<p>India’s climate campaign at CoP-26 was initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s five-point agenda or panchamrit. The country announced greater ambitions on climate actions, with the first four targets to be met by 2030. These include an installed renewable energy capacity of 500 GW (up from the 450 GW target), meeting 50% of electricity requirements from renewable sources, reducing total projected cumulative carbon emissions by one billion tonnes annually from now till 2030, reducing the carbon intensity of GDP (CO2 equivalent emitted per unit of GDP) by 45% from the 2005 level (up from 33-35% target) and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2070. Modi also pointed to the need to generate carbon finance by developed countries to the tune of $1 trillion to help developing countries adapt and transition to green technologies. Climate experts appreciated these proclamations as our targets can deliver on economic development as well as climate mitigation and also show the world the path to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era.</p>.<p>Among the deals intended to avert catastrophic global warming, more than 100 countries at CoP-26 have pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Although experts observed that such promises have been made and broken in the past, the UK government has confirmed that it has received support from leaders representing more than 85% of the world’s forests, which include Brazil, China, Columbia, Congo, Indonesia, Russia and the US. India has not joined this group, which means that we will continue to plunder our forests for the sake of mining (including coal mining) and development.</p>.<p>Forests are an important sink for carbon. In many domestic and international fora, our PM has been calling for growing trees on 26 million hectares of degraded lands in the country by 2030, which is likely to provide storage for 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Neither the Union Environment and Forest ministry nor state governments have taken it forward. It is also not known what portion of the degraded lands is available for planting and what portion is under the occupation of individuals/institutions. The Union ministry must collate data from districts and states and provide funds for greening the areas. If the country does not want to end deforestation by 2030, it is all the more necessary to drive reforestation in degraded areas.</p>.<p>Studies have revealed that the blocks of forests subjected to degradation, denudation, logging, fire and diseases, etc., are net carbon-emitting blocks. Thus, all forests are not carbon-absorbing entities. The Switzerland-based International Union for Conservation of Nature and UNESCO have studied the assessment of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced and absorbed by 257 sites of UNESCO-listed forests. Of these, 10 sites are found to be net carbon-emitters, 80 sites were net neutral and the remaining were net absorbers of CO2. Factors like logging, wildfires and removal of tree growth for agriculture are the main reasons for net carbon emission from these UNESCO forest sites.</p>.<p>The phrase in the concluding draft of the Glasgow pact from the developed world to ‘phase out’ fossil fuel subsidy was opposed by China. India took it forward while China sat quietly. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav kept up the pressure till the end and the phrase was modified to ‘phase down’. Later, Alok Sharma, chairman of CoP-26, commented that China and India need to explain to developing nations why they watered down the language on efforts to phase out coal at the conference and rejected calls for a ‘phase out’ of coal subsidy and instead opted for ‘phase down’. China consumes 50% of the total world’s coal. According to a new report by the research arm of McKinsey & Co, the world economy has grown from $156 trillion in 2000 to $ 514 trillion in 2020, more than threefold, and one-third of the growth has been registered in China. China’s wealth is now more than that of the US.</p>.<p>We too need power for our growth and to pull the disadvantaged population out of poverty. But Modi has already pledged increased NDC by 2030 and net-zero by 2070. Looking at the ambition to transition to renewable energy, we are to end establishing coal-powered plants after 2030. So, why should we not have agreed to phase out coal subsidy? After all, the draft proposed by developed nations to phase out coal subsidies did not have any timeline. It would have matched our trajectory of coal consumption, as we plan to generate 50% power from renewable sources by 2030.</p>.<p>‘Phase down’ is to reduce the use of coal progressively, rather than phasing it out fully. Rather than India, it is China that gets the bigger advantage of the ‘phase down’ phrase that India is being blamed for. If China goes with its commitment, it will not build any coal-powered plants in any foreign country under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But its domestic coal consumption will surge and the world’s biggest GHG emitter will quickly consume the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees Celsius warming.</p>.<p>We should have insisted on ‘phase out’ of coal subsidy for developed countries and ‘phase down’ for developing countries. Our action has antagonised climate-vulnerable countries. Many island nations cannot withstand global warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius and are not happy with the way India negotiated and diluted the pact. We should have exposed the double standards of the developed countries on oil and gas and should have fought for the finance and technology required for meeting our ambitious targets announced by the PM in the beginning of CoP-26. The PM also announced $1trillion in finance for climate adaptation. We should have focused our fight on these, rather than diluting the language on ending coal.</p>.<p>Diplomats from nearly 200 countries agreed to intensify efforts to fight climate change by calling them to meet next year with stronger plans to check GHG emissions and also urging rich nations to double their financial support and technology to poorer nations for adaptation and mitigation measures. But CoP-26 ended with the crucial question of how much GHG emissions each nation should cut by 2030 unresolved.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka)</em></p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>India’s climate campaign at CoP-26 was initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s five-point agenda or panchamrit. The country announced greater ambitions on climate actions, with the first four targets to be met by 2030. These include an installed renewable energy capacity of 500 GW (up from the 450 GW target), meeting 50% of electricity requirements from renewable sources, reducing total projected cumulative carbon emissions by one billion tonnes annually from now till 2030, reducing the carbon intensity of GDP (CO2 equivalent emitted per unit of GDP) by 45% from the 2005 level (up from 33-35% target) and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2070. Modi also pointed to the need to generate carbon finance by developed countries to the tune of $1 trillion to help developing countries adapt and transition to green technologies. Climate experts appreciated these proclamations as our targets can deliver on economic development as well as climate mitigation and also show the world the path to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era.</p>.<p>Among the deals intended to avert catastrophic global warming, more than 100 countries at CoP-26 have pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Although experts observed that such promises have been made and broken in the past, the UK government has confirmed that it has received support from leaders representing more than 85% of the world’s forests, which include Brazil, China, Columbia, Congo, Indonesia, Russia and the US. India has not joined this group, which means that we will continue to plunder our forests for the sake of mining (including coal mining) and development.</p>.<p>Forests are an important sink for carbon. In many domestic and international fora, our PM has been calling for growing trees on 26 million hectares of degraded lands in the country by 2030, which is likely to provide storage for 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Neither the Union Environment and Forest ministry nor state governments have taken it forward. It is also not known what portion of the degraded lands is available for planting and what portion is under the occupation of individuals/institutions. The Union ministry must collate data from districts and states and provide funds for greening the areas. If the country does not want to end deforestation by 2030, it is all the more necessary to drive reforestation in degraded areas.</p>.<p>Studies have revealed that the blocks of forests subjected to degradation, denudation, logging, fire and diseases, etc., are net carbon-emitting blocks. Thus, all forests are not carbon-absorbing entities. The Switzerland-based International Union for Conservation of Nature and UNESCO have studied the assessment of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced and absorbed by 257 sites of UNESCO-listed forests. Of these, 10 sites are found to be net carbon-emitters, 80 sites were net neutral and the remaining were net absorbers of CO2. Factors like logging, wildfires and removal of tree growth for agriculture are the main reasons for net carbon emission from these UNESCO forest sites.</p>.<p>The phrase in the concluding draft of the Glasgow pact from the developed world to ‘phase out’ fossil fuel subsidy was opposed by China. India took it forward while China sat quietly. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav kept up the pressure till the end and the phrase was modified to ‘phase down’. Later, Alok Sharma, chairman of CoP-26, commented that China and India need to explain to developing nations why they watered down the language on efforts to phase out coal at the conference and rejected calls for a ‘phase out’ of coal subsidy and instead opted for ‘phase down’. China consumes 50% of the total world’s coal. According to a new report by the research arm of McKinsey & Co, the world economy has grown from $156 trillion in 2000 to $ 514 trillion in 2020, more than threefold, and one-third of the growth has been registered in China. China’s wealth is now more than that of the US.</p>.<p>We too need power for our growth and to pull the disadvantaged population out of poverty. But Modi has already pledged increased NDC by 2030 and net-zero by 2070. Looking at the ambition to transition to renewable energy, we are to end establishing coal-powered plants after 2030. So, why should we not have agreed to phase out coal subsidy? After all, the draft proposed by developed nations to phase out coal subsidies did not have any timeline. It would have matched our trajectory of coal consumption, as we plan to generate 50% power from renewable sources by 2030.</p>.<p>‘Phase down’ is to reduce the use of coal progressively, rather than phasing it out fully. Rather than India, it is China that gets the bigger advantage of the ‘phase down’ phrase that India is being blamed for. If China goes with its commitment, it will not build any coal-powered plants in any foreign country under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But its domestic coal consumption will surge and the world’s biggest GHG emitter will quickly consume the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees Celsius warming.</p>.<p>We should have insisted on ‘phase out’ of coal subsidy for developed countries and ‘phase down’ for developing countries. Our action has antagonised climate-vulnerable countries. Many island nations cannot withstand global warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius and are not happy with the way India negotiated and diluted the pact. We should have exposed the double standards of the developed countries on oil and gas and should have fought for the finance and technology required for meeting our ambitious targets announced by the PM in the beginning of CoP-26. The PM also announced $1trillion in finance for climate adaptation. We should have focused our fight on these, rather than diluting the language on ending coal.</p>.<p>Diplomats from nearly 200 countries agreed to intensify efforts to fight climate change by calling them to meet next year with stronger plans to check GHG emissions and also urging rich nations to double their financial support and technology to poorer nations for adaptation and mitigation measures. But CoP-26 ended with the crucial question of how much GHG emissions each nation should cut by 2030 unresolved.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka)</em></p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>