Category: Op-ed
Heatwaves & Cool Heads
We shouldn’t panic about summer extremes, because there are well-understood solutions. The trick is to implement them smartly
Dear Sir,
I write to you from Lucknow, hoping you could answer some of my questions.
1. Are we inevitably headed towards an unlivable India due to heatwaves?
2. Do you believe Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is imminent? Will India be forced to use this technology?
3. What can we do to adapt to increasing heat?
4. Are you optimistic about the future?
Wishing for a response.
(Name withheld)
As I was gearing up to write my monthly column, I received the above email from a young man who is clearly worried about the future. Given that his concerns are shared by millions of young people in our country, I have decided to use this platform to address them. I believe it is critical to empower the next generation with the right knowledge and perspective instead of debilitating them with fear.
Since the publication of Kim Stanley Robinson’s fictional novel The Ministry for the Future, some climate scientists have painted a doomsday scenario about deadly heatwaves in the Indian sub-continent. The book features an outlandish storyline in which a small Indian town is hit by an unsurvivable wet-bulb temperature heatwave, resulting in the death of all its inhabitants within a week. The Indian government responds by using SAI, which involves spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic
eruption. The plot also includes an eco-terrorist network, the “Children of Kali”, which uses drones to crash passenger jets to protest against continuing carbon emissions.
Now think about the absurdity of the plot. It is inconceivable that any government would allow its citizens to die in high heat and humidity for a week without providing assistance or transferring them to a safer location. Similarly, SAI would not immediately cool the area or
save lives. It would take months before the planet starts cooling due to sulphur spray. Thus, there is no logical reason for the Indian government to spray sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere just after the deadly heatwave.
Despite these improbabilities, Robinson’s book has acquired cult status, partly due to endorsement from the likes of Barak Obama and Bill Gates, leading to the distortion in the views of impressionable minds. So my first answer to the young man is that deadly heatwaves will affect us badly, but they will not make India unlivable. We have a range of adaptation technologies and measures to deal with them. And we do not need technologies like SAI, with its enormous uncertainty and unintended consequences, to manage extreme heat. Let me explain.
It is a fact that heatwaves have increased every decade since the 1980s, and they now engulf most of the country. The worrying part is that temperature and humidity are rising together, leading to high wet-bulb temperatures. For example, the recent deaths in Kharghar in
Maharashtra were due to a combination of heat and humidity. The temperature was only about 36-37°C, but the humidity was 50-60%, taking the wet-bulb temperature near 30°C, which is dangerous for manual labour and the vulnerable population outside.
Therefore, there is no doubt that we have entered an age of hot extremes when the global temperature has increased by only 1.2°C from the pre-industrial era. At 1.5°C warming, there will be more severe heatwaves. At 2°C, “deadly” heatwaves would frequently cross 35°C
wet-bulb temperatures, which is the limit of human survivability. In addition, the number of days workers will have difficulty working outside will increase to 200-250 per year, which our economy cannot afford. So what do we do about this? Should we allow temperatures to keep increasing and then spray sulphur to cool the planet, or should we try to limit warming and adapt to heatwaves?
The answer is obvious: reducing carbon emissions is the cheapest and the best option to limit warming and deadly heatwaves. This we can do by deploying existing technologies – solar and wind energy, energy-efficient appliances, green buildings, electric vehicles, reducing
wasteful consumption – that will also support green growth and jobs. The good news is that these technologies are picking up. For example, in 2022, 40% of global electricity was produced from non-fossil sources (25% in India). If this trend continues, we can decarbonize
the global electricity supply by 2040-50, limiting warming to below 2°C.
Similarly, we can re-design our cities and buildings to adapt to heatwaves. This entails incorporating more open spaces, green areas, and water bodies into urban landscapes. Additionally, our buildings must be energy-efficient, with well-insulated walls and roofs and effective shading and ventilation systems to maintain a cool interior. But still, we will have to provide some cooling solutions to all buildings considering the high heat intensity. However, the current cooling technology, vapour-compression air conditioners, is part of the problem
due to its high energy consumption, harmful refrigerants, and contribution to heat islands. Therefore, we must replace outdated technologies with a new generation of affordable and green cooling solutions.
Finally, we need a new heat code based on the wet bulb temperature to avoid incidents like Kharghar. Many regions now experience wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 30°C during certain parts of the year, and our guidelines based on dry-bulb temperature do not capture
this.
I am optimistic about the future because every solution I have mentioned here is achievable. Moreover, the decarbonization trajectory globally and in India is moving in the right direction. Furthermore, I see the younger generation being more mindful and proactive about
addressing the climate crisis than my generation ever was. So my advice to the young man is: be more optimistic as yours will be the first generation that will play a heroic role in saving the planet.
It’s them or us, not all of us
Ukraine war showed rich countries can find money for diversifying their own energy supply but not for global climate finance. It also showed how fossil fuel companies exploited governments’ energy security concerns
The war in Ukraine has killed thousands, displaced millions and damaged the region’s economy. But the cost of this war is being borne worldwide, especially by the poor.
The war’s most significant consequence has been an extraordinary increase in food and fuel prices. As a result, most of the world’s population has paid through its nose to procure basic food and energy.
According to a recent study, the war has doubled household energy costs globally. In the poorer parts of the world, like Sub-Saharan Africa, household energy costs increased by up to three times the global average, pushing millions back into energy poverty. The prices of fuels were so high that the total energy bill of the world reached $10 trillion for the first time in history in 2022.
Likewise, the global Food Price Index (FPI) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was between 154.7 to 159.7 from March to June 2022, the highest level since the index’s inception in 1990.
The combined impact of higher fuel and food costs has pushed millions of households into absolute poverty. The increase in fuel price alone is estimated to have driven 78-141 million people below the World Bank’s extreme poverty line.
But the misery of the poor has been a bonanza for the rich. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has turned out to be the biggest profiteering opportunity, especially for the fossil fuel industry.
At about $4.0 trillion, the highest ever in history. For comparison, India’s GDP in 2022 was approximately $3.5 trillion. So, a handful of companies and their shareholders made more money than the value of all goods and services produced by a country of 1.35 billion people. Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, is projected to have a net profit of $170 billion, and the six largest western oil companies made over $200 billion. The worst part is that these extra profits were paid through fossil fuel subsidies.
In 2022, government subsidies worldwide for fossil fuel consumption skyrocketed to more than $1.5 trillion, again the highest in history. The largest increase in the subsidy was in the developed world, especially Europe, which never gets tired of preaching the virtue of ending fossil fuel subsidies in the developing world to combat the climate crisis.
The most critical piece of this high price-profit-subsidy story is that some of the money made by the fossil fuel companies is currently being invested in exploring, producing and selling more coal, oil and gas in the name of “energy security”. In 2022, an estimated $560 billion was invested by the Exxon Mobile and Chevron of the world to produce enough oil and gas to blow up the 1.5 OC target of the Paris Agreement. These oil and gas projects, termed “climate bombs”, will result in the emissions of at least 125 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to a third of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5 OC target. So, the fossil fuel industry has exploited the energy security anxieties unleashed by this war to further its business goals and fast forward the world towards a catastrophic climate crisis.
But the war has also shown an alternate vision of energy security which can be achieved in a much greener way if the governments of the world decide to do so. Take the case of Europe.
Europe’s most remarkable response to the war has been the unprecedented speed with which it has eliminated its dependence on Russian gas. Just before the war, nearly half of the EU’s natural gas came from Russia; today, it is about 10%. Europe achieved this by importing expensive LNG, burning more coal, and making the highest-ever investments in green energy – solar, wind, battery and electric vehicles. According to a recent estimate, these actions may have advanced the green energy transition in the EU by a few years. However, the EU and the UK had to shell out an additional half a trillion dollars for this transition in 2022.
That suggest rich countries, who dilly-dally on providing tens of billions to the developing countries as climate finance, suddenly found hundreds of billions for diversifying their energy supply. This shows that if the developed countries want, they can mobilize enough resources to accelerate their climate actions and support developing countries in mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis.
The EU was not the only region that has made record investments in green energy. According to BloombergNEF, globally, for the first time, investment in green energy technologies exceeded $1.1 trillion and was equal to the money spent on fossil fuels. The highest investments were made in China and the US; the EU was in third position. While the total investments are still way short of what is required to meet the climate goals, it is an important milestone. And this milestone has been achieved again because of energy security considerations.
So, the war has given us a glimpse of both the worst and the best scenario for the energy transition and climate crisis. It is up to us to choose which one we will pursue, climate bombs or green energy. Similarly, the world has to decide whether it wants death, poverty and profiteering or a peaceful solution to end this war. Again, the choice is ours.
Why India’s hills must stop copying the plains
Hills, stop copying the plains: Joshimath shows we need a radically different growth model for Himalayan states
Joshimath is a symptom, the disease is the uncontrolled growth model.
What is unfolding in Joshimath is a tragedy. But this tragedy is not due to climate change; climate change-linked extreme events may have exacerbated the situation, but the sinking of Joshimath is our doing.
The fact is this disaster is not unexpected; it was foretold. Over 50 years, the sinking of Joshimath has been documented by multiple committees of the Supreme Court and the Union and state governments. They warned against haphazard urbanization, large-scale hydropower development and cutting of hills to widen roads. But time and again, their warnings were ignored. The result is that the fate of Joshimath is sealed. Even with engineering solutions, a part of this historic city will have to be abandoned, and the rest will struggle to survive. So, how have we reached this stage, and how do we prevent many more Joshimath’s in the future?
It is important to understand that Joshimath is a symptom; the disease is the strong push in the Himalayan states to replicate the development model of the plains – big infrastructure projects, wider roads, and high-rise buildings. It is this uncontrolled growth model that is seriously compromising their environmental security.
Destructive growth
Let’s look at the hydroelectric projects (HEPs) in Uttarakhand. The state presently has 39 large and small HEPs with an installed capacity of 3600 MW. In addition, there are 25 HEPs worth 2400 MW capacity under construction. So, in a couple of years, Uttarakhand will have 64 HEPs of 6000 MW capacity.
But what is existing and under construction is just a fraction of what is being planned. There are 180 HEPs of 21200 MW capacity in the pipeline. Many have already obtained environmental clearances from the environment ministry and state agencies. Even if we assume that only half of these projects reach fruition, Uttarakhand will have 150 HEPs, and its hydropower capacity will increase four-fold from the present. This is plainly unsustainable.
Scientists have warned against building hydropower without comprehensive studies, and government committees have recommended scrapping HEPs. Yet, many projects with questionable feasibility continue to be constructed. Take the case of the Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, which is blamed for the aquifer breach at Joshimath.
Construction of this 520 MW project began nearly 17 years ago and was scheduled to be completed in 2013. But, almost a decade later, the project is still ‘under construction’, and its price tag has more than doubled. Moreover, this project has been damaged by floods twice — in 2013 and 2021. In 2021 floods caused by an unprecedented avalanche, nearly 200 people died, and many were labourers working at the project site. Tapovan Vishnugad exemplifies the risk of large-scale infrastructure development without proper assessment.
It is well-known that the Himalayas is one of the most unstable mountain ranges and is prone to natural disasters. On top of this, global warming is profoundly impacting the geology and hydrology of the region. Data shows that 90% of earthquakes, most landslides and a large proportion of cloudbursts in India occur there. With massive infrastructure development and more people living in vulnerable areas, the economic and ecological losses are mounting and will continue to grow unless we make fundamental changes in the development paradigm.
Promote the alternate vision of development
The first change is to stop copying the plains. The domain of environmental science tells us that every place has a carrying capacity. Once this capacity is exceeded, ecological destruction ensues. Himalayas have a much lower carrying capacity than plains and thus can sustain much lower human pressure. Therefore, better planning and enforcement are essential to ensure that the carrying capacity is not breached. But unfortunately, the institutions which can ensure this, like the Town and Country Planning (TCP) department and the environment department, are weak and ineffective in hill states. In Uttarakhand, for instance, the TCP department is operating with minimal staff and resources, and the re-organization of the department has not been done since the bifurcation from Uttar Pradesh. Without solid planning and enforcement, the Himalayan states are doomed.
The second is to practice an alternate model of development, an immediate requirement in the tourism sector. It is projected that 250 million tourists will visit these states by 2025; the number was 100 million before the pandemic. This massive growth will exacerbate water scarcity, worsen air quality and lead to forest and land degradation. But there is an alternative to this unsustainable tourism — high-value sustainable tourism. We can follow the example of Bhutan, which has capped the number of travellers by imposing a sustainable development fee of US$200 per day. A part of this fee goes into environmental protection and enhancing livelihood for local residents. A similar sustainable tourism policy is required for our Himalayas too.
