Hundreds of millions of Indians will head to the polls from 19 April to 1 June amid scorching heat to cast their votes in the world’s biggest elections.
Their decisions could have significant consequences for how – or even if – India meets its climate goals and adapts rapidly to now almost daily extreme weather impacts.
Over the past decade, the Narendra Modi-led Indian government has been projected and perceived as a climate leader internationally: from his COP26 speech in Glasgow committing India to net-zero by 2070 through to his G20 presidency last year where he announced a renewable “tripling” target which was then echoed in the first “global stocktake” at COP28.
However, despite increasing renewable capacity, the Indian government’s rapid coal expansion and Modi’s links to fossil fuel interests have been dubbed problematic by many and “pragmatic” by others.
His party – the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – holds a majority in the lower house of parliament and is the single largest party in the upper house, allowing it to pass controversial environmental and forest laws, with limited scrutiny and discussion.
While the BJP dominates – and expects to win the election – India still has more than 2,700 registered political parties and 56 state parties, of which six are officially recognised as national political parties.
Of these, the biggest and oldest is the Rahul Gandhi-led Indian National Congress (Congress), credited with giving India most of its progressive environmental laws and positions on climate, but also accused of ignoring them before its fall from national power in 2014.
In this interactive grid below, Carbon Brief tracks the commitments made by India’s major national political parties in their latest election manifestos across a range of issues connected to climate change.
The grid also includes proposals by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Parties yet to publish their manifestos include the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led by Delhi’s recently jailed chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) representing India’s historically marginalised castes and minorities, and the National Peoples’ Party representing India’s biodiverse northeastern states. (The grid will be updated when these remaining parties publish their manifestos.)
Each entry in the grid represents a direct quote from one of these documents.
(Note that the BJP refers to India as “Bharat” in most of its manifesto. This is seen by some as a reaction to 26 opposition parties banding together last year to brand themselves the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) alliance.)
Despite an ongoing heatwave, drought, floods, farmer protests and debilitating smog blanketing most Indian cities, many argue that climate and environmental issues are too “peripheral” to sway the billion-strong Indian electorate. Others counter that “all key issues on the ballot in 2024” are linked to climate change.
Historically, however, Indian political parties have regularly rolled out campaigns and subsidies connected to energy, electricity and climate to appeal to Indian voters.
While welfare or development-based promises of free electricity for farmers and cooking gas price cuts are a running election feature, free public transport, land rights and managing natural resources, such as coal or forests, can also mobilise voters.
In 2014, for instance, Modi rode to power on a campaign promise of cleaning up corruption in India’s coal and mining sector, scarred by gargantuan scams.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Aditya Valiathan Pillai from the Sustainable Futures Collaborative, says on one side you have welfare and developmental projects as a “balancing factor” for climate shocks. On the other side, “it’s about gas cylinders, energy access, cheaper electricity…all of that is climate. It’s just that it’s not ‘Extinction Rebellion’-style climate politics”.
Pillai adds:
“I think we see climate politics as the sort of existential, titanic fight for the future of humanity where climate progressives arm wrestle climate deniers. It’s not. There’s a much greater diversity in climate politics. The core difference is the politics of gain and the politics of loss, and we are very much in the politics of gain in India because it’s such a low baseline of development. In the West, it’s the exact opposite.”
Climate and environmental issues may not have been explicitly on top of voters’ or parties’ priorities before, but that has steadily changed since 2019.
While the BJP set out an ambitious renewable energy target of 175 gigawatts (GW) by 2022, AAP campaigned on its air pollution and electric vehicle policies in Delhi.
In 2019, while Congress pledged to bring back protections against deforestation and land-use change, the BSP and its allies promised to deploy clean energy to “destroy caste discrimination”, as “an over-dependence on coal directly impacts tribal populations who are constantly under threat in the name of power-generation”.
This year, climate change is mentioned in all national party manifestos published so far, along with commitments to promote renewable energy and, for the first time ever, critical minerals. For example, the BJP and Congress manifestos both emphasise working towards achieving net-zero by 2070.
The BJP manifesto promises the country “energy independence” by 2047 – a century since India achieved independence from the UK – through “a mix of electric mobility, network of charging stations, renewable energy production and improving energy efficiency”.
The BJP also sets out a 500GW renewable energy target – although it does not specify when this goal would be met. If voted in again, the Modi government says it plans to achieve this through setting up “mega” solar and wind parks and a clean energy corridor, with aims to turn India into a global renewable energy manufacturing hub.
It also emphasises scaling up bioenergy and green hydrogen production, developing small modular nuclear reactors and incentivising private investment in large-scale battery storage.
In the run-up to the elections, Modi has already announced a rooftop solar scheme and promised farmers in the critical election state of Uttar Pradesh to turn India’s sugarcane belt into a biofuel belt.
