The Indian government weakened rules to curb pollution caused by its expanding coal industry after lobbying by top producers, even as it agreed internationally to phase down the use of coal, an investigation by Climate Home has found.
India’s coal giants pushed back hard against environmental regulation meant to tighten up the disposal of fly ash – a byproduct of coal-fired power plants known to harm both humans and the environment if not managed properly.
Letters sent by coal companies to the Indian government – and accessed by Climate Home News through freedom of information requests to government agencies – reveal lobbying efforts to weaken federal rules between 2019 and 2023.
The state-run firms involved were Coal India Limited (CIL), the world’s third-biggest coal mining company, and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Limited, one of the top 10 coal-fired power companies globally.
Top management at the coal giants claimed their organisations would not be able to comply fully with the government regulations, aimed at controlling fly ash disposal after decades of public health impacts for local communities. Even after the rules were approved, the companies continued efforts to weaken them, in some cases successfully.
Residents of Kuruvimedu village in Tamil Nadu show coal dust and fly ash on 10 March 2017 (Photo: Sajan Ponappa/Greenpeace)
NTPC argued financial constraints would keep them from meeting the new requirements to clean up waste accumulated over decades and prevent further ash pollution, according to the accessed documents.
In some cases, lobbying got results and regulations were eased, with the environment and power ministries drawing on arguments from both companies in official correspondence between government agencies.
Climate Home contacted the two coal companies and India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for comment on the issues raised in this article but did not receive a response.
COP26 commitment
In 2021, while the proposed fly ash mandates were under discussion in India, the country was negotiating the COP26 climate pact in Glasgow, which calls on all governments to take action “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”.
At those UN talks, India rejected stronger language on a global shift away from coal, but it agreed to scale back unabated coal power, which is produced without technology to reduce its climate-heating emissions.
Despite this deal, coal infrastructure around the world has since grown, mostly driven by added coal mining and power capacity in India, China and Indonesia.
The Indian documents obtained by Climate Home reveal that the South Asian nation’s coal companies lobbied against regulations on fly ash pollution while expanding coal production at record speed.
In their correspondence with ministries, they argued that high fines for non-compliance with waste disposal rules were a risk to their financial sustainability and raised the prospect of coal-fired power plants being shut down, triggering a power crisis in the country.
A letter from the NTPC’s director of operations to the environment ministry on February 8, 2022. Highlights by Climate Home News
Fly ash pollution
When thermal power plants burn coal for energy, the fly ash they generate as a byproduct is dumped in water-filled, dam-like structures called dykes.
Old “legacy” dykes store ash from previous decades and are a major source of pollution for nearby communities, explained independent air pollution analyst Sunil Dahiya. Wet ash can leach into groundwater, while dry ash can blow away, causing air pollution and damaging crops.
Functioning disposal sites are also vulnerable to heavy rains, as they can overflow and pollute nearby settlements. This happened on at least three occasions between 2019 and 2021, according to a 2021 report by the NGO Fly Ash Watch Group.
To minimise the impacts of fly ash, companies can recycle it into products like bricks, cement sheets, panels and other construction materials – a process known as “utilisation”.
Children playing beside one of the many ash dykes of the NTPC Sipat Thermal Power Plant on March 11, 2017 (Saagnik Paul/Greenpeace)
Sehr Raheja, climate change officer at the Indian think-tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), highlighted the need to utilise “legacy” ash given “the enormous quantity”, adding there are risks involved with it staying underground, such as water and soil pollution.
As of 2019, the amount of accumulated unused ash in the country was about 1.65 billion tonnes, according to a CSE report, with newer estimates suggesting even more, she said.
“Loophole” in regulation
Fly ash regulation – known officially as the Fly Ash Notification – has been in place in India since 1999. But it was not until a 2021 update to the rules that fines were introduced for failing to comply with proper waste disposal, following the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
The regulation also imposed a mandate on thermal power plants to ensure 100% utilisation of accumulated old fly ash, as well as fresh ash produced by ongoing operations.
Documents accessed by Climate Home show that NTPC exchanged letters with government agencies asking for elimination of the mandate to clean up accumulated ash.
“It is proposed that the provisions for utilization of old legacy ash may be dropped,” reads a 2021 letter from NTPC to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
A letter from NTPC’s managing director to the environment ministry on June 11, 2021. Highlights by Climate Home News
The 2021 rules were nonetheless passed, and they did introduce strict fines for coal companies. However, they also included what experts called a “loophole”.
The fly ash regulation exempted power plants from having to find a use for their old legacy ash as long as the ponds where it was stored were considered “stabilised”, meaning they had been secured against leakage. But the technical specifications of how that should be done were not defined, leading to concerns that arbitrary exemptions could be granted.
