Tag: climate change

Clean up Indian Railways: It must match its climate credentials with sound pollution and waste management

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Railways fascinate me. Professionally, I advocate for a massive expansion of rail networks to address the air pollution and climate crisis. Rail transport is not only highly energy efficient compared to road and air transport, it can also completely shift to renewable energy. It will, therefore, play a significant role in reducing emissions from the transport sector. The Indian Railways has recognised this potential and has set a target to achieve net zero carbon emission by 2030, the most ambitious climate target set in the country.

Personally, I love long train journeys. Travelling on the Coromandel Express from Howrah to Chennai, Netravati Express from Mangalore to Mumbai (when it ran on metre gauge), and the Rajdhani from Delhi to Mumbai and Kolkata are some of my favourite travel memories. But during all these times, like most people, I took for granted the noise, the open toilets (now stinking bio-toilets), and the waste along the tracks and stations. But as Indian Railways is expanding, modernising and privatising, environmental issues we overlooked in the past mustn’t be ignored anymore.

Indian Railways is big in every aspect; it runs the fourth largest railway system globally and carries 8 billion passengers and more than a billion tonnes of freight a year. These numbers are projected to increase by 50% over the next 10 years. As it’s already one of the largest consumers of water and energy and generator of waste, its environmental footprint will increase significantly in a business as usual scenario. While Indian Railways has made significant progress in energy efficiency, renewable energy and cleanliness, there are grave concerns of water and noise pollution and waste management.

Let’s first start with the law. For a long time, Railways had taken the view that the country’s key environmental laws – the Water, the Air, and the Hazardous Waste Act – do not apply to its operations. Therefore, no railway station took permits from the pollution control boards (PCBs) or complied with the regulations. A recent National Green Tribunal judgment has categorically rejected this stand and has directed the Railways to abide by the laws. However, the Railways is still reluctant to comply, and most stations are still operating without consent from PCBs.

The situation’s no different with railway sidings/ goods sheds, a major source of air pollution. The majority of these sidings are operated by private companies, but many are working without consent. Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have confirmed poor air pollution management at these establishments.

Poor handling of wastewater has also been identified as a significant concern by the CPCB. Since most stations have not installed Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), effluents generated from cleaning trains and stations are discharged into municipal drainages or low lying areas. The situation is the same with Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs).

Every day about 5,000-6,000 tonnes of fecal matter is generated from toilets in the trains and on stations. This is equivalent to the fecal waste generated in a large metro city. While 95% of trains have installed bio-toilets, they are “no better than septic tanks” and the water discharged no better than raw sewage. In the absence of STPs at most stations, the sewage is discharged untreated. In a country where hotels with more than 20 rooms are being directed to install STPs, Railways’ failure to install ETPs and STPs is discriminatory, so say the least.

Noise pollution is an even more problematic issue. More noise is considered useful in the railway establishment for accident prevention. There are strict instructions to honk at all gates, turns and at the time of entry and exit from a station. During the night, train drivers are instructed to honk to ensure they’re alert and not sleeping. Though accidents are a real problem because of encroachments and unfenced railway tracks, continuing with the current strategy is counterproductive because of enormous health implications.

High noise levels lead to poor learning, aggression, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. For millions of citizens living near railway stations and tracks, the railways’ current position is an untenable proposition. Indian Railways will have to find a solution that balances imperatives of accident prevention and noise control.

On waste management, Indian Railways has made some progress. It runs ‘Swachh Rail Abhiyan’ for improving cleanliness and waste management. While there’s no doubt that cleanliness has improved significantly, and some of our railway stations match global standards, the same cannot be said about solid waste.

Indian Railways seems to have an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach while dealing with solid wastes. Wastes are collected mainly in unsegregated form and disposed of along with the municipal wastes or burnt or dumped near the track. In fact, the Railways has not even enforced the single use plastic rules of various states, including the national ban on polythene bags. Overall, while Indian Railways is doing a lot on energy issues (because it also makes good economic sense), the same cannot be said about pollution or waste.

The fundamental problem seems to be a sense of ‘exceptionalism’. Railways have historically operated independently of the civil administration. It doesn’t follow many of the laws applicable to a similar service industry like the airline industry. It’s time these anomalies are corrected. Indian Railways should comply with environmental laws and work with civil authorities to solve pollution and waste issues. Its low energy footprint must be matched with sound environmental management.

India’s Arctic policy must push Western countries to give up double standards

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

‘We need to act for the Amazon and act for our planet,’ said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when fires ravaged the Amazon rainforest in August 2019. He was joined by many Western countries in preaching the virtues of protecting the ‘global common’ for combating climate change.

