 lakh apprentices by 2020, only 20 lakh apprentices could be trained by 2022. Out of the envisioned Rs 10,000 crore, only around Rs 650 crore were disbursed to the states between the period of 2017 to 2022. NAPS 2 was launched in 2023, and no figures for the same are currently available.

An ILO study in 2022 concluded that the amendments in the 1961 Act have contributed to some increase in the number of apprentices in India. Out of a workforce of 570 million in 2022-23 (as per PLFS), the apprentices were just over a half million, a rise from 2.5 lakh ten years ago.

Clearly, the amendments have not worked the magic. This is not surprising, given practically the entire private corporate sector has largely ignored the apprenticeship schemes.

Only the central and state public enterprises have tended to fulfil their obligations. MSMEs still continue to ignore the scheme. The result: Germany, with a 46 million workforce has at least 6 million apprentices; India has, by contrast, half a million. The difference arises from the industry/employer involvement in pre-employment training – which makes India’s approach supply-driven, but successful VET programmes around the globe have been demand-driven.

What India’s youth need urgently, as 6 million or more join the labour force each year – and over a 100 million wait in the wings as Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) – is a pathway for education of a general academic nature or vocational or technical manner. That requires the Union government to think seriously and urgently about employers/industry in the skilling process.

The India Skills Report 2021 argues that nearly half of India’s graduates are unemployable. Open unemployment was barely 2.1% in 2012 and had already nearly tripled to 6.1% in 2018, the highest rate in 45 years of India’s labour force surveys. The total number of unemployed was one crore in 2012 before the BJP came to power – but it had tripled by 2018 to three crore.

The youth unemployment rates went through the roof for those: with middle school (class 8) education, rising from 4.5% to 13.7%; with secondary education (class 10) from 5.9% to 14.4%; and with higher secondary (class 12) education from 10.8% to 23.8%. Educated unemployment worsened sharply. For graduates, the unemployment rate rose from 19.2% to 35.8%; and for postgraduates from 21.3% to 36.2% (2022-23).

In the light of educated unemployment, lack of takers of skill programmes, low-quality training and abysmal placement rate, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of the skill development landscape.

India, which is already suffering from high educated unemployment, in the future is moving towards the problem of skill underutilisation and over-education (or ‘degree mania’). Mere rhetoric and inflated statistics will no longer suffice.

It is imperative that the government prioritises quality over quantity, ensuring that every individual emerges from these programmes truly equipped to contribute meaningfully to the workforce. Anything less would be a disservice to the aspirations of millions seeking a better future through skill development.

Skill policies and schemes have completely failed and need a big overhaul on the lines of successful skill formation models like Swiss and Germanic skill models which are based on duality principles with youth and industry at centre stage. A Right to Apprenticeship to every youth should be an urgent priority.

Santosh Mehrotra is a Research Fellow in IZA Institute of Labour Economics, Bonn, Germany and Dr. Harshil Sharma is Programme Associate at iForest.

Sunlight-Dimming Climate Schemes Need Worldwide Oversight

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

As the climate crisis intensifies, experiments to “cool the planet” by reflecting solar radiation proliferate. Without proper global and national regulation, they will worsen the crisis.

Deliberately reflecting sunlight into space to cool the planet—solar radiation modification (SRM)—is now under serious exploration/investigation as a solution to the climate crisis. In theory, firing sulfur droplets into the stratosphere, spraying salty water into clouds, or scattering glass over polar ice could slow global warming. But as these experiments involve risks at a planetary scale, we should proceed with abundant caution, communication and transparency, regulated by globally agreed standards. Instead, we see ethical and legal boundaries being crossed by unregulated experiments.

Over the past decade, influential institutions—Harvard University, the University of Washington and a four-university partnership in the U.K. that includes the University of Oxford—have come close to conducting outdoor SRM experiments. But these initiatives ended up pausing their work following reconsideration of the scientific and political risks and pushback from local activists. Yet some groups involved in solar deflection experiments have recklessly opted to move their projects away from academic oversight.

Since 2017, a private initiative, initially called Ice911 Research and later the Arctic Ice Project, has scattered tiny glass spheres to reflect sunlight over 17,500 square meters (or three football fields) of Arctic ice], drawing protests from Alaskan Native leaders. Full deployment would involve spheres over up to 100,000 square kilometers of the Arctic, an area the size of Kentucky. More recent experiments only exceed this disregard. In 2022, an independent researcher in the U.K. released sulfur dioxide from a high-altitude weather balloon into the stratosphere and named it SATAN (Stratospheric Aerosol Transport and Nucleation). Around the same time, Make Sunsets, a Silicon Valley-backed start-up, began launching similar balloons. This company now plans to sell “cooling credits” for such launches.

The start-up’s response to the question “Is this legal?” is: “Yes, we’ve been in contact with multiple U.S. government agencies (FBI, FAA and NOAA). They are aware of our business and activities.” This non-answer uncovers the heart of the solar radiation modification problem. Here’s why: experiments that pose planetary risks violate international laws such as the 1985 Vienna Convention protecting upper atmosphere ozone, if those risks are not clearly assessed, communicated, and consulted on beforehand, which these startups and individuals have not done. This is true even in the absence of specific national regulation, which some wrongly believe gives them free rein.

Two significant scientific assessments published in 2023 underlined the hazards of such sunlight deflection ventures. The first, the One Atmosphere report of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) found that “even as a temporary response option, large-scale SRM deployment is fraught with scientific uncertainties.” To address the evident “critical unresolved issues around equity, ethics and consent,” around SRM, it recommended a “robust, equitable and rigorous trans-disciplinary scientific review process” based on a precautionary approach.

The second, the World Meteorological Organization’s 2022 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, found that while injecting sulfur into the stratosphere “could reduce some of the impacts of global warming, it cannot restore past climatic conditions and would very likely cause unintended consequences, including changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations.” It also found that the certainty of damage to the ozone layer increases with more prolonged and more intense use of these methods. This finding sits uncomfortably with a finding from UNEP’s report: that SRM would need to be maintained for several decades to centuries to limit warming effectively and that abruptly stopping the intervention would lead to “rapid climate change that would increase risks for humans and ecosystems.” Therefore SRM poses a binary choice: short-term use could exacerbate global warming, whereas long-term deployment risks significantly damaging the ozone layer.

These findings have legal implications. Solar radiation modification cannot be contained to the air above the country from where it is deployed. The duty to avoid cross-border harm is enshrined in multiple international environmental agreements. These agreements support the precautionary regulation of activities threatening large-scale modification of planetary systems such as oceans, the ozone layer, climate and biodiversity, even if their precise effect is not fully understood.

Consider the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution. In 2008 its parties agreed to prohibit a type of geoengineering known as ocean fertilization, except for research that undertakes a risk assessment, develops a risk management plan, and commits to sharing and publicizing findings through peer review. In 2010, because of its inherent high risks and potential impacts on biodiversity and people, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to prohibit geoengineering in general, with a narrow exception for research.

Because the U.S. is not a party to the CBD, and the London Convention only regulates ocean fertilization, there is a perception that spraying sulfur into the stratosphere from U.S. territory is not covered by international law. This is wrong. The U.S. and all other countries are a party to the Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol. A key feature of the convention is that it obligates countries to cooperate on research on “substances, practices, processes and activities that may affect the ozone layer, and their cumulative effects”. Therefore, unregulated unilateral experiments that affect the ozone layer, such as SRM, violate this obligation.

Unfortunately, as the Vienna Convention currently lacks a structured research assessment process similar to the London Convention, its provisions have been ignored. Therefore, rebooting the Vienna Convention to govern SRM research is essential. Such regulatory processes are also critical at the national level because government support for SRM research is growing. While the scale of experiments is currently small, they will likely grow more ambitious. Without a robust regulatory process, the fuzzy line between researching and carrying out geoengineering will be crossed without warning. The potential impacts—such as degradation of the ozone layer and sudden shifts in global climate—will affect populations around the world, most of whom have had no say in whether such experiments should proceed.

This is especially important because many countries already use technologies to modify local weather. China plans to bring about 5.5 million square kilometers of its territory under a weather modification program by 2025. A team in Australia is injecting saltwater into clouds over the Great Barrier Reef to prevent its disappearance. The leap from weather modification to SRM is close. Therefore, the world must start putting in place a multilateral framework to govern geoengineering like SRM. The starting point of this is to regulate outdoor experimentation.

Recent years have seen record deployments in solar and wind power—demonstrated, cost-effective solutions that, unlike SRM, are accessible to developing countries. We desperately need massive investments in carbon-free energy to decarbonize the global economy. This is the moral hazard in solutions like SRM: they draw attention and resources away from what should be a singular focus in a critical decade: decarbonization.

Switching to green power justly

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

As can be seen from the case of Maharashtra, planning is essential for a just transition

One only has to read the newspaper headlines to realise that climate change is no longer a distant threat. For instance, a headline from January this year announced, “Mumbai experiences its hottest January day with temperatures soaring above 35 degrees Celsius.” Another alarming headline highlighted, “Delayed snowfall, forest fires, migration, and dwindling tourism signal a distress call from India’s mountains.” These examples vividly illustrate the local repercussions of global warming. They underscore that the real journey toward a sustainable future will unfold at the district and state levels. But what strategy can states and districts adopt to become the focal point of climate action? My colleagues and I explored this inquiry last year, selecting Maharashtra as a case study.

Maharashtra, both highly vulnerable to the changing climate and a major greenhouse (GHG) gas emitter, presents a microcosm of challenges posed by the climate crisis at the sub-national level. On the one hand, the climatic impacts will affect the state’s growth and development; on the other hand, transitioning away from fossil fuel, essential to reduce emissions, threatens to close thousands of factories and leave behind millions of workers. The critical question we explored was how Maharashtra can adapt to these climatic shifts and transition towards sustainable energy sources without compromising its economic vitality and social welfare. Our research suggests that the solution lies in a “just transition” — a strategic approach that weaves together climate action, green growth, and social justice. Let me elaborate.

Understanding climate vulnerability

In most studies on climate vulnerability, Maharashtra emerges as one of the most vulnerable states in the country. This is because climate change-driven extreme weather events are impacting every part of the state. While regions of Marathwada and Vidarbha confront drought, the Konkan region experiences flood. The state has also been experiencing increasing heatwaves in the past two decades. A deadly example of this was the heatwave in Kharghar last year in which 14 persons died, and scores were hospitalised. Mumbai, the country’s financial capital, is now hammered by floods and heat. All this is translating into a massive loss to the economy.

Take the agriculture sector, which is badly affected by drought, floods, hailstorms, and cyclones. About three-fourths of Maharashtra’s cropped areas are vulnerable to these extreme events, which is now causing real losses. In 2021-22, for example, the state government sanctioned about ₹ 4300 crore to farmers as compensation for the crop losses. This increased to ₹ 7200 crore in 2022-23 – a two-third increase from the previous year.

But these costs are just a fraction of the total losses, as the state is also paying for infrastructure damage and repairs; the losses to businesses and individuals are likely manifold due to work disruptions and loss of property.

Navigating fossil fuel dependence

But Maharashtra is also one of the major emitters of GHGs, accounting for 10% of the country’s emissions. The emissions have grown at 4.1% per year since 2011-12,  a rate higher than the national average. Besides, its per capita emissions are 2.5 tonnes, 15% higher than the national average.

These high emissions are because the state’s economic engines run on fossil fuels. It has the largest fleet of coal-based power plants and is the second-largest consumer of petroleum products. The state is the largest manufacturer of automobiles and the fifth-largest coal producer. Besides, it has the third-largest number of factories in the country, about 40% of which are heavily dependent on coal, oil, and gas.

The transition to green energy will affect all these sectors, but most importantly, it will impact over 1.0 million formal workers and a vast number of low-paid informal workers.

Just Transition Landscape

The top three sectors facing challenges within the next 10 years are coal mining, coal-based power, and automobile. Over 60% of the currently operational coal mines in Maharashtra will likely close in the next 10 years due to economic unviability and resource exhaustion. Similarly, one-fourth of the thermal power fleet too is likely to be decommissioned due to economic and environmental factors. On the other hand, the automobile sector, which accounts for 7% of the gross state domestic product (GSDP), will be impacted by the electric vehicle transition, especially 2 and 3-wheelers. These three sectors require transition plans soon to minimise disruptions to jobs and livelihoods.

Geographically, the green energy transition will affect 14 districts with a large concentration of fossil fuel-dependent industries. Many of these districts are also highly vulnerable to climatic impacts. For example, Nagpur, Chandrapur, and Yavatmal have large concentrations of coal mines, coal-based power plants, and factories. These districts are also draught-prone and highly vulnerable to extreme events. The other hotspot is the Pune district, with a large concentration of the auto industry.

Just Transition Plan

To deal with the climate emergency and the transition to green energy, the state needs a multi-pronged approach to enable a just transition. 

  • Firstly, the state needs a comprehensive just transition policy focusing on economic diversification, green energy and industry development in the hotspot districts, land and infrastructure repurposing, workforce development, and social infrastructure investments.
  • It must also develop tailored regional plans for hotspot districts to prioritise interventions and attract investments. The priority regions for such a plan are the Chandrapur-Nagpur-Yavatmal and Pune clusters.
  • Repurposing land and factories will be essential to avoid economic disruptions. In Maharashtra, over 20,000 ha of land is available with closed and unprofitable mines, which can be repurposed for the development of green energy and green industries. Similarly, new industries can be set up in place of old power plants. This will also avoid the pains of land acquisition and displacement.
  • Preparing the workforce for the green economy through skilling and reskilling will be essential to create millions of green jobs and push for the next stage of growth.
  • Lastly, significant investments would be required from public and private sources to develop green energy, industry and infrastructure. Some existing funds, like the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) funds with coal districts, can be used to kick-start transition measures.

The road ahead is challenging for the states, but the rewards are immense. By prioritising a just transition, Maharashtra can navigate the disruptions due to economic and climatic change, create new green jobs, and achieve its ambitious goal of a trillion-dollar GSDP by 2030.

A balanced consensus: Despite scepticism, UAE has delivered a balanced package on climate action at COP28

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

These countries have historically drawn a red line, refusing to recognize the necessity of phasing down oil and gas to address the climate crisis.

It was perhaps preordained that an agreement on reducing fossil fuel production and consumption should have happened at the COP28 climate negotiations in Dubai, presided over by the CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies. 

For three decades, the international community has avoided the direct mention of fossil fuels in climate agreements. The burning of coal, oil, and gas—the primary drivers of global warming—remained a spectre haunting negotiations, unacknowledged due to the staunch resistance from major oil and gas producers. These countries have historically drawn a red line, refusing to recognize the necessity of phasing down oil and gas to address the climate crisis.

However, COP28 shattered this status quo. The decision to transition away from fossil fuels, made in a petrostate and against the preferences of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), marks a significant leap towards acknowledging and addressing the root cause of climate change.

The agreement, aiming for a “just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels,” is a nuanced wording to start reducing the production and consumption of fossil fuels. While it might not explicitly call for a phase-down or a phase-out, it sends an unmistakable message to the fossil fuel industry: the era of unchecked fossil fuel consumption is drawing to a close.

Yet, COP28 will be remembered for more than just this ground-breaking agreement. It also will be remembered for operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund on the very first day of the conference to support vulnerable developing countries in dealing with climate disasters. While the initial pledges to the fund remains about $800 million (with the host the United Arab Emirates contributing $100 million and the United States just $17.5 million), which is far less than what is needed, the operationalisation of the fund marks an important milestone in the climate justice movement. Dubai COP also enhanced the mitigation ambition by adopting the decision taken by the G20 under India’s presidency to triple the renewable energy capacity and double the energy efficiency improvements globally by 2030.

Missed opportunity

But not all went well. The shortcomings of the Global Stocktaking (GST) process were glaringly evident. This critical component, designed to evaluate global progress in addressing climate change, acknowledged the stark reality: current efforts are insufficient, steering us towards a worrying 2.7°C rise in global temperatures. However, the GST’s failure to assign clear responsibility and provide actionable guidance for both developed and developing countries to enhance ambition for the 2025 emission reduction pledges was a significant missed opportunity. Especially concerning was its failure in highlighting the unfulfilled commitments of developed nations and its apparent leniency towards China, the world’s largest emitter. This oversight not only undermines the process’s credibility but also stalls the momentum needed for meaningful global climate action.

The fact is that the developed countries have consistently not met any of their commitments on emissions reduction or financial support. They continue to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure and emit more than their fair share. For instance, the US presently is the largest producer of oil and gas, producing nearly a quarter of global natural gas and 15% of world’s crude oil. The problem is there is no sign that it is phasing down fossil fuels as the Biden administration has recently approved new offshore oil and gas lease. The developed countries have also not met their collective finance obligations of proving $100 billion to the developing countries. Likewise, China’s GHG emissions, which is a quarter of the global emissions, needs to peak and reduce quickly to have any chance of meeting 1.5 OC target. Yet, GST failed to point out this crucial issue. The lessons from the first GST are that global climate action needs more than just pledges; it demands accountability, transparency, and equitable responsibility-sharing.

Business takes centre stage

COP28 marked a significant shift in the narrative of global climate conferences, not just in its scale but also in the composition of its attendees. This year’s conference, hosted in the vast expanses of Dubai’s Expo-City, shattered previous records with its 70,000 attendees and an extravagant half-a-billion-dollar budget. Such figures not only dwarfed the attendance of COP21, where the Paris Agreement was born, but also set a new precedent for the financial scale of climate conferences

What stood out most prominently was the robust presence of the business sector. Industry leaders, CEOs of major oil companies, and financiers were present in significant numbers, each bringing their perspectives to the climate table. This marked departure from the usual attendee list drew mixed reactions. Some critics likened the event to a trade show, voicing concerns over the influence of business interests and lobbyists in climate negotiations. However, this criticism overlooks a crucial aspect of climate action: the indispensable role of businesses.

The significant turnout of the business community reflects a growing recognition within the business world of the dual realities of threat and opportunity presented by the climate crisis. This shift in perception is crucial to realign capital—a move away from climate-damaging activities towards sustainable practices. The presence of businesses at COP28 suggests that this realignment may be starting to take shape.

For years, experts in sustainable development have advocated for a synergy between environmental concerns and business interests. COP28 can be seen as a tangible step towards this goal. It highlighted that the path to a sustainable future is not just the responsibility of governments and environmental activists but also of the corporate world.

Overall, the ‘UAE Consensus’ is a bold step forward. The decisions in it, and the scale at which they were showcased, reflect a growing recognition of the urgency of climate action and the need for substantive policy shifts—even in regions highly reliant on fossil fuels. Central to this shift is the emerging narrative of a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels—a theme that will increasingly dominate global discourse as countries internalise the imperative of shutting down fossil fuel establishments and diversifying their economies.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial