We’ve been studying climate change in the form of global warming since the age of 6/7. Almost all of us were made aware of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that, when trapped within the atmosphere, cause an increase in the earth’s temperature.

But despite the technical knowledge given to us in textbooks, most aren’t aware of climate change in its realest form. Greta Thunberg, a Swedish activist, is known by all for inducing a fierce global movement concerning global warming. Her understanding of climate change also began with basic principles such as the greenhouse effect and growing CO₂ emissions. But it was only when she read up on it more that she found the dissonance between reality and what was being taught. In an interview, she asserts, “…it didn’t seem real that they’d explain [climate change] as a very big problem—but it wasn’t treated like one.”

Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2023 with a sample of 1,000 people in eight countries (Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, the UK and the US) revealed that 48.2% of respondents had low climate literacy. That’s almost half the sample that’s unaware of one of the most life-threatening crises on Earth.

Functional literacy vs climate literacy

According to UNESCO, being able to read, write, and calculate to participate in activities forms functional aspects of literacy. However, with these drastically changing realities, new literacies are emerging, one of which is climate literacy.

Defined as the understanding of the climate’s influence on you and society and your influence on climate, climate literacy is central to a low-carbon economy and future. However, debates about the level of knowledge for different ages of pupils have overshadowed the larger awareness discourse. And such debates are not entirely unwarranted.

Climate anxiety and climate fatigue cause feelings of fear and hopelessness

A 2023 climate literacy survey revealed that while climate literacy is low, climate anxiety is high, with 76.8% of all respondents concerned or alarmed about climate change and its consequences.

On the other hand, due to the topic’s omnipresence, the study suggests that overreporting climate may have led to overstimulation, causing indifference or ignorance and reducing real engagement with the issue.   https://concursos.chubut.gob.ar/

In fact, 35% of respondents were convinced that nature and humans can adapt to higher temperatures without major consequences. The constant rise of geopolitical developments and risks only adds to the aggravation further.

Studies have also analyzed the effects of climate change on the mental health and emotional well-being of individuals. Responding to such a massive crisis invokes feelings of fear and stress, making engagement with the topic highly emotional.

Therefore, questions and debates often surround the extent to which climate discourse should be added to the curricula, especially since engaging with students at a young age can have drastic impacts on their relationship with climate.

Studying climate anxiety in a case study

In my recent interactions with children aged 6 to 15 in a classroom setting in a tuition class in Jaipur, I took the opportunity to conduct a focus group discussion about climate change. Amidst a group of 17 students from reputed schools, only three had heard of the term climate change.

Praful, a 9^th grader at an English-medium school in Jaipur, said he had heard about global warming but wasn’t aware of climate change yet. When prompted with keywords such as deforestation and air and water pollution, he revealed he understood these phenomena but didn’t know their effects outside of what’s written in their science textbooks.

Avani, from 9th grade, was one of three students who’d heard of climate change. She understood deforestation and pollution and her duty to keep her surroundings clean, but she did not connect this behavior with keywords such as climate change. When asked about sustainability, the class drew blank faces until the teacher prompted them with some keywords that resulted in technical definitions.

The discussion also led the students to discuss the rising temperatures of the earth. While some of the responses referred to post-apocalyptic movie plots, most expressed uncertainty about the topic.

Through this exercise, it became evident that technical information that doesn’t translate into real insight is a serious concern for a generation that will have to lead the climate struggles, and it needs to be addressed immediately.

Is climate literacy for all a good idea?

Currently, we stand at a crossroads about climate change coverage in textbooks. Functional literacy paves the way for climate literacy, making classroom interactions critical in building understanding from a young age.

The information in textbooks often leaves much to be desired. A 2021 UNESCO study analyzed primary and secondary education curricula and policies across 46 UNESCO countries and found that over half of them made no mention of climate change.

In fact, the textbooks that address climate change often lack information about the root cause, including the role of multinational corporations in fossil fuel reliance and consumption patterns, deforestation, and carbon emissions.

We must also understand that teaching facts about climate change is not enough. The contexts and nuances reveal the extent to which climate change threatens to overhaul our sense of normalcy, especially since there is no one solution to the problem.

Such lessons can define the way students engage with their surroundings in the future, both as individuals and as citizens of this global society.

So, what’s the path ahead of us? How can we move beyond information on paper to understanding the real-world effects of global warming? What have we already achieved, and what remains to be done?

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this discussion.

Aishwarya Bhatia, Sambodhi 

In the last blog, we talked about climate inequity and how it became one of the biggest barriers to mitigating climate change. Statistics reveal that the world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO₂ than the bottom 1%. In fact, further studies have revealed that the richest 0.1% of the world’s population emitted ten times more than all the rest of the richest 10% combined.

These figures make one thing explicitly clear: if these top emitters globally continue to maintain such carbon levels, there is no way we can decarbonize fast enough. In fact, substantial and quick action by the richest 10% is one of the fastest ways we can achieve some stability in terms of global temperatures.  https://idhea.ca/blogue/

What kind of action is required to mitigate climate change?

The Paris Agreement rolls out a framework that provides financial, technical, and capacity-building support to the countries that need it. Developed countries are taking up the responsibility to give financial assistance to the less endowed countries, which are also more vulnerable to climate change. This is where the concept of climate financing first came in.

What is climate finance?

The UNFCC defines it as local, national, or transnational financing that seeks to support mitigation and adaptation actions to address climate change. Simply put, it helps countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by funding renewable power like wind or solar.

Let’s understand this with the example of solar power.

Having read our textbooks in schools, we know that solar power is a prominent source of renewable energy for a world that is depleting its coal reserves at a shocking pace. The industrial processes are here to stay, and for us to avoid decapitating the world to the point of no return, large-scale investments in energy sources such as solar power are crucial.

Solar power, as we all know, captures sunlight to fulfil our energy requirements but also necessitates large upfront investments, which is why it wasn’t accepted at such a large scale at first. However, over time, industries began to adopt solar energy systems, with tax credits awarded by the governments that incentivized the rich to invest more. Eventually, increased production, subsidies by the governments, and increasing discourse around environmental concerns led to a decrease in the direct costs of solar energy for consumers.

Today, renewable energy is more cheaply produced than fossil fuels in some markets. Due to the increasing competition in the solar energy industry, installation costs have also seen a sharp decline, making it a fiscal win for large companies globally. Global agreements, therefore, work as a touchstone for nations to support one another in adapting to climate change. In fact, it is not just financial but also technological support that developed nations help others to make considerable strides in climate adaptation.

One such nation is Nepal. Through support from international finance, Nepal has improved its disaster preparedness, pioneered ecosystem-based solutions through community forest restoration, scaled climate-smart agriculture, and worked towards the goal of becoming a carbon-neutral tourist destination.

In keeping with the solar power adaptation, Cambodia has developed solar energy to reduce electricity costs by two-thirds while moving away from its dependence on coal and hydroelectric power.

Furthermore, with support from international climate finance funds, Zambia is recovering from the drought in rural areas, which has stopped crops from growing naturally. To recover from such a disaster, Zambia has received support in goat-rearing as a whole new sector of the agricultural economy, which has benefitted women in adapting their livelihoods.

Another form that climate financing takes is through carbon trading and carbon taxes.

Carbon trading involves buying and selling of credits that allow a company or other entity to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. So, for a nation that buys carbon, it buys the right to burn it. While the nation that sells carbon surrenders the right to burn it. For example, the UNFCCC awarded the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) with carbon credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the city. However, this idea has its own critics and supporters. While cumulatively, greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced while some countries reap economic benefits, some say it can create an exploitative environment.

Nonetheless, these concepts have been gaining significant traction over the years and are used to discourage the use of products that leave a large carbon footprint. Carbon tax is another method to do the same. Electricity generated from fossil fuels can be taxed differently, funds from which are used to invest in renewable energy and other forms of climate action.

Having learnt the various mechanisms in place to keep Earth’s temperature from rising, now, we now need to understand how well these mechanisms actually end up working. The concepts are in place, but how well do they translate into impact? This is what we will explore in the next and final blog in this series.

Aishwarya Bhatia, Sambodhi 

“We affirm that no country will have to choose between fighting poverty and fighting for our planet.”

Thus was the declaration of the preamble to the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration.

Hopeful? Yes.

Ambitious? Definitely.

Whether or not we can achieve this as a country is what we will be focusing on through this series on climate-driven inequities.

Also read: Multidimensional Poverty and its Predecessors

Where did it all begin?

It was in 1938 that an English steam engineer called Guy Callendar found a connection between the increase in carbon dioxide and the global warming phenomenon. After this, in 1956, Gilbert Plass created the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change, the paper for which can be found here. Essentially, the theory predicted that with the extra C0₂ released into the atmosphere through human industrial processes, the earth’s temperature would continue to rise, at least for several centuries.

Today, years after this theory, terms such as global warming, ozone layer depletion, melting glaciers, and, most significantly, climate change have become our reality. Natural disasters have become unnaturally frequent, and progress in the name of development has begun to be questioned for all the damage it eventually also ended up creating. All those renewable energy sources we read about as kids now also include the cons, which involve degrading aquatic life in water bodies that have dams for creating hydroelectricity, among a slew of other issues.

A history of global climate agreements has paved the way for nations to respond to climate change today. These agreements, created with hope for a better future, have had their share of failures and successes, which we will look at in this blog.

The Montreal Protocol, 1987

Created to tackle the depleting ozone layer in the stratosphere resulting from CFCs used in products like air conditioners, refrigerators, fire extinguishers, etc., this agreement eventually got all countries on board. Though not intended to deal with climate change directly, it was an international treaty that required all nations to take drastic steps to reduce the production of ozone-depleting substances to protect the stratosphere.

It has eliminated nearly 99% of these substances, restoring the ozone layer to its optimal level again.

The Montreal Protocol was an easier agreement because it only required some industries to innovate for a lower environmental impact. According to Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, “Since the problem had been narrowed down to the fluorinated-gas universe, it allowed policymakers and scientists to learn faster and technology to develop faster”, which ended up happening. It also helped reduce 135 billion tons of C02-equivalent emissions as a cumulative effect.

This protocol also succeeded because it brought forth the Multilateral Fund, which held the developed nations responsible for providing financial assistance to developing countries so they could switch to greener chemicals.

The Convention, 1992

Formally known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), this agreement has 197 countries explicitly signed to address climate change. The first of its kind, the Convention established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for discussions among nations to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases.

This agreement also called for financial assistance from Parties with more financial resources to countries that need help and are more vulnerable to climate change.

The Paris Agreement, 2015

Building upon the Convention, the Paris Agreement brings together all nations into a common cause that displays ambitious efforts to combat climate change. It is a legally binding treaty that 196 countries have ratified to cut global greenhouse gas emissions.

The then Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said:

“The Paris Agreement provides a viable blueprint to mitigate the serious threats to our planet. It sets clear targets to restrict rising temperatures, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and facilitate climate-resilient development and green growth.”

Another crucial aspect of this agreement is that non-Party stakeholders, such as businesses and civil societies, were invited to begin contributions towards climate action.

Even under this Agreement, all countries are not treated the same way for obvious reasons. An inherent flexibility has allowed some countries to pledge net zero emissions by 2050, while other nations have set other goals. Most importantly, the agreement has put climate change in the public eye. The increasing internet connectivity has significantly contributed to the awareness around the issue. It has enabled individuals, businesses, and NGOs to become more climate-conscious in their day-to-day activities.

Together, these global climate agreements have led to a momentous shift in the urgency of mitigating climate change. Having achieved its goal, the Montreal Protocol has not been a one-and-done agreement. In fact, with amendments, the agreement has now started working on phasing out HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, that are also harmful to the environment. The aim is to completely eliminate these by 2024, resulting in a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in global warming this century. With the Paris Agreement, there have been significant strides in national and international commitments towards mitigating climate change. Still, the journey is not easy, which is what we will explore in the next blog.

References:

https://www.earthday.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-montreal-protocol/

https://unfccc.int/blog/the-explainer-the-paris-agreement

Aishwarya Bhatia, Sambodhi 

Gearing up for the G-20 Summit, Delhi 2023, this September, India is ready to host leaders from different nations to address the global economy, climate change mitigation and sustainable development.

Our director and co-founder, Swapnil Shekhar’s post on data being the new water and not oil sparked a conversation about data flowing across borders and the growing discourse about data resilience, data localization and privacy.

But first:

What is cross-border data flow?

It refers to the movement of information between computer servers across national borders. Shopping online, using social media platforms to connect with friends and family, or any other online activity is part of the cross-border data flow process.

In lieu of the G-20 summit, the use of data for addressing the key issues mentioned above will be a crucial topic of discussion. It will also allow different nations to put their stance on cross-border data flow and their approaches to use data for better governance.

However, recent debates around using data as a commodity have increased interest in how we classify its utility. Sure, data as the “new oil” intimates its importance as a crucial tool for the globe, but it also posits it as a commodity that can be sold for profits. The idea, now, is that data is more like water, a universal resource accessible to the world while also being protected for national use.

However, different nations have different policies governing data use, and commonly, it is blanketed under two broad categories: democratic and autocratic. It is important to define these two terms, especially in this context. Democratic use of data is said to be based on open approaches that rely on market mechanisms, while autocratic use of data privileges the role of the state and aims to strengthen the capacity to harness all data, both public and private.

Today, no coherent international framework defines cross-border data exchange, which is why different nations have adopted different approaches, especially based on their context and needs. This blog will explore this kind of diversity and see how data governance models reflect unique features of their institutions and political cultures.

1. India

India’s digital future hinges on how it manages cross-border data flows. Having reaped the benefits of being digitally connected and chasing an open market policy in the areas, the free flow of data is crucial to this equation. However, this approach to data use has also brought significant issues, such as unlawful data access, data monopolization, and unchecked data extraction.

With the recent developments in the passing of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, India has https://www.bmich.com/news/ chosen to transfer the personal data of its citizens to all countries except a “specified negative list” where these transfers would be restricted. This has not hindered India’s approach towards data sharing and data empowerment, which remain the most important drives of India’s strategy on data governance.

2. USA

The United States has adopted a laissez-faire approach that supports the unrestricted flow of data across borders to prioritizes commercial interests over privacy in its digital trade policy. It does not have all-purpose federal legislation on data protection for either personal or non-personal data. Furthermore, the US emphasizes advocating for an internal dialogue on a singular approach that can aid the interoperability of different regulatory regimes. Having signed the Osaka Declaration on Digital Economy, which stresses that by continuing to respond to privacy, data protection, and other security-related challenges, the nations can facilitate the free flow of data and enhance the trust of consumers and businesses.

3. EU

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on privacy concerns and governs how individual’s personal data in the EU may be processed and transferred. As for cross-border data transfers to non-EU countries and international organizations, this commission assesses the level of protection given by a territory or processing sector in that particular area and only allows transfers wherever there are appropriate safeguards in place.

4. China

China’s regulations about data use is largely based on mechanisms that secure national security and other public interests. Data flow across borders is more stringent in China than in the EU. Ease of business and individual data rights, while important, are considered secondary in China’s hierarchy of concerns, the primary being national security. For example, non-Chinese firms that work with Chinese data face increased operational costs, making domestic firms more likely to gain market share and eventually fostering national IT champions. China’s multiple data protection models, such as the Cyber Security Law (CSL), the Data Security Law (DSL), and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), have hampered cross-border data flows, which suit the country’s contextual needs and priorities.

Numerous other countries have developed legal frameworks that suit their data processing requirements, while some nations have no legislation around data protection at the moment. The idea for these global summits, such as G-20, is to inform data governance systems on an international level so that we can work collectively and collaboratively to create a system that simultaneously ensures everyone’s well-being and protection.

References:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/the-digital-personal-data-protection-bill-2022-panacea-or-pandoras-box/

Aishwarya Bhatia, Sambodhi 

In a discussion about the intersectional experiences of marginalized communities, the concept of Multidimensional Poverty (MDP) is an interesting study of the developed discourse. The concept captures a complex phenomenon that clarifies that poverty doesn’t simply mean the lack of money.

This article is the first in a two-part series where we delve deep into this concept, trace its development and later discuss its relevance and its effect on policymaking in India.

How is it technically defined?

MDP gives a more comprehensive picture of the kind of poverty people suffer—the range of various disadvantages they experience. For example, a person who is poor can also have poor health or lack access to clean water and electricity.

MDP can be broken down into multiple areas to https://decires.cepe.unam.mx/ reveal the extent of poverty in different areas of a country among different sub-groups of people.

These areas have different indicators along which MDP can be measured. These are as follows:

• Education: years of schooling, school attendance
• Health: nutrition, child mortality
• Living standards: cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing, assets

A Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) measures MDP by reflecting multiple deprivations that poor people face in these three areas. There’s a global framework for MPI, which works as an international resource to measure acute MDP across more than 100 developed countries.

But MPI is not the first of its kind—it has had predecessors too.

Human Development Index (HDI)

HDI is a summary measure of average achievements in key dimensions of human development: life expectancy at birth, expected years of schooling, mean years of schooling, and gross national income per capita. Created in 1990 by economist Mahbub ul Haq, this index was used by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to measure a country’s development. However, this index is GDP-focused, posing income as the sole indicator of welfare, which has received criticism in recent times.

Human development is much more nuanced than just the amount of money one person makes. It involves being able to exercise human rights and freedoms, for which there can be no simple quantitative measure. HDI also does not emphasize quality-of-life factors, such as feelings of security or happiness.

Moreover, this index is limited to the socio-economic sphere of life, thereby separating political and civil spheres from the discourse. This means that inequalities that fall outside the socio-economic spheres are not taken into account.

This is why the next index adopted by UNDP was the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI).

Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)

Introduced in 2010, IHDI accounts for the inequality that HDI wouldn’t compute by “discounting” each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. This means that IDHI would remain the same as HDI if there were no inequality across people, but it will fall below the HDI value if inequality exists.

Putting it simply will mean that if ‘a’ is the HDI value for a specific region, the IHDI value will be ‘b’ subtracted from ‘a’, where b accounts for the inequality in the region for specific people.

But there are limitations to IHDI too. This index is not association sensitive, which means that it does not take into account overlapping inequalities. Simply put, IHDI will not capture whether the same person is at the lower end of distributions in all three dimensions.

This is where MPI comes in handy. Developed to measure context-specific indicators, the MPI gives a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of poverty.

Is MPI better than these indices?

By virtue of having been developed based on its predecessors, the MPI has certain advantages that help capture both the nature and intensity of poverty. Since it considers the interactions between all its dimensions, namely health, education, and standard of living, MPI allows for a more accurate picture of an individual’s level of poverty, which, in turn, helps policymakers develop comprehensive solutions to such issues.

For example, MPI will help identify how many people live without electricity and suffer malnutrition in a particular region, helping decision-makers in allocating the required resources to overcome such deprivation.

Currently, India measures MPI and uses this data to estimate multiple and simultaneous deprivations at a household level across all dimensions. In fact, MPI uses data from the National Family Health Surveys to measure poverty across districts, making it the first large-scale index disaggregated to both state and district levels by rural and urban areas, age groups, schedules, castes and tribes, and religious groups.

While this kind of index has helped us understand poverty as more than just an income-based deprivation, it has also initiated a discourse about the future of poverty indices.

Is MPI the best index to measure the https://arabic.von.gov.ng/ constantly evolving deprivations people experience?

Despite being contextually relevant, can the MPI capture the nuances of a highly diverse nation such as India?

Stay tuned for the second part of this two-part article series!

References:

https://www.civilsdaily.com/burning-issue-three-decades-of-human-development-index-hdi/

https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Poverty-Wellbeing/addressingpovertyinpractice/Pages/International-indices–confusing-or-clarifying-poverty-debate.aspx

Aishwarya Bhatia, Sambodhi