But the Western world’s concern for the global commons seems to limit itself, so far, to the sensitive ecosystems in the southern hemisphere. Thus, there is an international treaty to protect the Antarctic, which puts an indefinite ban on mining and hydrocarbon extraction. Furthermore, there is a long-standing demand, pushed by the G7 countries, for an international treaty to protect the tropical forests because they are the most biodiverse regions and ‘Lungs of Earth’.

However, when it comes to the northern hemisphere ecosystems, the same countries reject any international intervention. The Arctic is a classic case of this double standard. In 2008, the five coastal states of the Arctic Ocean (United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark) vowed to block any “new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean” in the Ilulissat Declaration.

The Arctic is essential for the stability of the earth’s climate, arguably even more than the Antarctic. Its sea ice helps moderate the global climate. In turn, it is also very sensitive to changes in climate. Consequently, the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the global average, and its sea ice has decreased dramatically since the late 1970s.

The warming of the Arctic is also speeding the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Recent studies indicate that Greenland’s ice is melting on average seven times faster today than in the 1990s. Therefore, the changes in the Arctic have massive ramifications on sea level rise, aquatic ecosystems, and weather patterns across the world, including the monsoon.

But the sea ice melting has also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, significantly shortening the route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In addition, Arctic seabed is now accessible for oil and gas extraction and deep-sea mining. As an estimated 40% of current global oil and gas reserves are in this region, there is a scramble over shipping lanes and resources, especially between the Arctic states. But other countries are also staking claim over the region’s resources, especially China.

India is an observer at the Arctic Council and has recently released a draft Arctic policy. Regrettably, the draft policy lacks objectivity. It is an ‘all-of-the-above’ policy with contradictory goals. On the one hand, the policy envisions India’s role in exploring and exploiting hydrocarbon and encourages investments by Indian companies. On the other hand, it also expresses deep concerns regarding the impacts on the country due to the changes in the Arctic, including on the monsoon, and proposes a slew of research activities. In conclusion, the draft terms the Arctic as ‘the common heritage of mankind’ and calls for ‘sustainable, responsible and transparent’ human activity.

But ‘sustainable, responsible and transparent’ exploitation of the Arctic is an oxymoron. It is impossible to take out oil and gas, burn them, and still keep global warming under check, or open the international shipping lane and expect the ocean to remain pristine. The irony is that the world’s wealthiest people, living in the already wealthy Arctic states, will gain the most by exploiting the resources. However, the costs will be borne by the world’s poorest, living in the coastal areas of the global South.

If India wants to be a serious player in the Arctic, then its policy must address this irony and the double standards of the Arctic states. It is important to realise that we made a mistake by becoming an observer in the Arctic Council, thereby accepting the Arctic states’ sovereign right over the Arctic ocean. We will repeat the error if we join them in exploiting the Arctic.

The bottom line is that India will not gain economically but is likely to lose massively due to coastal flooding, monsoon disruptions and changes in the ocean systems. Therefore, India’s Arctic policy should push for an international legal mechanism, similar to the Antarctic treaty, and save the Arctic’s pristine ecosystem and earth’s climate. In this endeavour, it might find allies in the Biden administration, which has just cancelled the Arctic Refuge oil programme and Keystone pipeline.

Jharkhand contributes to 32% of the country’s reserves but loses more than it gains from coal

Posted on by Srestha Banerjee

In an exclusive conversation with iFOREST, the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Shri Hemant Soren, talks about the role of coal in Jharkhand’s economy, and the need to develop other economic sectors to transition to a non-coal economy.

Q. 1 How important is coal for Jharkhand in the present day?

Jharkhand is one of the few states in the country that is blessed with rich mineral wealth. The state contributes to 32% coal reserves in India. Although, coal has always been an important resource for revenue generation for the state. But the state has not attracted investments worthy of its endowments. 
Additionally, lakhs of tribal and indigenous people have been displaced from their lands without proper rehabilitation benefits. It is therefore an irony that Jharkhand illuminates the country with its coal but is forced to live in darkness. Coal is important to Jharkhand but not at the cost of huge societal and environmental loss.

Q2. Is Jharkhand benefiting from coal as expected?

The abundance of mineral wealth has been a resource curse for Jharkhand. The state contributes to 32% coal reserves in India. However, the benefits accrued to the state aren’t in the same proportion and we lose more than we gain. There’s DMF which allows some developmental activities in the mining affected regions and communities, but its functioning needs to be streamline.

Q3. Under what conditions do you want to increase coal production in the state?

With the increase in coal production, state revenue will also increase. However, our government is determined to safeguard the interests and rights of people and state. The Union Government has opened up auctions for commercial mining within the coal sector. The auction area also includes Jharkhand. However, I had requested the central government to provide a moratorium of 6-9 months. In this regard, I had written a letter to Hon’ble Minister of Coal, Mines & Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India requesting that due to COVID-19 pandemic, many domestic/foreign players might not participate in the auction process due to travel restrictions and several enterprises facing financial liquidity crunch.
My government also wants to ensure that steps taken for sustainable mineral development are in harmony with prevalent social and environmental practices and the adverse costs on tribal populace and the ecologically fragile zones do not outweigh the benefits that we might get economically.

Q4. What do you think are the challenges of coal mining in environmental and social terms? How is the Jharkhand government planning to offset or deal with these?

Over all these years, Jharkhand has been forced to drink ‘laal-paani’ and ‘kaala-paani’ due to mining activities. Many people were forced to leave their land. Those left behind were exposed to severe diseases and complications. As a result, much more deliberations are required with various stakeholders for creating a conducive policy framework. Thus, it is vital that a balance is struck between societal expectations, environmental preservation and economic growth.

Q5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has spoken about phasing out coal for climate change concerns. Do you think Jharkhand can transition to solar and wind energy from coal? If yes, how long do you think this transition will take? If no, what are the alternatives?

Climate change related issues are increasing at an alarming rate. Due to the erratic changes in climatic conditions, it is mostly those at the margins who are most affected. Therefore, switching to renewable energy resources becomes essential. My government is committed to exploring alternate energy resources, especially solar energy for both electrification, saving unforeseen costs of conventional sources and also for facilitating micro irrigation to farmers and farmers collectives.

Q6. A new concept called Just Transition in coal mining areas has been emerging. The basic idea is that local communities in coal mining areas/ coal districts should not become the victims of coal phase-out in the next 20/30 years as the IPCC report says. Therefore, it says that economic opportunities should be created for mining dependent communities in these areas. Given this, is the Jharkhand government open to developing a Just Transition plan in coal mining areas? If yes, what should be the major components of the just transition plan?

I have not heard much about the Just Transition concept. But my government welcomes any concept that provides equity to people and other stakeholders affected from coal mining, directly or indirectly in districts and zones affected by mining.

Q7. A key component for transition towards a non-coal economy will be diversification of economic opportunities. What are some of the economic sectors in the state with growth opportunities that can substitute for the revenue and employment that the coal industry currently provides?

Jharkhand is rich in minerals. But it has also been endowed with rich and diversified natural resources across the state. Tourism is one of the sectors which has been left untapped until now. We have so many states in India which generate revenue by focusing solely on Tourism. Not only does it create revenue but also promotes conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Although post COVID 19 recovery will take time, we are focused to create a nature-based tourism plan to attract citizens across the country towards natural beauty and alternative indigenous living practices, prevalent in the state.

The other is NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Produce) based economy in Jharkhand. The NTFP based economy has never been given due attention until now. My government is working on strengthening the overall structure of NTFP based backward and forward linkages. I believe that with due policy in place – not only the tribals and forest dwellers will get a decent income but it will also accentuate sustainable use of natural resources. Jharkhand also has great potential for renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, textile and other rural based industrialization initiatives. We are also going to soon start a process to map out specific enterprises/ industrial units that could be promoted/ developed to boost our rural economy and economic resilience.

Q8. Which social security measures should the government prioritize to facilitate a well-planned transition? What can be the main revenue sources for it?

We have been committed to ensure social inclusion in all our programmes in this brief 6 month period. We will also soon launch the Urban Wage Guarantee Initiative, a first in its country and want to understand how a safety net for intra-state workers could be created in urban and peri-urban areas through state commissioned public works. Jharkhand is blessed with an industrious labour force. Our government prioritizes keeping welfare and pride of the labour force and other people intact. Keeping this as our priority, we promoted direct engagement with the Border Roads Organization (BRO) when they had approached Jharkhand for labour force. Our government is working on developing a plan and policy measure to ensure the rights and welfare of the people of Jharkhand especially towards responsible business practices and establishing an aspirational and responsible migration pattern in the future, contrary to the distress migration that has been practiced.

Q9. What is your opinion about the political momentum / or support for transiting to non-coal economy in the mining districts? How do you think a favorable political will can be built?

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) has always fought for the rights of people of Jharkhand. We always support less extractive and more equitable platform for our state. Our coalition government and JMM welcome any opportunity to promote equitable opportunities for both industries and people.

Q10. What do you think that can be done to build a multi-stakeholder consensus and engagement for a transition?

Multi-stakeholder consensus cannot be attained unless there is democratisation of processes. We have the political will to do that and will deliberate more once the larger socio-economic picture is clearer. We also need time – I spent 4 months tackling COVID-19 and it has been a learning time. There are several plans but definitely they will be laid in the times to come.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial