Carbon exhaust of a conference on climate change

Gowda, who received no formal education, has been working on environmental protection in his native Karnataka for 60 years and has planted thousands of trees, greatly increasing scientific knowledge of the local plant ecosystem.

If many of the COP-26 attendees simply produced hot air and signed declarations that are not binding on either party, it might have been acceptable—this is true for most such conventions. But these people actually harmed the environment. They used about 400 private jets, which emitted thousands of tons of carbon dioxide. US President Joe Biden arrives in Air Force One from Rome with four jets. On their five-day trip from the United States to Europe and back, they emitted an estimated 1 million kilograms of carbon – about 225 times the world’s per capita carbon emissions in 2020, and 575 times India’s per capita emissions.

Biden walked in a convoy of 85 vehicles in Rome. His own armored limousine, the Beast, and his decoy version, generate 4 kg of carbon per mile driven – 10 times more than in normal cars.

Prince Charles called COP-26 a “last chance saloon” for the planet. Biden said he was taking Charles’ advice to fight climate change. Nevertheless, the British royal family has collectively flown about 880,000 km over the past five years, about two and a half times the distance between Earth and the Moon. Each of their trips emits several times more carbon than a standard economy-class airfare.

Some leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin did not bother to join COP-26. Instead, as meetings were underway in Glasgow, Xi announced plans to build 150 new nuclear reactors in China over the next 15 years, more than in the rest of the world in the past 35 years. Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron, who a few years ago pledged to reduce the contribution of nuclear to France’s energy mix to less than 50% by 2035, announced that France is now actually aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Build new reactors. Keeping electricity prices “reasonable”.

Whatever be the sincerity of the countries that have signed various agreements in Glasgow, bound by fixed time-frames, it can be said with certainty that coal-fired power plants should be completely phased out in the next three or four decades. would be required. Of course, the question remains: what kind of energy will be replaced by coal? Unless massive battery storage technology is radically improved, wind and solar power will continue to be critically dependent on fossil fuel energy as a back-up. Natural gas is now emerging as the least polluting and preferred ‘transitional fossil fuel’. If that infection ever happens completely.

It is unlikely that many countries would make the obvious choice to move to more nuclear power. The reasons for this have a lot to do with sentiment, political short-termism and costly public relations campaigns run by vested interests, including non-nuclear energy industries.

Last month, commenting on the future of energy, as blunt and harsh as ever, Putin said: “Many decisions today come at random, depending on the current political situation. I believe that in the process many Participants are taking advantage of people’s fears about climate change to achieve domestic political goals or perhaps to gain some economic benefits, as low-carbon energy involves the production of equipment and building infrastructure, and much more. It is essential for the public and public organizations, including environmental organizations, to be aware of these problems and be clear when making final decisions.”

An interesting case is passenger vehicles, which account for 45% of the world’s transportation-sector CO2 emissions. The market for electric vehicles (EVs) is growing every year, but some key facts have received little attention. One, although a running EV does not emit CO2, the power plant it relies on for its charging depends on the fuel used. Second, the EV manufacturing process releases more carbon than just cranking a diesel or petrol car. Third, electric vehicles use batteries made from rare earth elements such as lithium, nickel and cobalt, which are extremely polluting to mine. And finally, clean disposal of these batteries, once their life is over, can be a serious problem.

There are no simple solutions. We need big technological breakthroughs – and I am sure they will come – and policies based on data, science and economic prudence, not the blatant alarmism and hot new craze. And we certainly can do without the leaders’ soundbite hypocrisy.

In CoP-26, India refused to push into commitments that it may not be able to keep up with economy-damaging timelines, such as banning all further investment in coal or reducing methane emissions by 2030. reduction of 30%. We need to fight climate change urgently, but it must be done with professional expertise and taking into account local conditions, not in headline-targeted haste. Meanwhile, let Tulsi Gowda inspire millions of young Indians.

Sandipan Deb is the former editor of ‘Financial Express’ and founder-editor of ‘Open’ and ‘Swarajya’ magazines.