However, while the BJP’s manifesto pledges to support India’s automobile industry transition to electric vehicle manufacturing, it fails to mention coal even once or to outline how heavy industry will be decarbonised, beyond its existing Green Credit Programme.
While it outlines its commitment to meet India’s still-unclear carbon sink target, the BJP’s manifesto is silent on the forest rights of Indigenous communities, unlike Congress, which promises to set up a national mission to guarantee their rights and to stem deforestation.
In an election where unemployment is set to be a key voting issue, Congress pledged a “Green New Deal Investment Programme” and a “Green Transition Fund” in its manifesto. Congress pledges to generate millions of jobs in renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure and mining critical minerals. Its renewable energy plans lack specific targets, but remain strongly focused on decentralised power and job generation in rural India, with incentives for village councils and farmers to set up solar grids.
Congress is the only national party promising to increase allocations to India’s National Adaptation Fund and wants to create an independent environment authority akin to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Both Congress and CPI have promised to look into landslides caused by floods that caused severe crop losses last year and to reverse “anti-people” amendments to India’s forest and environmental laws made under the Modi government.
The CPI is the only national party to explicitly mention coal in its manifesto, calling for unexplored private coal blocks to be returned to state-run Coal India, to reduce India’s dependence on coal imports and a judicial investigation into “fraudulent” imports by private companies.
Similarly, it is the only party to pledge a participatory “just transition plan” to protect communities and coal workers “affected in the process of transitioning to renewable energy from fossil fuel[s]”.
Its manifesto promises to end private monopolies in renewable energy, seeking to establish the government’s “decisive stake” in the sector “to protect our country’s energy sovereignty”.
To Bangalore-based climate activist Disha Ravi, protests by farmers, youth and citizen groups in the Himalayan region, as well as the visible climate impacts right before election season, have ensured environmental issues have “stayed fresh” in peoples’ minds and made it into manifestos.
However, she is concerned about follow-through, including from state governments where the opposition has been in power. She tells Carbon Brief:
“I live in Karnataka and one of our main environmental demands locally was to get back the right to protest. And they [Congress] haven’t enabled that since they’ve come back to power. They’ve been a little more open to conversations, and it’s great that they have these amazing-sounding policies on paper. But will they actually translate into real life? I don’t know that because they haven’t had a great track record.”
It remains to be seen whether the heat, deforestation or renewable jobs sway Indian voters as they step out to vote over seven phases this summer. But to activists and observers such as Ravi, it is time India has “a national-level climate conversation, and it shouldn’t be just because elections are around the corner”.
The post India election 2024: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
India election 2024: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change
Climate Change
Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
Countries attending a first-of-its-kind fossil-fuel summit have been asked to consider “action recommendations” such as “halting all new fossil-fuel expansion” and “reject[ing] gas as a bridging fuel”, according to a preliminary scientific report seen by Carbon Brief.
Around 50 nations will gather in Santa Marta, Colombia from 24-29 April to debate ways to “transition away” from fossil fuels, in the face of worsening climate change and sky-high oil prices.
The talks come after a large group of nations campaigned for, but ultimately failed, to get all countries to formally agree to a “roadmap” away from fossil fuels at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil in November.
The nations gathering in Santa Marta for the summit co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, call themselves the “coalition of the willing”.
Ahead of country officials arriving in Santa Marta, a global group of academics will gather in the city this week to present and discuss the latest scientific evidence on fossil-fuel phaseout, which will then inform debate among policymakers.
A preliminary scientific “synthesis report” circulated to governments attending the talks and seen by Carbon Brief offers 12 “action insights” for countries to consider, along with a wide range of “action recommendations”.
These recommendations range from “phase out subsidies on fossil-fuel production and consumption” to “kick-start a forum to develop a legal framework to ban fossil-fuel advertisements”.
‘Rapid’ assessment
The preliminary scientific report seen by Carbon Brief – titled, “Action insights for the Santa Marta process” – is the result of some rapid work by an “ad-hoc” group of around 24 scientists.
It is designed to present governments attending the talks with concrete and actionable recommendations for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The preliminary version, which includes recommendations such as “halting all new fossil fuel expansion”, has already been circulated to governments, with a view that this could help them to prepare for the talks in advance.
It will be further debated and refined by scientists attending the academic segment of the Santa Marta talks, before a final version is made public towards the end of April, Carbon Brief understands.
The process to produce the report began shortly after the conclusion of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil in November, explains its lead author, Dr Friedrich Bohn, a research scientist and co-founder of the Earth Resilience Institute in Germany. He tells Carbon Brief:
“When [Brazil] announced there would be a Santa Marta conference led by Colombia and the Netherlands, I was sitting listening with a small group of scientists. We thought: ‘This is great news, but it should be supported by scientific expertise.’”
One of the members of Bohn’s group had a pre-existing relationship with the Colombian government, allowing a dialogue to quickly be established, he continues:
“In the beginning, the idea was to just write a peer-reviewed paper. But, because of this close connection to the Colombian government and some feedback from them, the synthesis paper evolved.”
The report came out of a “very rapidly evolved process” that relied on the “goodwill” and “enthusiasm” of the academics involved, adds coordinating author Prof Frank Jotzo, a professor of climate change economics at Australian National University. (Jotzo is a former Carbon Brief contributing editor.) He tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s an attempt to get broad coverage on relevant topics from researchers with good expertise and reputation.”
The group of 24 scientists involved spent around two months compiling the “action insights” for the report, drawing on their expertise and the latest available research, says Jotzo.
Given the rapid nature of the report, it does not aim to be “completist”, has not been externally reviewed and did not follow a stringent process for author selection comparable to that used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, he adds.
The contributors to the report currently skew to the global north and include more men than women, adds Bohn.
‘Direct guidance’
In a departure from IPCC reports, the preliminary Santa Marta synthesis report offers “very direct guidance to action”, says Jotzo.
The report lists 12 “action insights”, each with three “action recommendations”. (The list was cut down from a shortlist of about 40-50 insights, Carbon Brief understands.)
One of the most striking in the draft is “action insight 5”, which says:
“Take immediate measures to prevent future emissions. Ban new fossil infrastructure, mandate deep methane cuts, accelerate electrification and inscribe fossil-fuel phase-down targets in NDCs [nationally determined contributions] and clean-energy pathways support to low and middle income countries (LMICs).”
The accompanying three “action recommendations” include “halting all new fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure projects ahead of a final investment decision”, “implementing deep, legally binding methane cuts in the energy sector” and “inscrib[ing] targets for fossil-fuel phase down, electrification and green exports in NDCs”.
(The draft report includes multiple references to “phasing out” and “phasing down” fossil fuels, rather than the “transition away from fossil fuels” language that was, ultimately, agreed by countries at the COP28 UN climate talks in Dubai in 2023.)
Another action insight says “public support for climate action is broadly underestimated and undermined by interest groups, but it can be strengthened by debunking greenwashing narratives”.
One recommendation for this insight is that nations “reject natural gas as a bridging technology and CCS [carbon capture and storage] techniques as scalable compensation”.
In a letter introducing the report to governments and civil society, the scientists note that making direct recommendations is a “challenge for our community”, but added:
“However, in the spirit of a constructive collaboration between science and policymaking, we allowed ourselves to identify some potential courses of action that our community would recommend for each particular issue – and we invite you to weigh these against your own circumstances and pick up whatever seems most useful for you and your colleagues.”
The prescriptiveness of the recommendations – something strictly prohibited in IPCC reports – was an explicit request from the Colombian government, Bohn says:
“The idea of actionable recommendations was introduced by the Colombian government.
“There was some discussion within the team about this. It’s a tricky area when you leave science and move to consultation. Therefore, we agreed, in the end, to call them ‘actionable recommendations’ and to make them as precise as possible, from the scientific perspective.”
Jotzo, a veteran of the IPCC process, tells Carbon Brief that it was “very liberating” to work on a report with a “free-form process”:
“The bulk of policy-related research is very readily deployed to recommendations pointing out what countries could do. The IPCC process, for example, just doesn’t allow that. As far as the summary for policymakers in the IPCC is concerned, it will usually be governments that filter out anything that could be interpreted as a specific recommendation.”
He adds that the hope is that some of the action insights might be reflected in the high-level segment of the Santa Marta conference:
“No one is under any illusions that governments will walk away from the Santa Marta conference and will have made a decision to implement recommendations one, seven and nine – or something like that. But it is a chance to insert directly applicable action points into national and plurilateral policy agendas.”
Colombia calling
The preliminary report will be further debated and refined by scientists attending the “pre-academic segment” of the Santa Marta talks.
This is taking place from 24-26 April, ahead of the “high-level segment” involving ministers and other policymakers from 28-29 April.
The pre-academic segment will also separately see the launch of a new advisory panel on fossil-fuel transition and a scientifically led roadmap for how Colombia can transition away from fossil fuels, Carbon Brief understands.
The high-level segment is expected to be attended by representatives from around 50 countries, including COP31 host Turkey and major oil-and-gas producers such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Norway.
Countries expected to attend account for one-third of global fossil-fuel demand and one-fifth of global production, according to the Colombian government.
At the end of the conference, countries are due to release a report featuring a “menu of solutions” for transitioning away from fossil fuels, according to Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres.
This report is in turn set to inform a global “roadmap” on transitioning away from fossil fuels being developed by the Brazilian COP30 presidency, which is due to be presented at COP31 in Turkey this November.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency offered to bring forward a “voluntary” fossil-fuel transition “roadmap” outside of the official COP process, after countries failed to formally agree to one during negotiations in Belém.
The post Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.
Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits