Honest Review: The Climate

By: Anagha Vinay

Climate Crisis is entangled with every aspect of our lifestyle. The Climate Transparency Report is a comprehensive annual review of the state of climate performance of the G20 nations. Its assessment includes 100 indicators for climate adaptation, risks, protection, and finance. The G20 countries coming under this are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.

The report shows a comparative analysis of the climate actions taken by these nations to achieve a net zero emissions economy. It is a global partnership with a shared mission. It is a concise report developed by experts from 16 partner organizations from the G20 nations. The 2022 report theme is ‘G20 response to the energy crisis: Critical for 1.5°C.’ It bridges climate emergency to the energy crisis.

According to the 2022 report, climate change has had a massive impact across G20 countries with wildfires, heatwaves, tropical storms, and rising global emissions. Exploiting our environment for development at an unsustainable pace left us blind and deaf to the wailing cries and consequences of the ecosystem, and now the tables have turned. It is not Mother Nature who is pleading, it is us. We don’t have a choice, but to act, immediately. In this time of crisis, there are going to be no more excuses, and there are going to be no next times.

The report shows that the prices of fossil fuels rose exponentially in the second half of 2021 mainly as a repercussion of the Russia-Ukraine war. China, Indonesia, and the United Kingdom have the highest total fossil fuel consumption and production subsidies. Energy emissions were found to have rebounded across the G20 countries by 5.9 percent last year, returning to the pre-pandemic levels. In 2021, emissions in the power and real-estate sector were higher than pre-pandemic levels. The per capita emissions in these sectors in China and Turkey are currently higher than in 2019 levels. However, the share of renewables in the power generation mix has seen an increase in all the G20 countries between 2016 and 2021. Countries with the highest increase in renewable energy share are the United Kingdom (67 percent), Japan (48 percent), and Mexico (40 percent), and the lowest increase are Russia (16 percent) and Italy (14 percent).

India has suffered the highest heat-related labour capacity reduction, nearly 167 billion labour hours, resulting in a financially crippling loss of about 5.4% in the GDP, equivalent to $159B. India even witnessed reduced wheat crop yield due to record heat waves. It is estimated that around 142 million people or 10 percent of the population of the country may be exposed to summer heatwaves at 1.5°C. India stands third among the G20 nations with high methane emissions, with a soaring 10.5%.

Climate Action Tracker statistics have rated India’s overall climate action efforts as highly insufficient. For instance, the average temperature experienced in the summer of 2017-2021 has been recorded to be 0.4°C higher than the 1985-2005 global mean temperature increase. About 33% of the country is drought-prone, and approximately 50% of this area faces chronic droughts. This, right here, is the Code Red for Humanity. But there’s still so much we can do, together. This is why we need to be out there, making our voices heard as one, louder, and stronger than ever before.

Real change will happen when the concerns of all the vulnerable groups have been addressed and every possible action has been taken to protect our ecosystem. This is the need of the hour. Let’s join hands and be a part of this. Let’s strike to make them listen to us. Let’s strike to make them act. Let’s strike because now the time has come, when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or fully in measure, but very substantially. The real change is coming. All we have to do is be in this fight for what is just, and we shall triumph.

Arrey Forest: Native Environment vs Rigid Headway

By: Gaurpriya Singh Roy

“The Earth has enough resources for our need but not for our greed.”

This most often quoted phrase by Mathma Gandhi depicts his concern for nature and the environment, which initially gives a warm idea of how he envisioned the future generations to tend Mother Nature. Through the eyes of a man whose primary focus is development, it is condescending to believe he would even consider the existence of nature, wildlife, or anything that disturbs or is an obstacle to his developing habitat.

Let’s talk politically. 

In 1991, in his budget speech, finance minister Manmohan Singh declared: “We cannot deforest our way to prosperity, and we cannot pollute our way to prosperity”. These were his prescient words. While India had strong environmental legislation even in the pre-1991 era – the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, Water Act of 1974, Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Air Act of 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 – this ‘Environment vs Growth’ debate has become much more salient in post-reform India. 

For instance, problems, and thus environmental issues, have entered the mainstream. As the pressure on the environment has increased with development, environmentalism has evolved from an ‘elite’ issue discussed in seminars and conferences to a real issue affecting people’s daily lives, health, and livelihoods. Consider the water table declines and extended droughts in Vidarbha and Bundelkhand. 

For example, water logging in Punjab’s Malwa region has harmed the livelihoods of over 2 lakh farmers, or the pollution caused by unrestricted mining and thermal power generation using low-quality coal in Chandrapur, Maharashtra which causes 10,000 people to become ill with respiratory conditions each year. Also, considering the pollution of the Ganga, where effluent and sewage treatment capacity cannot treat even half of the flow. 

Second, there has been a surge in organized environmental advocacy. The Rio Convention (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the subsequent ritual of annual climate change summits culminating in the Paris Agreement (2015) have elevated the environment’s global profile. In India, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have used Public Interest Litigation (PILs) and Right to Information (RTI) as practical effective tools for mobilizing action. As a result, no self-respecting government can now be accused of being soft or insensitive to environmental issues, at least in rhetoric.

Third, judicial activism has gained traction. The Supreme Court established a quasi-judicial body called the “Central Empowered Committee” (CEC) in 2002 to “monitor the implementation of the Hon’ble Court’s orders and place reports of non-compliance before the Court” concerning forestry issues, giving the committee broad powers. Since then, CEC has been an active watchdog on forestry issues, working quietly and efficiently. In popular perception, it was judicial action that forced the government to convert the entire fleet of buses in Delhi to CNG in 2001. A series of impromptu interventions by the court culminated in establishing a National Green Tribunal in 2011 as a professional empowered judicial body to adjudicate environmental and forestry-related cases.

As a result of these developments, the latest fad is “balancing” growth and environmental protection. This is a breath of fresh air in vocabulary. But have we discovered the proper mechanisms for striking such a balance? 

Not yet: Environmental issues are hotly debated, from the Sardar Sarovar Dam to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant to Kanpur’s polluting tanneries. Over the last few years, the National Green Tribunal has heard over 1,600 cases, which is only the tip of the iceberg.

Thus, at what cost do we proceed with our buildout? 

Toward a brighter future for the upcoming generations to look at should be our prime focus rather than handing them a world full of concrete and rust, we should keep our center of attention towards providing them with a new and nourishing environment where their minds and body thrive with health and joy rather than forcing them into a world where they know no humble but only brutal growth. 

What would happen if Muhammad Ali Jinnah became the prime minister of India instead of Jawaharlal Nehru?

In an interview in Goa, the fourteenth Dalai Lama stated, “India would have remained a united country if Jinnah had become the first prime minister.” He further added, “I think Mahatma Gandhi was very much willing to give the prime ministership to Jinnah, but Pandit Nehru refused. I think Pandit Nehru was a bit self-centered.” This news by NDTV blew up on social media. Later in 2019, BJP candidate Gumansingh Damor also said, “Had Jawaharlal Nehru not been so obstinate at the time of Independence, India would not have been divided,” while campaigning for his party for the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections. This raised the question among the public, ‘What if Jinnah became the first prime minister of India?’

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a barrister, politician, and founder of Pakistan. Jinnah served as the leader of the All-India Muslim League from 1913 until Pakistan’s creation on 14 August 1947, and then as Pakistan’s first Governor-General until his death. He was known for his ideology of the Two nation theory. According to this theory, Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations by definition; both the communities have their customs, religion, and tradition, and from social and moral points of view, Muslims are different from Hindus; and therefore, both should be able to have their separate homeland in which Islam is the dominant religion, being segregated from Hindus.

A lesser-known fact is that he was an advocate of the united India theory before losing hopes on the Indian National Congress. But even though he was a flag bearer of the partition, he was way tolerant towards the Hindus. This was very evident in a speech just days before independence. He said, “You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

One could agree that India and Pakistan would have remained united if Jinnah became the prime minister of India, but at what cost.

The initial planning of running the government would have been way smoother, and we wouldn’t have lost so many lives in the partition. But considering that Jinnah died just a year after independence, the situation would be worse than what it is right now. Though Jinnah was considered one of the best leaders in Pakistan, gradually the government almost rejected his vision of Pakistan. Democracy, tolerance towards other religions, equal rights, vanished in due course of time. Nepotism in politics would still prevail. The congress would be the ruling party, gaining the majority only on religious grounds. We would be calling it the Indian civil war instead of calling it the Indo-Pak war. Instead of 21 months, the Emergency would last for years. The University of the Nationalist Democracy, which led to the rise of parties like BJP, would have never existed.  Most of the prime ministers in Pakistan never completed were either assassinated or they left their office before the end of their tenure. If India and Pakistan were untied, none of our prime ministers would have completed their tenure. Instead of Hindi imposition, we would have had Urdu imposition. Many believe that the catchphrases “anti-national”, and “go to Pakistan” would never exist. And most importantly the world would have associated India with terrorism. After the Jacobins in the French Revolution, post-independence India would be considered the Reign of Terror.  In conclusion, making Jinnah the prime minister would do no good and might have intensified the situation.

References:

1. https://www.india.com/lok-sabha-elections-2019-india/partition-wouldnt-have-happened-if-jinnah-had-become-pm-bjp-candidate-3655911/
2. https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/it-was-not-nehru-who-cut-jinnahs-chances-of-being-pm-by-mani-shankar-aiyar-1896638
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40961603

The Positive Impact of COVID-19

Nature is relaxing 

                                Despite the coronavirus threatening the world, it has some positive sides too. As the Covid-19 pandemic continues its blow, one can witness dramatic changes in people’s lives. And it already overshadowed other medical problems. Doctors and researchers notice unexpectedly positive side effects of the abrupt shifts in human behaviors in response to the pandemic. Moreover, prolonged lockdown is relieving nature with a reduction in human activities. Skies are bluer, the crime rates are lower.

Due to the lockdown, the pollution level fell dramatically and is still heading down. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a toxic gas liberated from buses, cars, factories, etc. According to WHO, NO2 causes significant inflammation of the airways (lungs and trachea) at concentrations above 200 micrograms/m3. Now, vehicles and factories are under shutdown which results in the decrement of NO2 concentrations. Polluted cities like Chennai, Delhi, Bhilai etc. have experienced 100-200% of the decrement of NO2 toxic gas in the air. In most of the cities of India like Delhi and Tamil Nadu the concentration of NO2 is falling dramatically. 

Particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) is one of the most harmful forms of air pollution. It lies in the group I cardiogenic category. PM 2.5 is a microparticle which moves from lungs to the bloodstream and causes respiratory problems like asthma, heart attack, and causes premature death. According to the WHO, more the 4 million people are dying due to PM 2.5 every year. As a result of the lockdown, the concentration of PM 2.5 falls dramatically and saves millions of lives. 

These are the reasons behind the bluer sky and clear stars during the night as we see in the photos of Kathmandu. This prompted the addition of beauty in nature.

Researchers from Stanford University have collected the data of PM 2.5 from different cities of China and compared them with mortality rate. They conclude that the lockdown is likely to save 700 lives in China just by reducing air pollution in 1 month. 

The high amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission causes climate change and greenhouse effects. Lockdown triggered a significant fall in carbon emission by approx. 5%. According to the chair of a network of scientists, the decline could be the largest since world war II.  

With the days coming back to normal after the lockdown, the carbon emission and pollution revive too. But till then a lot of industries might already face complete loss compelling workers to be jobless. The government can act on such circumstances to push the renewable energy industry. Gradually, the government should focus more on renewable energy. The lockdown experience can be a milestone for purifying nature.