One Nation, One Development model won't work for Lakshadweep, Sunderbans, says Jairam Ramesh

All this, of course, is now history. What used to create much acrimony now has become part of conventional wisdom. Part of this is due to the sheer efflux of time that permits challenges to entrenched orthodoxies to get wider acceptance. Part of it is the nature of parliamentary politics which is based on the principle of 'where you stand depends on where you sit'. But there are other deeper forces at work that have resulted in this mindset change. The reasons for this change are many.
When the then Planning Commission set up, for the very first time, an expert group on 'Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth' in January 2010 under the chairmanship of Dr. Kirit Parikh, there was further outcry. The group even found it difficult to get going and it was only in May 2011 that it could submit its first report with the final report delayed till April 2014. There was great hesitancy in embracing the idea of 'low carbon' on the grounds that it would jeopardise India's position in global climate change negotiations. In December 2010 when India announced its intention to join on-going negotiations on amendments to the Montreal Protocol all hell broke loose, but six years later at Kigali, Rwanda, India signed on to the amendments that made clear a trajectory for the phase down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that some years before had been seen as a solution to the problem of depletion of the ozone layer.
Just a decade and a half back the very term 'low carbon' was taboo in our policy discourse. It was widely seen as part of some deliberate ploy by the advanced nations to slow the development of India. When India unilaterally took on a commitment under the December 2009 Copenhagen Accord to reduce emissions intensity by 20–25 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020, there was huge criticism both in Parliament and the media.
Our vulnerabilities to global warming have become even more stark. The frequency of extreme events has markedly increased. Glacial retreat is having clear consequences as is increase in mean sea levels. While what is called the long-period average of its quantum does not seem to have changed appreciably, the unpredictability of the monsoon in terms of its daily behaviour is now well established. All this has increased public awareness and consciousness.
Also read: India must account for human costs of energy transition, prioritise social justice
In addition, solar energy per kwh prices have fallen dramatically (thanks mainly to China and Germany that triggered this steep decline initially) making large-scale additions that had once been desirable become economically feasible as well. A third factor is the growing understanding of the public health impacts of air pollution caused in large measure by growing consumption of fossil fuels and by loss of biodiversity. This has forced yesterday's champions of the 'grow now pay later' model to recognise the centrality of ecological sustainability in economic growth. It has also helped that after years of painstaking and acrimonious negotiations that lasted well over a decade the global community was able to arrive at the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in December 2015, the building blocks of which were laid especially at Copenhagen in December 2009 and Cancun in December 2010.
The extremely thoughtful contributions in this volume look ahead and address the question of the energy transition in its technological, economic and social dimensions. The authors come from a variety of backgrounds and include policy makers, academics, research scholars and informed 'green' campaigners. It is this diversity that enriches the anthology. That a transition is inevitable and most necessary is no longer in dispute. But it will have costs that will have to be borne and will have impacts that will need to be managed. How this is to be accomplished keeping in mind objectives of both efficiency and equity is the real question. And it is not a case of a sequential efficiency first and equity subsequently. Both have to go hand-in-hand at all times.
A number of authors deal with issues related with the system of environmental governance we have. Over the decades, India has put in place a number of laws and regulations and established many institutions in this area. But the demographic challenges we face and the developmental imperatives we must fulfill put pressure on this system. Over the years these laws have come to be seen by influential sections of society as a regulatory burden that has been imposed and that only stymies faster economic growth, accelerated investment and job creation. Under the best of circumstances, enforcement of these laws has been weak. Now their very rationale is being questioned in the name of 'ease of doing business'. This is most unfortunate.
Being a world leader in the addition of solar energy capacity (even with low value-added in indigenous manufacturing) is one thing. But what good is that if forest and biodiversity conservation laws are diluted, emission norms for thermal power plants are eased, and forest rights legislation is subverted at the cost of both individual and community entitlements? What good is that if we routinely take recourse to what is called 'compensatory afforestation' but which can never be a substitute for the loss of rich natural forests? Compensatory afforestation only helps assuage the conscience.
The energy transition necessarily means a shift away from coal for the generation of electricity. Phase out is unrealistic in the foreseeable future but phase down is eminently doable. But even this will have consequences that go well beyond energy policy. Poorer states in the eastern part of India are heavily dependent on coal for their annual revenues. Millions of people depend on it for their daily livelihoods. Providing alternative sources of revenue and livelihoods is a national responsibility and this is where the idea of 'transition justice' becomes very important. The phase down can be facilitated if other base load alternatives to coal can get built up at the scale required.
Nuclear is one such alternative that is now witnessing a resurgence in many countries. India too has just announced a grandiose plan for 2040 but it is most unlikely to fructify. We are decades away from utilising our abundantly available reserves of fertile thorium as originally envisaged. Large storage dams are also on the anvil and some of them may well be needed on larger strategic grounds. But it bears recall that both nuclear and hydel energy too pose formidable environmental challenges that simply cannot be wished away. Moreover, the transition should not be viewed simply from the perspective of substituting one energy source by another. It is more fundamentally an opportunity to reconfigure electricity grids and redesign transportation networks, to give two examples.
A large number of our ecosystems—other than forests that cover some 22 per cent of the country's geographical area—are under serious threat. Wetlands, so very essential for maintaining ecological balance, are one example—they are presently estimated to cover around 5 per cent of the country's geographical area. The volume deals with some others, like Lakshadweep and the Himalayan region. Sunderbans is already very seriously affected and the plans being bulldozed through endanger Greater Nicobar. It can be nobody's case that such regions should be left as wildernesses— in the Indian context, that is very unrealistic. But they need a wholly different approach to what we understand development to be. One Nation, One Model of development will just not work.
We should also bear in mind that ecosystems respect no geographical boundaries and hence cooperation with our neighbouring countries is essential. Today's political scenario may make this seem impossible but sooner or later we have to find avenues for joint endeavour. In fact, such avenues could in themselves be ways of improving the political climate in the subcontinent.
Finally, this volume is focused on energy transition in the context of climate change. But global warming is only one of the planetary boundaries that have to be reckoned with. Fifteen years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Centre had identified nine such boundaries—climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, disruption of natural nutrient cycles of key elements like nitrogen and phosphorus, alteration in freshwater cycles, land system changes, biosphere integrity and introduction of novel entities. Six of the boundaries have already been transgressed, the three exceptions being ozone depletion, aerosol loading and ocean acidification (which is, however, close to crossing the safe boundary).
India will need to build up its research capacity in these areas. The Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) set up in 2009 and thereafter made moribund needs to be revived and given an expanded mandate to cover all planetary boundaries, even if the USA has no interest whatsoever in them now—or at least for the next four years.
Preface by Jairam Ramesh, in Energy Transition and Climate Justice: A Path Less Travelled, IIC Quarterly (vol. 51, nos. 3&4, Winter 2024-Spring 2025)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Print

a day ago

• The Print

One Nation, One Development model won't work for Lakshadweep, Sunderbans, says Jairam Ramesh

All this, of course, is now history. What used to create much acrimony now has become part of conventional wisdom. Part of this is due to the sheer efflux of time that permits challenges to entrenched orthodoxies to get wider acceptance. Part of it is the nature of parliamentary politics which is based on the principle of 'where you stand depends on where you sit'. But there are other deeper forces at work that have resulted in this mindset change. The reasons for this change are many. When the then Planning Commission set up, for the very first time, an expert group on 'Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth' in January 2010 under the chairmanship of Dr. Kirit Parikh, there was further outcry. The group even found it difficult to get going and it was only in May 2011 that it could submit its first report with the final report delayed till April 2014. There was great hesitancy in embracing the idea of 'low carbon' on the grounds that it would jeopardise India's position in global climate change negotiations. In December 2010 when India announced its intention to join on-going negotiations on amendments to the Montreal Protocol all hell broke loose, but six years later at Kigali, Rwanda, India signed on to the amendments that made clear a trajectory for the phase down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that some years before had been seen as a solution to the problem of depletion of the ozone layer. Just a decade and a half back the very term 'low carbon' was taboo in our policy discourse. It was widely seen as part of some deliberate ploy by the advanced nations to slow the development of India. When India unilaterally took on a commitment under the December 2009 Copenhagen Accord to reduce emissions intensity by 20–25 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020, there was huge criticism both in Parliament and the media. Our vulnerabilities to global warming have become even more stark. The frequency of extreme events has markedly increased. Glacial retreat is having clear consequences as is increase in mean sea levels. While what is called the long-period average of its quantum does not seem to have changed appreciably, the unpredictability of the monsoon in terms of its daily behaviour is now well established. All this has increased public awareness and consciousness. Also read: India must account for human costs of energy transition, prioritise social justice In addition, solar energy per kwh prices have fallen dramatically (thanks mainly to China and Germany that triggered this steep decline initially) making large-scale additions that had once been desirable become economically feasible as well. A third factor is the growing understanding of the public health impacts of air pollution caused in large measure by growing consumption of fossil fuels and by loss of biodiversity. This has forced yesterday's champions of the 'grow now pay later' model to recognise the centrality of ecological sustainability in economic growth. It has also helped that after years of painstaking and acrimonious negotiations that lasted well over a decade the global community was able to arrive at the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in December 2015, the building blocks of which were laid especially at Copenhagen in December 2009 and Cancun in December 2010. The extremely thoughtful contributions in this volume look ahead and address the question of the energy transition in its technological, economic and social dimensions. The authors come from a variety of backgrounds and include policy makers, academics, research scholars and informed 'green' campaigners. It is this diversity that enriches the anthology. That a transition is inevitable and most necessary is no longer in dispute. But it will have costs that will have to be borne and will have impacts that will need to be managed. How this is to be accomplished keeping in mind objectives of both efficiency and equity is the real question. And it is not a case of a sequential efficiency first and equity subsequently. Both have to go hand-in-hand at all times. A number of authors deal with issues related with the system of environmental governance we have. Over the decades, India has put in place a number of laws and regulations and established many institutions in this area. But the demographic challenges we face and the developmental imperatives we must fulfill put pressure on this system. Over the years these laws have come to be seen by influential sections of society as a regulatory burden that has been imposed and that only stymies faster economic growth, accelerated investment and job creation. Under the best of circumstances, enforcement of these laws has been weak. Now their very rationale is being questioned in the name of 'ease of doing business'. This is most unfortunate. Being a world leader in the addition of solar energy capacity (even with low value-added in indigenous manufacturing) is one thing. But what good is that if forest and biodiversity conservation laws are diluted, emission norms for thermal power plants are eased, and forest rights legislation is subverted at the cost of both individual and community entitlements? What good is that if we routinely take recourse to what is called 'compensatory afforestation' but which can never be a substitute for the loss of rich natural forests? Compensatory afforestation only helps assuage the conscience. The energy transition necessarily means a shift away from coal for the generation of electricity. Phase out is unrealistic in the foreseeable future but phase down is eminently doable. But even this will have consequences that go well beyond energy policy. Poorer states in the eastern part of India are heavily dependent on coal for their annual revenues. Millions of people depend on it for their daily livelihoods. Providing alternative sources of revenue and livelihoods is a national responsibility and this is where the idea of 'transition justice' becomes very important. The phase down can be facilitated if other base load alternatives to coal can get built up at the scale required. Nuclear is one such alternative that is now witnessing a resurgence in many countries. India too has just announced a grandiose plan for 2040 but it is most unlikely to fructify. We are decades away from utilising our abundantly available reserves of fertile thorium as originally envisaged. Large storage dams are also on the anvil and some of them may well be needed on larger strategic grounds. But it bears recall that both nuclear and hydel energy too pose formidable environmental challenges that simply cannot be wished away. Moreover, the transition should not be viewed simply from the perspective of substituting one energy source by another. It is more fundamentally an opportunity to reconfigure electricity grids and redesign transportation networks, to give two examples. A large number of our ecosystems—other than forests that cover some 22 per cent of the country's geographical area—are under serious threat. Wetlands, so very essential for maintaining ecological balance, are one example—they are presently estimated to cover around 5 per cent of the country's geographical area. The volume deals with some others, like Lakshadweep and the Himalayan region. Sunderbans is already very seriously affected and the plans being bulldozed through endanger Greater Nicobar. It can be nobody's case that such regions should be left as wildernesses— in the Indian context, that is very unrealistic. But they need a wholly different approach to what we understand development to be. One Nation, One Model of development will just not work. We should also bear in mind that ecosystems respect no geographical boundaries and hence cooperation with our neighbouring countries is essential. Today's political scenario may make this seem impossible but sooner or later we have to find avenues for joint endeavour. In fact, such avenues could in themselves be ways of improving the political climate in the subcontinent. Finally, this volume is focused on energy transition in the context of climate change. But global warming is only one of the planetary boundaries that have to be reckoned with. Fifteen years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Centre had identified nine such boundaries—climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, disruption of natural nutrient cycles of key elements like nitrogen and phosphorus, alteration in freshwater cycles, land system changes, biosphere integrity and introduction of novel entities. Six of the boundaries have already been transgressed, the three exceptions being ozone depletion, aerosol loading and ocean acidification (which is, however, close to crossing the safe boundary). India will need to build up its research capacity in these areas. The Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) set up in 2009 and thereafter made moribund needs to be revived and given an expanded mandate to cover all planetary boundaries, even if the USA has no interest whatsoever in them now—or at least for the next four years. Preface by Jairam Ramesh, in Energy Transition and Climate Justice: A Path Less Travelled, IIC Quarterly (vol. 51, nos. 3&4, Winter 2024-Spring 2025)

Time of India

6 days ago

• Time of India

‘Project Dolphin must be backed by real research'

1 2 3 National Dolphin Research Centre (NDRC) was set up in Patna to boost research on the Ganges dolphin. But it remains non-functional. In this exclusive interview with TOI's B K Mishra, Padma Shri awardee and environmentalist Ravindra Kumar Sinha calls for urgent govt support. Excerpts: Were ancient Indians aware of the Ganges dolphin's significance? Did they take any steps for its protection? People in ancient India recognised the importance of the Ganges dolphin and took steps for its conservation. Ashoka the Great, ruler of the Magadh Empire, issued the world's first known wildlife conservation order, which included the Ganges dolphin, then called Ganga puputaka. This edict, recorded in the Fifth Pillar Edicts, prohibited the killing of listed animals. The Ganges dolphin is also referenced in the story of Ganga avataran. What does modern science say about these dolphins? Scientific research suggests the Ganges dolphin is the most ancient dolphin species in the world. It lost its eyesight due to the absence of a lens, and its retinas are vestigial. Anatomical features like the presence of a caecum at the junction of the small and large intestines – absent in other dolphins, whales or porpoises – further set it apart. The position of the testes also supports its status as the most ancient surviving dolphin. What is the status of "Project Dolphin"? Ten years after the Ganges dolphin was declared India's national aquatic animal by the ministry of environment and forests, PM Narendra Modi launched "Project Dolphin" on Independence Day in 2020 for the conservation of both Ganges and marine dolphins. Notably, the proposal I submitted to the Planning Commission in 2012 included conservation of both riverine and marine dolphins as part of the NDRC's scientific work. The NDRC was set up at your initiative. What kind of research was it meant to conduct and why is it still not operational? The NDRC at Law College Ghat was funded by the then Planning Commission in 2013 following my proposal. Patna University provided land after a five-year delay, thanks to the CM's intervention. However, no regular director has been appointed and no budget has been allocated. This is the only such centre in India, and possibly in the world, that deserves a renowned river dolphin conservationist with global experience at its helm. The state govt must provide budgetary support to enable scientists to begin research, publish quality papers and attract international attention and funding. Without external funding, quality research and international publications are not possible. How can today's youth contribute to Ganges dolphin conservation? With proper lab equipment and fieldwork facilities at the NDRC, the younger generation will be drawn to scientific research and conservation efforts for the Ganges dolphin. Young people can also play a key role in raising awareness about the importance of dolphins and the urgent need for their protection. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .

Hans India

12-06-2025

• Hans India

Reforms under PV were 'by stealth', not gradualism: Ahluwalia

New Delhi: Former Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia has said the 1991 economic reforms under former prime minister PV Narasimha Rao were characterised more "by stealth" than by a clearly signalled gradualist approach, noting that neither Rao nor then finance minister Manmohan Singh were proponents of "big-bang" changes. Speaking at the launch of author David C Engerman's 'Apostles of Development: Six Economists and the World They Made,' Ahluwalia placed both Rao and Manmohan in the category of "gradualists" – as he did himself. However, he distinguished between two types of gradual change what he called "gradualism" and "reform by stealth." "I don't know if I coined the phrase, 'reform by stealth', but I certainly used it and probably earlier than most. I used it to describe Rao's approach to bringing about reforms. Manmohan Singh was the architect, he actually knew what to do. "But, as he himself often said, he couldn't have done it without the prime minister's support. Neither Rao nor Manmohan Singh was a great believer in big-bang reforms. They were both, in that sense, gradualists," said Ahluwalia. The 81-year-old economist, who was a key member of the team that implemented the 1991 reforms, used an analogy from the shipping industry to explain his point. "One of my friends who was in shipping once said: the turning circle of a small boat is much smaller than a big liner. You have to accept that if you're steering a very large vessel, it's going to take time to turn. "In India, 'reform by stealth' really meant we are going to change direction, but we're not going to openly say so," he said, adding that this often meant reform announcements were made without clear timelines or commitments, in contrast to a more predictable and planned path. Ahluwalia explained that under a genuine gradualist approach, policymakers would communicate the trajectory clearly for example, announcing a phased reduction of tariffs over a 10-year horizon. This, he said, enables businesses and stakeholders to plan accordingly. However, he claimed, the approach that India took was different from gradualism and was "opportunistic." "Our approach was: our duties are too high, we are reducing them, and we must do more. But you do not tell them how much more, or when you'll get to what — and that was really an opportunistic approach... I call that 'reform by stealth' you are going to reform, but you're going to do it when you can, and that's different from my view of gradualism," he added. During the discussion, which also had former ambassador Shivshankar Menon as one of the panellists, Ahluwalia also emphasised the need for greater awareness of the economic challenges faced by neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Ahluwalia, who claimed that we are quite aware of what's happening in other developing regions Africa, Latin America and East Asia –, lamented the lack of consistent media coverage or public discourse in India about "what's happening next door." "You would think most people in India would be very aware of the economic problems of Pakistan, or why Bangladesh has faced repeated IMF interventions. But apart from reporting on an IMF programme — which many journalists seem to reflexively consider newsworthy — there is little coverage of what's happening in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Myanmar," he said. Ahluwalia highlighted that while India has also faced economic challenges in the past, particularly in 1980 and again during the 1991 balance of payments crisis, it has not had to seek IMF assistance since. "I recall in the 1991 crisis, we told the IMF in 1993, 'Thank you, the crisis is over.' As we walked out, we were saying it's really good not to be under IMF supervision. One of my colleagues said, 'Don't worry, you'll be back in 10 years,' and I replied, 'I'll take a bet with you.' The truth is, from 1991 to now, we haven't had to go back," he said. He credited successive governments for maintaining prudent economic management and stressed that India's relatively stable record stands in contrast to its neighbours, who have had to repeatedly turn to the IMF. "The best way of learning why we didn't have to go back is to find out why others did," he added. 'Apostles of Development,' published by Penguin Random House India, uncovers the pivotal role six economists Amartya Sen, Manmohan Singh, Mahbub ul Haq, Jagdish Bhagwati, Rehman Sobhan, and Lal Jayawardena played in shaping global poverty solutions after the Second World War.