27 Oct, 2021
35 Min Read
|GS-II||Indo Pacific||International Relations|
|GS-III||Net-Zero Emissions and India's Stand||Biodiversity & Environment|
|PT Pointer||Global Hunger Index||Economic Issues|
|Agni 5 Missile||S&T|
|UPSC GS Study Notes||East Asia Summit (EAS)||International Relations|
Under the broad theme, the IPRD 2021 will focus on eight specific sub-themes. These are:
“Why after PARIS net zero emission becomes the new buzz to solve the problem of climate change and sea level rise. Why? India should not sign it…”
Global Scenario: By the end of 2020 twenty countries and regions have adopted net-zero targets. This list only includes countries that adopted a net-zero target in law or another policy document. The Kingdom of Bhutan is already carbon-negative, i.e. absorbs more CO2 than it emits.
Indian Condition: India’s per capita CO2 emissions – at 1.8 tonnes per person in 2015 – are around a ninth of those in the USA and around a third of the global average of 4.8 tonnes per person.(India is the third-largest emitter of CO2, behind China and the USA)
Sectors that are the largest emitters:
“As the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear, limiting the increase in the world’s average temperature from pre-industrial levels to those agreed in the Paris Agreement requires global cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide to be capped at the global carbon budget”
It is a truism that such a cap means that eventually, emissions must go to zero, or more precisely, net zero.
Is it POSSIBLE?
But reaching net zero by itself is irrelevant to forestalling dangerous warming. This is no more rocket science than saying that the promise of when you will turn off the tap does not guarantee that you will draw only a specified quantity of water.
“The target is dead-on-arrival”
What India must do?
India, in enlightened self-interest, must now stake its claim to a fair share of the global carbon budget.
All of these will require at least the limited fossil fuel resources made available through a fair share of the carbon budget.
Net zero well before 2050: Developed countries and China, on the other hand, if they are serious about the Paris Agreement targets, must reach net zero well before 2050. For a target of 2°C, there is more room for the rest of the world, since the cumulative emission limit for it, with the same even odds, is 1,350 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
However, without restriction of their future cumulative emissions by the big emitters, to their fair share of the global carbon budget, and the corresponding temperature target that they correspond to made clear, India cannot sign on to net zero.
Even if India were to enhance its short-term Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement in some fashion, unnecessary as of now, it should do so while staking a claim to its share of the global commons. This will ensure that its efforts will not further enable the free-riding of the developed world and protect its access to this strategic resource, vital to India’s industrial and developmental future.
Source: The Hindu
Context: Highly Important for PT-MAINS-PT – Useful in Paper-3 and Sociology
Annual Report: Jointly published by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe.
It was first produced in 2006. It is published every October. The 2021 edition marks the 16th edition of the GHI.
Aim: To comprehensively measure and track hunger at the global, regional, and country levels.
Calculation: It is calculated on the basis of four indicators:
Government of India Stand:
A reminder that India still trails in the hunger fight- The HINDU article
CONTEXT: Government’s objection to the methodology of the Global Hunger Index is not based on facts
The Government of India, refuted the GHI, claiming that it is ‘devoid of ground reality’ and based on ‘unscientific’ methodology.
The GHI is ‘based on four indicators —
The first and the last indicators have a weight of one-third each and the two child malnutrition indicators account for one-sixth weightage each in the final GHI, where each indicator is standardized based on thresholds set slightly above the highest country-level values. Looking at each of these indicators separately, India shows a worsening in PoU and childhood wasting in comparison with 2012. It is the PoU figure of 15.3% for 2018-20 that the Government is contesting.
From official data sources
The Government’s objection to the methodology, that
“They have based their assessment on the results of a ‘four question’ opinion poll, which was conducted telephonically by Gallup”, is not based on facts.
Slow rate of progress
The main message that the GHR gives is to once again remind us that India has not been very successful in tackling the issue of hunger and that the rate of progress is very slow. Comparable values of the index have been given in the report for four years, i.e., 2000, 2006, 2012 and 2021. While the GHI improved from 37.4 to 28.8 during 2006-12, the improvement is only from 28.8 to 27.5 between 2012-21.
The PoU data show that the proportion of undernourished population showed a declining trend up to 2016-18 when it reached the lowest level of 13.8%, after which there is an increase to 14% for 2017-19 and 15.3% for 2018-20.
Other data also broadly validate these findings. The partial results of the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-20) also show that stunting and wasting indicators have stagnated or declined for most States for which data is available.
The leaked report of the consumption expenditure survey (2017-18) also showed that rural consumption had fallen between 2012-18 and urban consumption showed a very slight increase.
A period before the pandemic
It must also be remembered that all the data are for the period before the COVID-19 pandemic. There were many indications based on nationally representative data — such as from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy and various field surveys conducted by research organisations, academics and civil society groups — that the situation of food insecurity at the end of the year 2020 was concerning, and things are most likely to have become worse after the second wave.
Many of these surveys find that over 60% of the respondents say that they are eating less than before the national lockdown in 2020.
Services such as the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and school mid-day meals continue to be disrupted in most areas, denying crores of children the one nutritious meal a day they earlier had access to.
It would, therefore, not be surprising if national surveys (hopefully conducted soon) show a further slowdown in improvement in malnutrition.
The novel coronavirus pandemic has affected food security and nutrition across the world. In countries such as India — where the situation was also already poor to begin with — the impact is probably worse.
The response cannot be one of denial; rather, what is needed are measures to ensure rapid recovery.
It has been pointed out by many that the relief measures of the Government, so far, have been inadequate in comparison to the scale of the problem.
Cuts for schemes
The only substantial measure has been the provision of additional free foodgrains through the Public Distribution System (PDS), and even this has been lacking.
It leaves out about 40% of the population, many of whom are in need and includes only cereals.
Also, as of now, it ends in November 2021. At the same time, inflation in other foods, especially edible oils, has also been very high affecting people’s ability to afford healthy diets.
On the one hand, while we need additional investments and greater priority for food, nutrition and social protection schemes, Budget 2021 saw cuts in real terms for schemes such as the ICDS and the mid-day meal.
The argument that the GHI is an indicator of under nutrition and not hunger, is only diverting attention away from more substantial issues. Of course, malnutrition is affected by a number of factors (such as health, sanitation, etc.) other than food consumption alone, but that in no way means that healthy diets are not central. There is no denying that diverse nutritious diets for all Indians still remain a distant dream.
Source: Aspire IAS Notes
What are Vectors? Vectors are living organisms that can transmit infectious pathogens between humans, or from animals to humans. Many of these vectors are bloodsucking insects, which ingest disease-producing microorganisms during a blood meal from an infected host (human or animal) and late
International Monetary and Financial Committee-IMFC Union Minister for Finance & Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman attended the Plenary Meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the Annual
Copyright© Aspire IAS Academy. All rights reserved. Powered by CLT Technologies & Edu-Publishers Private Limited.