Keen to drive the State on the green route, the government recently held a meeting with private and omnibus operators during which they were urged to move to electric vehicles. The move is timely, given the renewed interest in cutting down carbon emissions. The TN Electric Vehicle Policy, 2019, has estimated that there would be about 9.8 crore vehicles in the State by 2030, and envisages 30% of them being electric. But there still are a few aspects to factor in before asking the private sector to switch.
Unlike the past years when electric vehicles were a niche area that only the uber-rich could afford, there is a great interest among the common public for EVs. Most EVs are costlier than the existing internal combustion engine (ICE) models, but the impression among the masses is that the additional cost is justified, as the fuel price is rising frequently. But customer interest can only go a certain distance when there are cheaper options available. What is required is policy and infrastructure support. The bus operators submitted a representation, which put forth some key demands: fast-charging facilities on all highways; long-term service support from battery manufacturers; waiver on bus permit fees and road tax for EVs, which ends on Dec 30, by five more years; and capital incentives to a maximum of 25%.Given how the existing battery technology can ensure only so much range per charge, charging infrastructure is among the most crucial support that individuals and the private sector require to switch to electric. Ensuring adequate number of charging docks will entail massive investment, which should come from the public sector and private behemoths. The oil marketing companies like Indian Oil Corporation have already been putting facilities in place. What is required is to have such docks at all petrol pumps.Within urban centres where land is a premium, private firms and individual businesses may find the cost prohibitive. That is where the largest landowner, the government, could play a role. Wherever possible, the State and local governments can earmark space to set up charging stations. Among the other demands, offering a waiver on permit fees and road tax is within the purview of the government. It would mean a loss of potential revenue, but the larger advantage that would accrue from the move would offset that. Another key aspect that the government should do is to walk the talk. If it is keen to nudge the private sector into adopting electric vehicles, the government should first take it up on itself to make that switch. A case in point is the tender floated to procure 1,771 buses, including 402 buses for MTC. From the latter, 25% (100 buses) could be electric vehicles. Such a policy decision would make sure that the charging infrastructure is available at all MTC depots, and, more importantly, a monthly performance assessment would make clear the advantages and challenges in making that switch. The potential benefit is huge. For instance, the GCC and the firms that have taken garbage collection contracts have been using electric three-wheelers, which would cut emissions by at least 3,000 MT annually. Switching to a less polluting energy source is the need of the hour. But before coaxing and prodding the private sector which has a lot more to lose, it is important that the government takes the lead in showing it the way.
For more than a decade, it was believed that the issue of historical responsibility for climate change had been settled, with the developed world time and again promising to step up with the cash and other resources needed by developing countries. This is to not only to help them limit their own emissions, but also to help prepare themselves and their people for the onslaught of extreme weather events, which have become a common occurrence, leading to hundreds of billions of dollars of damages and tens of thousands of lives lost each year.However, ever since the onset of the pandemic, the rich world has been dragging its feet on the question of payment. It has tried to pitch that the responsibility for cutting emissions should also fall on the shoulders of large developing countries like China and India. No matter how cynical they may be, even the rich country negotiators cannot dispute the fact that an overwhelming number of developed countries are responsible for far higher emissions per capita than the developing economies. On average, every citizen of the rich world is responsible for five to eight times more greenhouse gas emissions than those in the developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.A loss and damage fund could mark the first step toward the world pulling itself away from the brink of climate catastrophe this also a fact that poorer countries have been hit the hardest by climate change and the impact is showing up not just in economic data, but also in the social well-being of these countries as they face greater challenges of food security and death and destruction. Like every year before it, 2022 has seen a rise in occurrences of extreme weather events, such as flash floods, cyclones, heat waves and prolonged and widespread droughts. Though nature does not play favorites, the poor countries are hit harder and they take longer to recover due to their inherent economic weakness.And hence the focus on money, which has been the area where global talks — notably at the various COP summits — have frayed consistently. In many ways, the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement on the creation of a loss and damage fund is a very heartening one and could mark the first step toward the world pulling itself away from the brink of climate catastrophe, instead of hurtling toward it, which it has been for several years now.
The fund, which — in principle at least — will be funded entirely by the rich countries, is one of the best opportunities for the global community to join hands in the fight against climate change, since it will arm the most vulnerable nations, at least to some extent, to withstand nature’s onslaught.It would be foolish, or rather foolhardy, for global leaders to miss out on the golden opportunity that the loss and damage fund provides. They can build rapidly on this foundation and reach other critical agreements in order to tackle the issue of soaring global carbon dioxide emissions. In the desperate situation the world finds itself in, even a small step like slowing down the rise in emissions could be a much-needed straw for the world to clutch.However, the window of opportunity, which was already very small, has narrowed even further. If, by the next COP in Dubai next November, a proper and well-defined framework is not in place and being implemented, then one can disband the future meetings and endless negotiations that have come to symbolize the current climate change scenario. Yet there is still no definitive collective action or calls for sustained collaboration to curb such a high level of food waste, which would do wonders for efforts to end world hunger, improve nutrition, reduce emissions, restore water tables and boost other sustainable development goals. Even without embarking on radical interventions targeting food waste, it would cost the world an estimated $330 billion to end global hunger by 2030. This price tag is well below current annual losses to global GDP resulting from food loss and waste. It is therefore a virtual no-brainer that we prioritize the end of world hunger, especially given that this would also contribute significantly to the eradication of extreme poverty. More than 100 million people around the world remain displaced as a result of food crises, conflicts, extreme weather events and diminishing economic opportunities. Instead, our failure to act decisively on the issue of hunger means that the global goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030 will no longer be achievable. About a million people worldwide fall into poverty every 33 hours. This number will continue to grow as long as problems such as conflicts, instability, lack of employment opportunities and pervasive inequalities, to name but a few, persist. Based on current trends, more than half a billion people will be struggling to live on less than $2 a day by 2030, especially if available employment opportunities remain below pre-pandemic levels and a looming global recession limits growth rates for the remainder of the decade in many countries. Meanwhile, international action on extreme poverty leaves much to be desired, despite the fact that the estimated $175 billion price tag for eradicating poverty will only continue to increase as debt-distressed emerging and developing economies succumb to unrest and turmoil among understandably aggrieved populations. Beyond the issues of hunger and poverty, we are also not seeing much improvement in global public health trends. The COVID-19 crisis rages on in many places, now alongside sporadic outbreaks of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox), Ebola and cholera. Furthermore, there has been a decline in the testing, treatment and promotion of preventative interventions for infectious diseases in recent years. One would think that after a disastrous pandemic that exposed significant vulnerabilities in global public health we would be seeing concerted efforts to ensure the delivery of healthcare services that are less constrained, better-resourced, and more inclusive, resilient and human-centered. Yet global public health efforts remain fragmented, bogged down by deficiencies and inadequacies that doom less-wealthy countries to endure ineffectual mitigation strategies while rich countries work to reimagine and transform their own health sectors. These sorts of divergences do not bode well for the downward trends in global education or the fact that it is now projected it will take more than a century for the world to achieve true gender parity. That is not to say there is no hope of solving, or at least mitigating, the harmful effects of these crises. There are some signs of hope and sparks of renewed optimism the world over, which offer a blueprint for how we might navigate these troubled, polarized times and prevent catastrophic failure from becoming the only legacy of nearly 80 years of relative world peace. One of these hopes remains the fairly effective anticipatory interventions by the UN in an attempt to mitigate the most extreme outcomes in humanitarian crises. Such preemptive actions have included pre-crisis investments to improve food security in fragile locations such as Sudan, where the value of a dollar has increased seven-fold even as conflicts.
and the harmful effects of climate change intensify.
The world will accomplish a lot more if humanitarian funding can be shifted from a highly reactive model that often leads to expensive, ill-timed interventions that only address the most severe consequences of inaction, to a less-expensive, preemptive strategy that targets root causes.
At present, several G20 nations have reduced aid donations and other forms of assistance to prioritize their own domestic challenges. As things stand, however, it is estimated that the world will need to raise a record $52 billion to help more than 200 million people who will be exposed to acute challenges in 2023, a number that is 65 million more than this year and likely to grow.
UN appeals for aid funding remain underfunded by as much as 53 percent, which does not instill much confidence that the global community will be able to commit adequate funding for bolder initiatives that could help eradicate some of the world’s gravest ills and meet most of its sustainable development goals by the end of this decade.An earlier attempt to take cinema to remote areas was launched by Sushil Chaudhary of Picture Time, a company launched in 2015. His ‘touring talkies’ use state-of-the-art equipment. No tent here; instead, an inflatable yellow cube specially designed for better acoustics. It provides air-conditioned comfort. Plastic chairs are placed on a carpeted floor and the projection is crystal clear with Dolby sound. Chaudhary’s expansion plans were slowed down due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Picture Time owns 37 touring cinemas out of which 14 are operational at present in Leh (Ladakh) and the Naxal-dominated parts of Chhattisgarh. What is more, the tickets are priced in the range of Rs 30 to Rs 70. Picture Time plans to set up 15 touring cinemas in Maharashtra and another 20 in Andhra Pradesh.
Picture Time is the result of one man’s determination. CSC may have registered a company, but someone there will also need that required drive and determination.
Pope Francis warned of the “bitter consequences if we continue to accentuate conflict instead of understanding, if we persist in stubbornly imposing our own models and despotic, imperialist, nationalist and populist visions, if we are unconcerned about the culture of others, if we close our ears to the plea of ordinary people and the voice of the poor, if we continue simplistically to divide people into good and bad.”Cherishing the hope that we do not destroy ourselves and our planet does not feel like an excessive aspiration.Baria AlamuddinWe can never simply cast our enemies into the sea. Many religions teach how we have to learn to have love for our enemies and treat all mankind as our neighbors. If we desire as a species to survive into the 22nd century, then these are lessons we must quickly learn. I am often accused of being too idealistic, yet cherishing the hope that we do not destroy ourselves and our planet does not feel like an excessive aspiration.The grand imam called for the rebuilding of “bridges of dialogue, understanding and trust, and to establish peace in a world full of wounds,” while the king of Bahrain urged the replacement of “disagreement with consensus” and “unity in place of division.”
Across this increasingly multipolar planet, we can either learn to amicably coexist or die in bloodshed and anarchy. As Pope Francis observed: “In a globalized world, we only advance by rowing together; if we sail alone, we go adrift.”
