It’s Time for India to Walk its Talk
Net-zero by 2070 is ambitious, but a pledge is only as valuable as the resolve of its announcer
I’ll say it — India’s net-zero pledge is the biggest thing that has happened at this year’s Conference of Parties.
For a COP whose main points of discussion have been a hilarious coin-tossing meme, tepid, strategically vague commitments that still don’t do enough, and where the delegation representing fossil fuels is the largest in attendance, India’s pledge may be the only thing of significant value to emerge from this conference.
Remember, India is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases (behind China, the US, and the EU). More importantly, it was the largest emitter of GHGs without a concrete net-zero commitment — until now. In what was looking to be another year of resisting and rejection pressures to go net-zero, it is odd to see such a major policy reversal in such a short span of time. It brings up a few questions, the biggest of which is if India can really make this goal. Wondering if this announcement was more a spontaneous, knee-jerk response to mounting international pressure is a close second though.
Let’s break this down. India’s net-zero pledge was introduced as the biggest of a five-part process towards a sustainable future. They are as follows:
- Net-zero by 2070
- Increase in non-fossil fuel energy capacity (inclusive of nuclear) to 500 GW by 2030
- By 2030, half of all energy needs will be supplied via renewable sources (the PM did not elaborate on what “energy” means in this context)
- Absolute (projected) emissions will be reduced by 1 billion tonnes by 2030
- The carbon intensity of the Indian economy will be reduced by 45% by 2030
All in all, it’s a fairly ambitious goal that warrants being recognised as COP26’s biggest win yet. However, India will need to sort out (with urgency) the vast nuances that come with such bold proclamations if it is to meet these commitments.
Coal — be gone!
Part of the surprise in this announcement is that it came from a country so reliant on coal for its energy. Leading up to COP26, multiple Indian states experienced repeated, widespread power cuts owing to a severe shortage of coal. This, along with Coal India being one of the largest coal producers globally, clearly demonstrates a reliance on coal that permeates to the very core of the nation’s continued operations. To dismantle an institution this well-rooted into the economy and government will be a monumental task.
First, India must cease the planned/present construction of new coal-based power plants. In emerging economies, the volume of capital invested to make a coal plant, combined with its multi-decade lifespan, make its removal a major political and economic hassle. The political argument to remove an inefficient, old plant is much stronger than removing a shiny new one that just employed a large number of people.
Second, is that India must also ensure that its states act in uniformity. While wealthier states with high renewable energy capacities might find it easier to switch to renewables, others (particularly those in need of large-scale financing) will be less incentivized to switch. In turn, this further complicates the equity and accessibility aspect of the transition. This also extends to individual households, which may vote against such measures if no solution is provided to subsidise the initial additional expenses of sustainable energy. This is particularly true for low-income households, who as a voting block have historically voted in high numbers, and often make or break elections in key states.
The (likely unequal) internal movement away from coal must also be accompanied by relevant measures to avoid carbon leakage, which is when energy-intensive sectors like aluminium production move to regions with cheaper fossil fuels and make it politically and economically difficult to remove the last traces of these fuel sources.
Third, is that coal must be weeded out at a political level. Coal cannot be a stakeholder of a future without it. The presence of a coal lobby in a government that has to switch away from it is about as counter-productive as policy planning can get.
After all, it would be in a coal lobbyist’s best interest to create as much chaos, confusion, and delay in the creation of legislature that is an existential threat for it. It’s time to kill coal.
Steer clear of the carbon-emitting renewable curse
Even with net-zero, India has no intentions of holding back its economy. After all, if maturing economies like the US and Japan aren’t even considering degrowth, why should an industrialising nation abandon the promise of economic prosperity?
However, in an effort to fulfill this energy demand with renewables, India must be wary of the carbon costs of, ironically, non-carbon energy resources.
For example, hydroelectricity is a rather unusually carbon-intensive energy source, primarily due to the emissions associated with the building of the required infrastructure. Cement, which is an integral part of concrete, releases 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide per tonne produced. Furthermore, the flooding that is required to make a dam operational also causes the decomposition of natural matter, which releases methane (which as a GHG is far more potent than CO2). In total, each MWh of energy produced by a hydroelectric dam releases, on average, 273 kilograms of CO2e.
By not considering these “passive” emissions, the Diamer Bhasha dam in northern Pakistan is less like Pakistan’s cornerstone in its green energy plan and more akin to the coal plants it's trying to replace in terms of CO2e emissions. That’s right — a hydroelectric dam is as polluting as a coal plant if not built in a holistic manner. It’s up to Indian officials to ensure that all possible loopholes are fixed even before the first brick is laid.
Time to get the house in order
All being said, a pledge is only as valuable as the resolve and fortitude that its announcer comes with. Alas, within the borders of India, the government seems to have a different set of priorities. With a focus on infrastructure development, the BJP-led government has systematically diluted federal environmental legislation in the name of increasing ease of doing business.
From the introduction of unnecessary bureaucracy to limiting the power of citizens to hold projects accountable, India’s domestic environmental policy decisions all point in a direction away from net-zero (and a sustainable future as a whole). I would strongly recommend anyone interested to check out this comprehensive piece by DownToEarth on the exact legislative measures taken by the government to weaken India’s environmental rules.
Furthermore, what remains after this dilution will also need to be pruned and streamlined. For instance, forestry and tree plantations are a large constituent of India’s carbon initiatives (as is evidenced by the often record-breaking planting initiatives). With that being said, it’s quite likely that India has significantly overestimated its forest reserves (per the UNFCCC). This is also complicated by the fact that the government considers palm oil plantations as “forests” despite their well-documented environmental hazards (including, ironically, the cutting of actual forests to make space for them). For further informative reading, check out this fantastic independent report by Shruti Agarwal and Tushar Dash.
To sum up the sentiment best — on the day that Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced India’s net-zero commitment, lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj spent her 60th birthday in a jail cell. This comes after three years in prison with no bail or trial after she tried to fight large-scale coal mining in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh.
To quote Indian climate reporter Rishika Pardikar, “What happens on the global stage is often painfully ironic to those on the ground”.
P.S. — I’ve written this article mainly from the perspective of an Indian citizen hoping to see their country do their part in the fight against climate change. Hence I have, for now, ignored the obvious — the large majority of the burden to fight climate change unequivocally falls on the global north. The US, UK, EU, and other colonial empires whose historical growth account for an outsized proportion of global total emissions and have built their economies (and have consequently damaged those of their colonies) on these emissions have no right to suggest that the burden of the transition away from fossil fuels falls entirely on the global south.
The fact that the aforementioned economies are still some of the largest global emitters of GHGs is, to put it lightly, unacceptable. To outsource most of their carbon-intensive activities to developing economies and then to suggest that the global south is in the complete wrong while still accounting for a large part of present-day emissions is egregious. It may be time for India to walk its talk, but it's well overdue for these economies to get their sh*t together.