Yet even after these revamped regulations came into force in late 2021, lobbying intensified.
Persistence pays off
In 2022, NTPC was still concerned by a deadline of 10 years to utilise all legacy ash accumulated over decades, according to a letter addressed to the environment ministry. This would force them to transfer large quantities of fly ash to end users like brick-making kilns or ceramic product makers – or pay fines.
NTPC met with regulators at the Ministry of Power and agreed an extension to the period for stabilising old ash dykes from one to three years.
In the case of “operational” ponds, officials were persuaded not to label them as legacy ash, exempting them from the requirement for full utilisation. These changes were included in a 2022 amendment to the rules.
A civil servant’s notes from a meeting between government officials and the NTPC on 5 July 2022. Highlights by Climate Home News
Shripad Dharmadhikary, who leads civil-society research group Manthan Adhyayan Kendra and has worked on fly ash management, said the unclear definition of stabilisation and longer time-frame for doing it provided “a loophole for power plants to evade use or proper disposal of legacy ash”
The lack of technical parameters meant government authorities could struggle to guarantee that no more leaks would occur even if they certified the ponds, he added.
“Threat” to coal industry finances
The powerful companies also managed to limit the level of fines for non-compliance in a prolonged effort that began in 2020, when the first draft proposal on the new fly ash rules was circulated among coal companies.
That included a fine of Rs 1,500 (about $17.80) per tonne, which was cut to Rs 1,000 ($11.90) in the final 2021 rules after NTPC and other coal companies opposed it and asked for it to be removed entirely.
Even after this, executives from both Coal India and NTPC expressed alarm about the financial implications of the fines.
Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events
In a February 2022 letter to the Ministry of Environment, for instance, NTPC’s then director of operations Ramesh Babu V. wrote that the company could end up paying Rs 76,000 crores ($9 billion) over a decade – an amount “significant enough to threaten financial viability of NTPC and country’s thermal sector alike”. He warned that the penalties could make large power stations at mining pit heads commercially unviable, leading to a “power crisis”.
Similarly, in a 2023 letter, CIL chairman and managing director Pramod Agrawal estimated that the “financial penalty” on only one of its subsidiaries (NCL) for failure to comply with the regulations could cost the latter Rs 38,145 crores (at least $4 billion) for just the 2022-2023 financial year.
Coal expansion
However, the threats the executives outlined to their companies’ bottom lines do not appear to have translated into lower capacity to mine coal and produce thermal power, as both were ramped up drastically during and after discussions on the Fly Ash Notification.
Expansion efforts were redoubled especially after an unprecedented power crisis in late 2021, which was attributed to logistical issues causing a shortage of coal supply.
In a January 2024 conference call with investors, NTPC’s management said it was considering awarding thermal power capacity of 15.2 gigawatts (GW) in the near future, on top of the 9.6 GW thermal capacity already under construction for the group.
CIL, in its latest annual report, announced plans to increase coal mining capacity to 1 billion tonnes by the financial year 2025-26.
G20 waters down experts’ climate finance report, despite UN pressure to act
A previous investigation by Climate Home News showed that European asset managers invested substantially in both NTPC and CIL, helping India’s coal industry to grow rather than phase down in line with international commitments.
Air pollution expert Dahiya said that, while India has lower historical emissions than countries in the Global North and requires flexibility to meet its energy needs, as well as international support to move away from fossil fuels, that did not mean coal companies should be “free to pollute”.
Raheja, of the CSE, said better controls on pollution were also a matter of justice for those living near coal-fired power plants.
“The environmental regulations are critically important for maintaining the health of the environment and of communities residing near coal facilities – even of people far away – as pollution, both through air and water, can be carried to a distance,” Raheja told Climate Home News.
(Reporting by Akshay Deshmane; editing by Sebastian Rodriquez, Megan Rowling and Joe Lo; fact-checking by Matteo Civillini)
The post Indian coal giants pushed for lax pollution rules while ramping up production appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indian coal giants pushed for lax pollution rules while ramping up production
Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.
For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.
While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.
After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.
COP president: Results beat expectations
An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.
“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.
Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.
-
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say
Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.
An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.
WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.
‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies
In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.
They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures.
The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.
It also urges the over 60 countries who have not submitted a biodiversity plan yet to finalise them “as soon as possible” and taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.
Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.
Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.
“Timid” steps to expand base of donors
Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.
During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.
Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.
Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.
Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said during one of the sessions that her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, also noted their dissatisfaction but said it had expected “a lot less”.
The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.
In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.
Cali Fund still not operational
Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.
The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.
But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.
Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.
“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.
The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal