Context

Even though New Delhi has invested in renewable energy and announced a net-zero target, there is a gap between the announcements and the ground reality, as is evident from the promotion of coal.

India’s commitments

•  AT the COP 26 in Glasgow, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India has set a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2070.
• India also updated its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that have to be met by 2030.
• Its new pledge includes increasing the country’s installed renewable capacity to 500 GW, meeting 50 per cent of its energy requirements from non-fossil fuel sources.

India’s achievements on past commitments

• At the COP 21 in Paris, India, made similar ambitious announcements and aimed to reduce the economy-wide emissions intensity by 33-35 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.
• In August, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy announced that the country has installed 100 GW of renewable energy capacity.
• The majority of this 100 GW, about 78 per cent, is due to large-scale wind and solar power projects.
• While this is a milestone, India is on track to accomplishing only about two-thirds of its planned renewable target of 175 GW installation by 2022.
•  To achieve its new goals, India will need to do more in different directions.
• For instance, it has a target of achieving 40 GW of green energy from the rooftop solar sector by 2022, but it has not been able to achieve even 20 per cent of that so far.
• In the transport sector, India has targeted a 30 per cent share of electric vehicles (EV) in new sales for 2030.

India’s climate actions against the Paris Agreement targets

•  The Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis that tracks government climate action against the Paris Agreement targets, deems India’s performance as “highly insufficient” simply because coal represents about 70 per cent of the country’s energy supply. 
• India also needs to cut down subsidies to the fossil fuel industry drastically — not the case currently.
• While in the past seven years, the country has invested Rs 5.2 trillion in renewable energy, the investment in fossil fuel industry, though down by (only) 4 per cent from 2015-19, was Rs 245 trillion.
• Coal production is estimated to increase to one billion tonnes by 2024 from 716 million tonnes in 2020-21.
• According to the Central Electricity Authority, coal capacity is projected to increase from 202GW in 2021 to 266GW by 2029-30.
• The Government of India is not actively discouraging such investments.
• On the contrary, coal subsidies are still 35 per cent higher than the subsidies for renewables and coal-fired power generation receives indirect financial support from the government through income tax exemptions and land acquisition at a preferential rate.

Conclusion

It is also true that India’s energy transition would be in its own interest because, otherwise, economic growth will not be sustainable and human security will be at stake if dozens of millions of climate refugees are created due to the devastating consequences of climate change.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Context

There has been quite a lot of debate on India’s dependence on coal against the backdrop of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) meeting. The crux of the theoretical argument is that India needs to develop, and development requires energy.

Carbon budget framework

• India has neither historically emitted nor currently emits carbon anywhere close to what the global North has, or does, in per capita terms.
• If anything, the argument goes, it should ask for a higher and fairer share in the global carbon budget.
• There is no doubt that this carbon budget framework is an excellent tool to understand global injustice but to move from there to our ‘right to burn’ is a big leap.
• However, the question is do the countries in the global South necessarily need to increase their share in the global carbon budget?

Why should developing countries aim for development without increasing carbon emission

1) Reducing the cost of renewable energy

• Normally the argument in favour of coal is on account of its cost, reliability and domestic availability.
• Recent data show that the levelised cost of electricity from renewable energy sources like solar (photovoltaic), hydro and onshore wind has been declining sharply over the last decade and is already less than fossil fuel-based electricity generation.
•  On reliability, frontier renewable energy technologies have managed to address the question of variability of such sources to a large extent and, with technological progress, it seems to be changing for the better.
• As for the easy domestic availability of coal, it is a myth.
• India is among the largest importers of coal in the world, whereas it has no dearth of solar energy.

2) Following different development model

•  During the debates of post-colonial development in the Third World, there were two significant issues under discussion — control over technology and choice of techniques to address the issue of surplus labour.
• India didn’t quite resolve the two issues in its attempts of import-substituting industrialisation which worsened during the post-reform period.
• But it can address both today.
• The abundance of renewable natural resources in the tropical climate can give India a head start in this competitive world of technology.
• South-South collaborations can help India avoid the usual patterns of trade between the North and the South, where the former controls technology and the latter merely provides inputs.
• And the high-employment trajectory that the green path entails vis-à-vis the fossil fuel sector may help address the issue of surplus labour, even if partially.
• Such a path could additionally provide decentralised access to clean energy to the poor and the marginalised, including in remote regions of India.

3) Limitation of addressing global injustice in terms of a carbon budget

•  The framework of addressing global injustice in terms of a carbon budget is quite limiting in its scope in more ways than one.
• Such an injustice is not at the level of the nation-states alone; there is such injustice between the rich and the poor within nations and between humans and non-human species.
• A progressive position on justice would take these injustices into account instead of narrowly focusing on the framework of nation-states.
• Moreover, it’s a double whammy of injustice for the global South when it comes to climate change.
• Not only is it not primarily responsible, but the global South, especially its poor, will unduly bear the effect of climate change because of its tropical climate and high population density along the coastal lines.
• So, arguing for more coal is like shooting oneself in the foot.

Way forward

• One of the ways in which this can be done is by making the global North pay for the energy transition in the South.
• Chalking out an independent, greener path to development may create conditions for such negotiations and give the South the moral high ground to force the North to come to the table, like South Africa did at Glasgow.

Conclusion

Even if one is pessimistic about this path of righting the wrongs of the past, at the very least, it is better than the status quo.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now