Lastly, in this era of climate change, Himalayan states can create a large number of jobs in the environment sector – biodiversity conservation, high-value organic farming, sustainable forestry, glacier and water body protection etc. And they can be incentivized by the rest of the country to do this. This is because they are major water sources that sustain the plains, and their glaciers, forests and biodiversity are essential for the country’s ecological security. While some progress has been made on Payments for ecosystem services, a lot more needs to be done so that these states can develop and prosper without destroying themselves.
Green energy and just transition
Coal-rich states in the country can take a cue from Odisha’s new renewable energy policy, which is geared to ensure a just energy transition for the state.
By Nikunja B Dhal and Chandra Bhushan
Odisha has been playing a central role in meeting the country’s growing energy needs. The state is the largest coal producer, producing about 185 million tonnes of non-coking coal in 2021-22. This is sufficient to fuel about a quarter of the country’s coal-based power generation. But Odisha is also one of the most climate-vulnerable states, with extreme weather events like cyclones, heat waves, floods and droughts taking a significant toll on the livelihoods and the economy every year.
To balance the imperatives of energy and climate change, thegovernment of Odisha has unveiled a new renewable energy (RE) policy during the Make in Odisha Conclave held recently Bhubaneswar, with a clear ambition and objective of ushering in a just energy transition in the state.
Increased adoption of RE has become vital for the state due to multiple reasons:
- First, the government of India has committed to a net-zero target by 2070. This means that coal production and consumption would have to decline significantly over the next two to three decades, impacting the lives and livelihoods of coal-dependent communities. Therefore, Odisha must plan for the coming energy transition to safeguard the interests of vast numbers of people in its coal and industrial districts
- Second, Odisha is among the country’s leading industrialized states, and a continuous increase in energy demand from all sectors is expected in the coming years. There is an apparent demand for RE from electricity distribution companies (discoms) and industries due to Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPOs). But the state currently accounts for just 0.55% of the country’s RE capacity (excluding hydropower) and imports renewable power to meet most of the existing RPO requirements. Without a rapid RE scale-up within the state, RE imports will increase several times in the coming years as RPO targets reach closer to 45% by 2030
- Third, it is highly dependent on the mining and metal sector for growth and jobs. Currently, 39.5% of the state’s gross value addition comes from the industry sector, the highest in the country. Moreover, the global mining and metal sector is transitioning to renewable energy and green hydrogen to reduce its carbon footprint and meet net-zero targets. Odisha, therefore, has an opportunity to become the hub of the green mining and metal sector by encouraging its industries to install captive RE plants within the state
- Lastly, sectors like green hydrogen, green ammonia and energy storage are developing rapidly. Given the strong manufacturing base, Odisha has the opportunity to grow these green sectors to support the next phase of industrialization, creating new employment opportunities as well as boosting economic activity and income. But, so far, the RE sector has not taken off in the state due to certain policy challenges and perceptions. For instance, there is a misconception that the state has low solar and wind potential. This misconception has been created due to gaps in potential estimation, which the Odisha Renewable Energy Policy, 2022 (OREP-2022) is addressing on an urgent basis. Likewise, the policy challenges have also been addressed in the new policy
Overall, a combination of factors has led to a scenario that it is cheaper for discoms and industries to buy renewable power from states like Gujarat and Rajasthan than to install RE projects within Odisha. Therefore, one of the key aims of OREP-2022 is to bridge the cost delta by providing best-in-class incentives to attract investors to develop the vast untapped RE potential of the state.
The policy includes several exemptions on duties, charges and surcharges for 15-20 years duration, along with investment facilitation and single window clearances. In addition, several measures have been introduced to ease land allocation for RE project development, including priority allocation under the state’s land bank scheme, provisions for aggregation of private land, and exemptions from the land ceiling.
The policy pays special attention to certain high-potential technologies, such as pumped-storage hydro and small-hydro, for which the requirement of free power supply to the state has been waived for projects contributing to the state’s RPO. In addition, given the paucity of large wasteland tracts, the policy pays special attention to developing solar rooftops, floating solar, and distributed solar projects. Furthermore, wind power is proposed to be promoted through feed-in-tariff, and upcoming technologies like green hydrogen and ammonia are also being promoted through various incentives.
Meanwhile, economic diversification, and the need for skilled human resources for new and emerging sectors, would be vital to ensure a just transition of the coal districts of the region. Odisha’s new RE policy addresses this by including explicit measures for creating a skilled and semi-skilled workforce for the RE sector. Existing educational infrastructure in the state is planned to be upgraded to provide training on RE component manufacturing, installation, operations and maintenance. Most importantly, to maximize RE job creation in the state, the green energy manufacturing sector has been included as a ‘thrust sector’ in the state’s new Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR), which aims to transform Odisha into the most “Preferred Investment Destination in India”.
Overall, OREP-2022 and IPR are timely steps taken by the government to boost green investments in the state and decarbonise the energy sector. These policies will also support balanced RE growth in the country and help meet the nation’s RE and Net-Zero targets. But, most importantly, they will help ensure a just energy transition in coal regions over the next decades.
മുറവിളിക്ക് മറുപടി; ലോകത്തിനു കാലാവസ്ഥാ ഉച്ചകോടികാലാവസ്ഥാ ഉച്ചകോടി
This article originally appeared in Manorma Malyalam
Weather shifts in climate talks
Two changes: accepting that biggest polluters will pay poor nations & pressure on China, India to contribute
The 27th Conference of Parties (COP27) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which wrapped up in the early hours of Sunday at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, set things in motion that will have far-reaching implications for the international climate negotiations.
COP27 kicked off with the demand by the developing countries, especially least developed countries (LDCs) and small island nations, to set up a ‘Loss and Damage’ fund to compensate them for climate disasters. These countries, which have contributed the least to global warming, are now suffering annual losses in billions of dollars. For instance, the cost of the recent floods in Pakistan is estimated to be over $46 billion – 13.25% of the country’s GDP.
The loss and damage negotiation was acrimonious, to say the least, with the US entirely against any deal that would expose them to unlimited liability for their historic contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The negotiations also got into the question of who should pay, with small island states demanding that India and China should also contribute to the fund as they are now big GHG emitters.
Structure of compensation fund
Structure of compensation fund In the wee hours of Sunday, countries agreed to set up a new funding window to pay for loss and damage, but with many caveats attached to this fund.
- The fund will only support countries most vulnerable to climate change.
- It might not include India.
- Funding will come from both developed countries and a “mosaic” of sources, including the private sector and philanthropies.
Considering that wealthy countries have never met their financial commitment; one is sceptical of this fund’s ability to help developing countries.
Nevertheless, it is a big deal that the principle of compensating countries for climate disasters has been recognised. From now on, a certain “liability” will be put on big polluters and they will be under a moral, if not legal, obligation to support vulnerable countries.
Holdouts on oil and gas
It is tragic but a reality that it has taken 30 years for countries to realise that phasing down andultimately phasing out all fossil fuels is the most important factor to limit global warming. And it was India that set in motion the discussion to phase down all fossil fuels.
Last year at Glasgow, while countries agreed to phase down coal power to limit global warming, they kept silent on oil and gas due to pressure from big oil and gas-dependent economies, including the US and EU.
All the studies indicate that controlling global warming requires action on all fossil fuels, not just coal. This point was forcefully made by India and ultimately supported by nearly 80 countries, including the US and EU. But Russia and Saudi Arabia vehemently opposed the inclusion of oil and gas, and therefore it was not included in the final decision. Nevertheless, Sharm El-Sheikh has set in motion the need to phase out all fossil fuels, and it is a matter of time before this is accepted in a future COP.
Upending developed vs developing
The negotiations around loss and damage also unravelled the traditional classification of developed and developing countries, as outlined in the 1992 convention. The question of who should pay for loss and damage brought focus to China, the largest current emitter and second-largest historical emitter of GHGs.
China prefers to be called a developing country in the climate negotiations, which was questioned by many countries. The same applied to newly wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore.
Developed countries always wanted to upend the classification. At COP27, they got the support of many small island states and LDCs to do so. While the final text has not clearly mentioned the larger role of emerging economies, it is pretty clear that from now on, countries like China will find it challenging to avoid greater responsibility for the climate crisis. There will also be pressure on India to contribute more, as it is traditionally bracketed with China at the UNFCCC.
Implementation through a just transition
Just transition, the socio-economic impact of phasing down fossil fuels, has emerged as an important agenda at COP27. Mid-way through the COP, a $20 billion deal was struck between Indonesia and G7 countries at the G20 meeting in Bali to phase down coal use in Indonesia in a just manner.
Called Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P), a similar deal worth $8.5 billion was signed between South Africa and G7 last year. A JET-P deal was offered to India, which it rightly postponed for future negotiations.
Overall, the outcome of COP27 is not so much in words as it is in the direction the international negotiations are moving in. For India, it is important to recognise these decisive shifts and develop a negotiating strategy that is good for the country and the planet. India did quite well at Sharm El-Sheikh by proposing the phasing down of all fossils, supporting developing countries on loss and damage, and releasing its Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy. Now is the time for the country to relook at its negotiating position that will advance the development and climate agenda together.
Don’t Delhi and Punjab govts breathe the same air? There is much AAP can do to cut stubble burning and pollution, if it chooses to do so
If some Delhiites believed that the AAP government in Punjab would resolve the national capital’s air pollution woes, they couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only has Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of AAP and CM of Delhi, refused to take responsibility, he is now blaming all and sundry for the airpocalypse. But the fact is, his party now governs two states that presently contribute two-thirds of the pollution in Delhi-NCR.
Let’s be clear, Delhi is a gas chamber today because of its own pollution and the pollution due to stubble burning, primarily in Punjab. To those who still think that stubble burning is not the leading cause of severe air pollution, they need to only look at the following data:
- Currently, the contribution of stubble burning to Delhi’s pollution is 34-38%. This number will likely increase to 50% in the coming days if farm fires are not stopped.
- 91% of all the farm fires from October 1 to November 3 were recorded in Punjab; only 10% were in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.
So, addressing the issue of stubble burning in Punjab is necessary for controlling air pollution in Delhi during winter. The bottom line is that the AAP government, which has been given an overwhelming mandate by the citizens of Delhi, will have to stop finger-pointing and get serious about mitigating major pollution sources within and outside. Let me point out four major areas that can work to reduce air pollution in the next few years.
Invest in public transport and safe roads: Of the megacities of the world, Delhi has one of the worst public transport infrastructures. Its roads are also one of the most unsafe for walking and cycling. Unfortunately, the AAP government has made little investments on both of these fronts. For instance, Delhi today has fewer buses than it had 10 years back. So, instead of promoting campaigns like ‘Red light on, Gaadi off’, which would have caused more congestion and pollution, it should focus on safe and well-connected public transport and roads.
Green the city: All modelling studies indicate that dust from roads and open spaces causes massive PM10 pollution. But I have never understood why there is a reluctance to grass the sideways and green the open spaces. From Mexico City to Beijing, cities that have significantly improved their air quality have used greening as one of the principal measures to reduce dust.
Reduce pollution from solid fuels: Delhi has to work with other states, especially Punjab, Haryana, UP and Rajasthan, to reduce the biggest source of pollution – open biomass burning and pollution from coal. Biomass burning, primarily for cooking and heating, is a major source of air pollution in Delhi’s airshed. The pollution intensity of open biomass burning is hundreds to thousands of times more than those of vehicles and industries. Similarly, burning coal in industries and thermal power plants is a significant source of pollution.
No city in the world has managed to reduce air pollution by burning massive quantities of solid fuels. For example, Beijing reduced its air pollution by reducing coal consumption in power plants and industries and shifting millions of households to clean cooking fuels in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei regions.
A no-harm agreement with neighbouring states: The no-harm rule is a widely recognised principle of international law whereby a country is duty-bound to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other countries. The time has come to use this principle domestically.
- Today, stubble burning in Punjab is causing harm to the health and environment of Delhi, and thus Punjab is breaching the no-harm principle.
- Until now, the discussions between states have been informal, and solutions have been non-binding.
- But it is time that a formal agreement is made between the NCR states to stop farm fires and other significant sources of pollution.
- This inter-state environmental agreement should be a cooperative and binding agreement with measurable results.
For instance, under this agreement, NCR states and the central government could pool resources to help farmers (not pay farmers) eliminate stubble burning. Delhi can take the lead in this as it has close to Rs 1,000 crore sitting idle in its green fund, which it collected as an environment compensation charge from diesel-guzzling trucks entering the capital.
Evidently, there is a lot that the Delhi government can do but chooses not to do. Therefore, it is time for the choked citizens to ask the right question from the AAP government: What is the result of close to eight years of your rule on the air quality of the city?
प्रदूषण थोड़ा ही तो घटा फिर जश्न क्यों
India’s Renewables Disparity
‘Price-equalisation’ policies, mirroring some pre-liberalisation schemes, are distorting spatial distribution of renewable energy generation
Even a good policy with the best intentions can have unintended and adverse consequences. The Freight Equalization Scheme (FES) was one such policy meant to promote balanced industrial development throughout the country but ended up impeding the industrialisation of the mineral-rich eastern states. From 1956, consumers across the country got iron, steel, cement, and fertilisers at the same price, as the transportation was cross-subsidised. There was also a price control on coal, which ensured its availability at a fairly uniform price. This price equalisation deprived the mineral-rich states of their natural advantage of setting up downstream processing industries in the automotive, engineering, and energy sectors. As a result, industries developed in a few coastal states with large markets, such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu, but states like West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh suffered. Consider this statistic: in 1950, West Bengal and Bihar accounted for 92% of all iron and steel production and 48% of all manufacturing output in engineering-related industries; in 1992, when FES was repealed, their share in engineering-related sectors was in the single digits.
Presently, a similar “price equalisation” policy is being implemented in the renewable energy (RE) sector, which again threatens to create regional disparities in green industrialisation. This time, however, the price equalisation is to the advantage of the ‘resource-rich’ states, which happen to be in western and southern India, and to the disadvantage of the ‘resource-poor’ states, which are in northern and eastern India.
In the last 8.5 years, RE has grown exponentially from 31.7 gigawatts (GW) in 2014 to 114.4 GW in July, 2022. But most plants have come up in three western states (Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra) and four southern states (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana). These seven states today account for more than 80% of RE in the country. On the other hand, northern and eastern states have lagged behind. For instance, the east and northeast, which account for 28% population and 23% geographical area, have only about 3% RE capacity. So, why this lop-sided growth in the RE sector?
There are three major factors. The first is the difference in RE potential between regions, the second is the availability of large parcels of land, and the third is the national RE policy. But overall, it is the RE policy that is amplifying the impact of potential and land. Let me explain.
There is a difference in solar and wind potential between states, more in the wind than solar. But this difference is not so high that RE plants, especially solar, cannot be installed in large parts of the country. In India, on average, a solar PV plant can generate 1400-1700 kWh/kWp per year, depending on solar insolation. So, the difference between the so-called solar-rich and poor states is only about 10-20%. But the point to note is that even the lowest solar insolation areas in India can generate 20-25% more electricity than Germany. Yet, Germany has more solar capacity than us. In a nutshell, most of parts of India have good solar potential; some regions have a little higher than others.
As far as land is concerned, it is true that states like Rajasthan and Gujarat have large patches of land where solar plants of hundreds of megawatts can be installed. But land and large artificial reservoirs are also available in north and eastern India. Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have vast wasteland and fallow land to install megawatt-scale plants. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have massive potential to establish agri-solar. It is our policy to promote large solar plants that have made the land an issue. Otherwise, there are enough land, rooftops and reservoirs for balanced solar growth across the country. This brings me to the all-important factor, the RE policy.
Our RE policy is single-mindedly focused on installing large capacity at the lowest possible cost. The key instrument is the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO). Under this, states are required to meet a minimum percentage of their electricity requirement through RE. The RPO target for 2022-23 is 14.5%, which will increase to 43.33% by 2029-30. To meet the RPO targets, inter-state transmission system (ISTS) charges have been waived to allow ‘resource-poor’ states to buy the cheapest RE from anywhere in the country. ISTS charges have been wholly waived till June 2025 and will be progressively eliminated by 2028.
But ISTS waiver, a market distorting subsidy, is now a critical factor in deciding the location of plants. In a hyper-competitive RE market, the waiver, which could be as much as Rs 0.40-0.80/kWh or 15-30% of generation cost from large solar plants, is pushing companies to put up plants in western and southern India. RE-linked manufacturing — solar PV, battery and hydrogen electrolyser plants — are also moving to these states. As a result, an entire ecosystem is slowly getting entrenched in a few western and southern states, which is detrimental to RE development in the rest of the country. It is, therefore, time that we developed a more detailed understanding of the regional implications of the ISTS waiver and other RE subsidies and made necessary corrections quickly.
While installing large RE capacity is an important climate goal, it cannot be at the expense of shared prosperity. We must not allow India’s growth story to suffer by further widening the regional disparities.
